Holy Shit!

If this isn't the best HOLY SHIT! expression ever . . .

A Fun Little Map Game:

Check this out. Drag the names onto their respective countries.

My result? No mistakes.

NFL Week 13:

Another early week:

GB @ DAL -- maybe the most difficult pick of the week. I'll go with the Pack.
SD @ KC -- KC
SF @ CAR -- SF to win back-to-back
ATL @ STL -- STL
JAC @ IND -- IND (but I wouldn't be shocked to see the Jags pull the upset)
SEA @ PHI -- SEA
NYJ @ MIA -- MIA
BUF @ WAS -- WAS
DET @ MIN -- DET
HOU @ TEN -- TEN
DEN @ OAK -- OAK (may be their last win of the season, so it had better count!)
CLE @ ARI -- CLE
NYG @ CHI -- NYG
TB @ NO -- TB
CIN @ PIT -- PIT
NE @ BAL -- NE

Why do I have the feeling that I won't be going 14-2 this weekend?

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 12:

GB @ DET -- GB Sets up the game with the Cowboys very nicely.

NYJ @ DAL -- DAL Poor Jets. One of a few teams in the league right now genuinely worse than the Raiders.

IND @ ATL -- IND The only surprise was the first quarter.

BUF @ JAC -- JAC With a little bit of help, Jacksonville could steal the division from Indy. Anyone calling for Del Rio's head now?

SEA @ STL -- SEA Saint Louis may be the single most perplexing team in the league right now -- they go from crusing to demolished in a matter of moments.

MIN @ NYG -- MIN I do so love watching Eli fail.

OAK @ KC -- OAK VICTORY FORMATION!!!

HOU @ CLE -- CLE Is it unreasonable to think that these two are going to have their chance at the top of the conference in 2-3 years?

NO @ CAR -- NO And Carolina continues to be totally worthless at home. Hasta la Vista, John Fox, whether or not you deserve it.

WAS @ TB -- TB Tampa has the South in their hands by now.

TEN @ CIN -- TEN Damn, was this pick ever wrong -- great day for Chad Johnson, miserable day for Tennessee on all sides of the ball.

SF @ ARI -- ARI Perhaps the Cardinals haven't improved as much as everyone thought.

BAL @ SD -- SD What has happened to the Ravens?

DEN @ CHI -- CHI Thank you, Devin Hester.

PHI @ NE -- NE (and yes, this time I'm picking the correct team -- or at least the one I mean!) The best indication yet that the Pats can be beaten. I'll say right now, if the Pats play either Dallas or GB in the Super Bowl, I'd have to think hard about whom to pick.

MIA @ PIT -- PIT Pittsburgh's strengths are supposed to be power on both sides of the ball. Power is supposed to win in sloppy games like that. And yet, the Steelers squeaked out a terrible win. Are the Steelers as strong as they've looked?

For the week: 14-2. Oh yeah.

For the season: 108-68.

Why American Political Discourse is Ridiculous:

Obama is being criticized for being too honest in answering a question. Honesty in answering questions, it seems, is a negative on the campaign trail.

Can you blame people for being cynical when this is what the major media outlets are peddling?

Scott Turow: Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty

I admit to being surprised by the depth of this book. Part of this is because I've never read anything Turow has ever written, part because of my skepticism based on his fiction (which, again, I've never read, only prejudged).

This is a small book, easily readable in one or two sittings, but it is remarkable in its ability to include virtually every salient issue that comes along with the death penalty. Some of these inclusions are only to dismiss them as things he considers generally irrelevant, but Turow -- perhaps writing more like a lawyer than a novelist -- at times seems to go out of his way to mention everything that bears on the death penalty; he does so skillfully enough that it never looks like he's actually going out of his way to do so.

Three chapters in particular stand out: Chapter Eight, "The Victims," Chapter 10, "Moral Proportion: Ultimate Punishment for Ultimate Evil," and Chapter Fifteen, "Conclusions." Here Turow is especially strong in dealing bluntly, succinctly -- and unconventionally -- with some of the standard issues of the death penalty debate. These chapters are emblematic of why the book as a whole is so successful: Turow considers the important issues, makes the necessary assessments, but returns with conclusions that most of the more vocal participants in the general capital punishment debate either fail to think of or keep silent about. These unexpected assertions and conclusions -- some of which I find convincing, some of which gave me food for thought, some of which I disagree with but nevertheless thought about -- make an interested reader consider the issue in ways they may not have before. If for that reason alone, the book and its argument is a success.

Another important idea that runs through Turow's book is the libertarian question. As Franklin Zimring lamented, too often the simple question of the power of the state, the libertarian question, is left to the side in a debate otherwise dominated by moral, political or other concerns. Turow has the question in the front of his mind, rather than the back, and it recurs in various permutations throughout the book.

I'll give Turow the last word with a fairly long excerpt that demonstrates the depth, sympathy and competence with which the issue is considered. This is a book that should be read by anyone implicated by the capital punishment debate in the United States -- which is to say, most everyone:

For most Americans, the death penalty debate goes no further than asking whether they "believe" in capital punishment. There is good reason for this, of course, because the threshold issues define us so profoundly as individuals and as a scoeity that it is almost impossible to move past them. What are the goals of punishment? What do we think about the perfectibility of human beings and the perdurability of evil? What value do we place on life -- of the murderer and of the victim? What kind of power do we want in the hands of government, and what do we hope the state can accomplish when it wields it?

One of the reasons that the death penalty debate so preoccupies us is because of the essential nature of these questions. Almost no one feels detached about capital punishment. Advocates, opponents, and those in conflict all see in the issue a struggle for the national soul. Many death penalty opponents who root their position in religious or spiritual convictions treat those who favor death sentences as barbarians or wanton sinners. Supporters of capital punishment frequently characterize those on the other side as bleeding hearts and hypocrites, who would never feel the same way were it their loved ones who had been murdered. These volleys of mutual accusation have often drowned out the nuances in the national debate and, I suspect, masked the degree to which large numbers of Americans, like me, have long approached these questions with some residue of doubt. The truth, I suspect, is that as crimes and cases unfold around us, many of us often feel a visceral attraction to both positions.

Raiders-Chiefs Week 12:

VICTORY FORMATION!!


Look, if you can't get excited about a game like this, you shouldn't be a fan of pro football. Forget the records, because it's not just a division game, it's an AFC West game. Forget the fact that the AFC West sucks (in a word) this season -- these guys have long, hateful rivalries -- the best kind!

For the first time in seventeen games, the Raiders beat a West opponent. For the first time in ten tries, they beat KC. Moreover, they did so in keeping with the established pattern: nine of the last ten, including Sunday, have been decided by seven points or fewer. One score.

Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:

• The Final Score.
  Oakland 20, KC 17.
  
  How sweet it is. KC is, by far, the rival in the division that means the most to me. I always had a soft spot for Denver growing up, because I've always loved Elway. Elway also had an awfully difficult time beating the Raiders for a long, long time -- even when Denver finally won that first Super Bowl, they dropped a game to the 4-12 Raiders -- so it's always been sort of hard to hate Denver. Easier now, but not as much as I hate KC. San Diego? They've won eight straight (for now . . .), but they're still eight years behind the Raiders head-to-head. Even with their recent (resounding) success, it's hard to hate a team that's been that bad against you for that long. They're cute, in their own way.
  
  KC? They're the team that I remember always owning the Raiders. The one constant in the NFL from my years of watching the game is that KC has a leg up over Oakland.
  
  How sweet it is.


• Sebastian Janikowsi.
  SeaBass is finally turning into the automatic kicker they thought they were getting when they passed up Alexander to draft him at 17.


• Justin Fargas.
  Good line on the game -- 22 for 139 and a touch -- but most critical was that last four minutes, when Fargas took -- and gave -- a few big hits while making the big runs to seal the W.
  
  Fargas is also the second Raider in my lifetime to rush for 100 in Arrowhead -- the last was when I was only a few months old, in 1978. Since then, nor Marcus Allen nor Bo Jackson nor anyone else has hung 100 on KC in Arrowhead. Congratulations, Justin -- you're slowly making me a fan.


• Daunte Culpepper.
  Don't look now, but Daunte has put together two solid starts in a row.


• The Last 4:26.
  For the first time this season, the Raiders stood up and finished a game, on both sides of the ball. On fourth-and-one, they stuff a back that already had 150 yards against them, coming up with what I think might be their first fourth-down stop this season.
  
  Once the defense stood up, the offense needed a couple of first downs -- and they got them, on the ground, running between the tackles, just like KC knew they would. They got it done, finishing a game for the first time this season. If it sounds redundant, it's because it's a huge moment, and worth repeating: the Raiders have had a chance to win every game this season, save the SD and HOU games, in which they were never really competitive, but they failed to finish the other six times.
  
  They finished this one. Let's hope it starts to turn into a habit.


• The Offensive Line.
  Was simply excellent against a very good KC front seven. The proof is in the pudding -- check the YPA in the first three quarters versus the fourth. Also, in a stat line that I'm going to have to start paying closer attention to, the Raiders only had two runs stopped behind the line -- two, on 29 rushes (the Raiders D stuffed KC three times, for a +1 in that category).


• Turnovers, Sacks and TFL.
  In a close game, these make all the difference: Oakland was 0, +1 and +1. I'm adding TFL to this line permanently.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Penalties.
  Oakland was penalized 7 times for 58 yards, and in bunches -- almost always on back-to-back plays, with a couple of idiotic personal fouls thrown in for good measure. Fortunately, KC was content to play RaiderBall too, going 7 for 48, and also in bunches. Both teams killed promising drives and cost themselves valuable field position with stupid penalties at the wrong time. The evenness of the penalty line is a positive, even if it's damning with faint praise, but the number and the timing of the penalties must improve. (Still, it should be noted that the Raiders did not self-destruct with stupid penalties in the last five minutes of the fourth -- when it was clutch, they held up. This is a good sign.)

Things I Didn't Like:

• The Run Defense.
  I happen to think that Kolby Smith is underrated, and could be a starter for a lot of teams, but the bare fact is that a third-string RB rang up 150 yards in his first-ever start.

Next week: Home against Denver. This may be the last game of the season that reads on paper as "winnable," so it's definitely a must-win. It'd be nice to put together not only a modest winning streak, but to get two in a row within the division. This game is nice -- very nice -- but it needs to be a stepping stone, not an aberration. Beating Denver in front of Raider Nation would be a huge step in the right direction.

VICTORY FORMATION!!!!

I haven't seen the Raiders line up in Victory Formation all season, what with them winning against Cleveland on a blocked FG attempt and running up the score at Miami.

It's a sweet sight to behold -- especially in Kansas City.

VICTORY FORMATION!!!!

Damn Hokies.

Shaping Up to be a Pretty Good Weekend:

After spending most of yesterday reading and working on getting ready for a conference presentation today, I'm almost finished writing my response paper; should be done with that within an hour or so.

This afternoon, when I get home from that presentation, we'll begin cooking for our Thanksgiving dinner. Since we moved over to Germany a couple of years ago, we've always done our Thanksgiving on the following Saturday, what with it not being a holiday here and all. This year the conference screwed that plan up, so it will be tomorrow, and we'll be doing our pre-cooking this evening.

I love cooking for Thanksgiving, both the precooking and the day-of cooking.

Here's the bonus: the UVA-VT game is being broadcast on NASN.

LET'S GO HOOS!!!!

Hanna Rosin: God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America

I actually finished this book some time ago, and never bothered to do any sort of write-up here for one simple reason: I didn't know what I wanted to say about it.

The book was very interesting, and does a good job of making a very context-dependent phenomenon, Patrick Henry College. The book may actually do too good a job of making a unique environment seem commonplace, as the dialogue between author Rosin and David Kuo indicates.

The question that this book raises, intentionally or otherwise, is about whom are we talking? The way each person -- writer, reader, observer, otherwise -- answers that question will start to determine the frame within which they see the situations and people they are considering; this may be no more true with divisive cultural and social issues, such as the right relationship between religion and politics in a pluralist society, but it is more obvious in those situations (or should be, at any rate).

As these three comments on both the book and the kinds of situations it describes show, the question of "who" is firmly in the center of these kinds of endeavors.

Who are they, indeed? By even phrasing the question as such, the demanded (but only too frequently overlooked) follow-up is obvious: who are we, that we're worrying about a they?

This book is highly recommended for anyone interested in religious-social movements in the contemporary United States, particularly for those willing to wonder at those two questions.

Happy Thanksgiving, Y'all!

From me and my baby girl (and mom, too, but she's taking the picture).

NFL Week 12:

Glad I remembered to get on this early, what with the three Thursday games and all!:

GB @ DET -- GB
NYJ @ DAL -- DAL
IND @ ATL -- IND
BUF @ JAC -- JAC
SEA @ STL -- SEA
MIN @ NYG -- MIN
OAK @ KC -- OAK
HOU @ CLE -- CLE
NO @ CAR -- NO
WAS @ TB -- TB
TEN @ CIN -- TEN
SF @ ARI -- ARI
BAL @ SD -- SD
DEN @ CHI -- CHI
PHI @ NE -- NE (and yes, this time I'm picking the correct team -- or at least the one I mean!)
MIA @ PIT -- PIT

The Sopranos Finale:

Yes, I am aware that I am, what, four or five months behind -- well, I waited for 6.2 to come out on DVD rather than downloading the episodes, and I couldn't see them here anyway.

The ending? Kind of a failure, I thought, once I watched the season all the way through. Had I not known that it was supposed to be "ooohhh, ambivalent," I'd have been even less impressed. Credit for doing as good a job leaving it as "open" as possible, but Tony didn't get popped, not then. Maybe later, but not right then.

Robert Kennedy: Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis

I've owned this book for several years, maybe five, but never had read it until last week, when my post-45 U.S. history course covered the Kennedy-Johnson years, and I decided to read it before the discussion section, so I could bring it's point of view into the discussion when the students asked about the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that respect, it was worth it, since it was useful for them to hear about Bobby's apprehension of the situation.

On another level, too, the CMC and this book are fascinating, particularly where the question of "important personages" are concerned. In Fog of War, the Errol Morris documentary about Bob McNamara that I'm trying to track down to show my students, McNamara gives credit to Lleweyn "Tommy" Thompson as being one of the key people advising JFK to respond to Khrushchev's first letter and ignore the second; Thompson had been, and later was again, the U.S. ambassador to the USSR, and thus had a different perspective on the situation than did, say, the Joint Chiefs.

RFK, on the other hand, barely mentions Thompson and gives more credit to people like McGeorge Bundy and Bob McNamara. In a way, it's oddly reminiscent of the credit-giving and credit-taking in the wake of Bush v. Gore -- to read David Boies' account of the case, David Boies was the man at the center of everything; to read Jeffrey Toobin, Boies was more of a role-player, while to read just about anything else about the case puts Larry Tribe at the center of the proceedings.

The Cuban Missile Crisis seems to have the same selective memory in terms of how the prime players viewed each other and their roles in the situation.

Anyone who wants to know more about the CMC should read Kennedy's short book; the documentary material and essays included help pull the situation into greater relief. A short read, demanding perhaps two hours, but well worth the time.

Raiders-Vikings Week 11:

Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:

• Daunte Culpepper.
  Yes, Daunte had two turnovers, but neither can be blamed on him -- most QBs would have fumbled after being hit like that, so it was definitely more than just your run-of-the-mill Daunte fumble. The INT is charged to him, but if it bounces off your RB -- and is an eminently catchable ball, to boot -- it's not as big a deal. If your offensive line forces the LB to fumble the INT and recovers, then it's really no big deal.
  
  Daunte wasn't overpowering, but he was efficient, he kept mistakes to a minimum, and he made enough plays to keep his team in it. You could ask for more, but not much. His was also the Raiders' second 300-yard passing performance of the season, as sad as that is.


• Sebastian Janikowski.
  Was magnificent.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Turnovers.
  The Raiders lost this game with a +3 turnover ratio. +3, and they lost by a touchdown. The positives: they recovered their first four fumbles of the season and grabbed a pick. The negatives: they needed one or two more turnovers, obviously.

Things I Didn't Like:

• The Run Defense.
  Surprised?


• Penalties and Sacks.
  -6 and -2. That sort of line should be counterbalanced somewhat by the +3 turnover margin, but if it's not, the deficits here help you lose close games like this.
  
  Most crucial of all: the false-start on Dwight with :12 left; the resulting 10-second runoff took two plays out of their hands and may have prevented them from tying the game.

Next week: At Kansas City. Oh, how I hate KC . . .

John F. Wilson: Religion and the American Nation: Historiography and History

This small volume contains three short chapters adopted from the inaugural George F. Shirver lecture series at Stetson University.

There's not much to say about this book. It does an adequate job of covering the development of the historiography of American religion, with chapter one covering the period up to Sydney Ahlstrom, when unified narratives were the dominant explanatory and exploratory vehicles, and the second taking the shift toward multiple narratives in the wake of Ahlstrom.

The third chapter is certainly the most interesting, as it is where Wilson considers whether America, and the idea of America, is somehow religious. He's luke-warm in his approach to the question, and argues too gingerly to really make any clear progress in answering the question, preferring rather to critique the arguments made by others with regard to the question. Despite this weakness, the chapter is worthwhile for its consideration of Will Herberg, whose work retains some usefulness, however frequently overlooked it is.

Students of American religion and religious history could do worse than spending the two hours necessary to read this book.

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 11:

NO @ HOU -- HOU (Gotta take Schaub at home) Good call taking Houston at home.

CAR @ GB -- GB I'm only surprised that it was as numerically close as it was.

ARI @ CIN -- ARI Good game for Antrel Rolle, with three picks and two tds.

KC @ IND -- IND I thought this would be a bit more convincing a win, but since one of my fantasy opponents had Manning this weekend, I'll take a low-scoring, ugly game.

SD @ JAC -- JAC VIVA LA NORV!

OAK @ MIN -- OAK There actually was some good in this pretty bad loss, including scoring the first four fumble recoveries of the season. Offense didn't look half-bad either, for once.

MIA @ PHI -- PHI I'm tired of picking the Dolphins to get that first win. Also, McNabb's injury could determine the remainder of the Eagles' season.

NYG @ DET -- DET The Lions remain an enigma.

CLE @ BAL -- CLE What a strange field goal attempt that was.

TB @ ATL -- TB Ah, the benefits of playing in a weak division ... Also, what, exactly, was Petrino thinking?

PIT @ NYJ -- PIT This was a complete surprise to me.

CHI @ SEA -- SEA Hasselbeck is quietly having a very nice season.

STL @ SF -- STL Well, somebody had to win. Then again, I think that the league is well overdue for a tie.

WAS @ DAL -- DAL I still don't like the Cowboys, but that game against the Pack is starting to be quite attractive.

NE @ BUF -- BUF NE I'm leaving this in here, but trust me when I say that was simply a typo on my part -- no way I was picking the Pats to lose this game. I can't believe I didn't notice it until now.

TEN @ DEN -- TEN Damn Broncos aren't quite dead yet, it appears. Neither are the Titans quite alive, to judge from their last couple of games.

For the week: 12-4. I am counting the Pats game because that was my actual pick -- I really am at a loss as to how I wound up putting BUF down.

For the season: 94-66.

NFL Week 11:

NO @ HOU -- HOU (Gotta take Schaub at home)
CAR @ GB -- GB
ARI @ CIN -- ARI
KC @ IND -- IND
SD @ JAC -- JAC
OAK @ MIN -- OAK
MIA @ PHI -- PHI
NYG @ DET -- DET
CLE @ BAL -- CLE
TB @ ATL -- TB
PIT @ NYJ -- PIT
CHI @ SEA -- SEA
STL @ SF -- STL
WAS @ DAL -- DAL
NE @ BUF -- BUF
TEN @ DEN -- TEN

Raiders-Bears: NFL Week 10:

Well, I never did get my JaMarcus Russell prediction, mostly because the Raiders were good enough to blow a fourth-quarter lead. That may be better than getting blown out and seeing "what the future may hold," but I'm not quite sure. Neither did they manage to recover a fumble, leaving them still, after nine games, the only team not to recover an opponent's fumble.

Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:

• The Defense.
  No one will ever accuse the Bears of being a good running team, but the Raiders run D finally had a decent game, and it was all due to tackling. The long and short of it is simply that they made tackles on the first try, rather than letting Benson get to a second or third level, or all the way. If this wasn't a fluke game, and if the Raiders can finally learn to tackle well, their run d will improve dramatically.
  
  Also, while they blew a fourth-quarter lead, they gave up only on real play on defense, the long touchdown pass. Yes, that was something of a backbreaker, particularly as well as the defense had played before that, but without their top two corners, they still did a great job of keeping the game tight; a freak play and a bad offensive turnover gave Chicago 14 of their 17 points -- outside of that, the Raiders D held them in check all afternoon during a field-position game.


• Special Teams.
  The Raiders "insulted" Devin Hester by calling him out the week before the game when they announced that they were going to kick to him. The result? An incredible performance by the coverage team, on every kick, all afternoon. The best special teams performance of the year, unquestionably.
  
  Also, Janikowski looked great; if there's another opportunity, I'm willing to bet Kiffin lets him take another crack at the record this season.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Nothing.
  This was a total love-hate game; there was nothing in the middle. That said:

Things I Didn't Like:

• The Offense.
  If you're trying to win a 6-3 game, you're not playing very well, at all. The Raiders have NO passing game, and that's no secret to anyone. How could they, with their top guys either dropping balls all day (Curry) or flipping off the black hole (Porter). I think that we can safely add Porter to the list of "guys who won't be there next season," and thank god, finally, good riddance to bad rubbish. I was willing to give him another shot this season, but there's a reason every coach he's played for in Oakland has had problems with him. Thing is, he's not nearly talented enough to make up for it. Cut him, trade him, do whatever, but get rid of him and move on.
  
  I do like the idea of Mustaine-ing him, as the linked article mentions; a marvelous metaphor for the situation.


• Josh McCown.
  Just a god-awful game. (Left it in from last week, because nothing changed.)

Next week: Today against the Vikings. This could be an interesting game. The Raiders certainly benefit from the absence of Adrian Peterson, though I have to admit, I picked up Chester Taylor in fantball leagues that had him available this week. The Vikings' D will be more than enough test for the Raiders' O, though, even with Daunte Culpepper playing against the other team that cut him. It'd be nice to see him exact a little revenge, though it'd be galling to see that the team's last two wins would have come from 'revenge games;' that's the sort of thing that makes you wonder what would have happened without them, and when that second win might have come.

What's also interesting is that there seems to be some disagreement out there as to who the #2 guy will be: JaMarcus Russell or Andrew Walter. The fact that this is even an open question tells you that Kiffin, much as he may want to play Russell, truly does not consider him ready -- at least for this week.

Parsnips

Last night, I used parsnips in a beef/vegetable stew I was making. First time that I've ever had parsnips -- that I am aware of, at any rate.

Delicious. Will definitely be adding these to the "winter vegetable" rotation.

Progress on Domestic Spying?

I'm still tepid in my response to Mukasey, but this makes me feel a wee bit better about him.

Finally, the domestic spying probe has received the necessary clearance and is free to actually look at the program and see whether it is constitutional or not.

I'm betting on the latter. We'll see what happens.

Another Reason I Dislike Hillary:

Plants at an appearance.

Yes, this unfairly singles out Hillary, since I don't for a second think that this isn't common to all of the front-runners, but it still sticks in my craw. Arlen Parsa at The Daily Background says he's been unable to find a quote of Clinton criticizing the FEMA fake news conference from a few weeks ago. Little wonder.

The way I see it, if she's not going to criticize it when she can get some mileage out of it, and if she's going to engage in the same practices as a candidate, then she WILL do the same as President. I'm tired of Presidents lying to and trying like hell to outright snooker us. That may be an irremediable fact of life, fine, but after six plus years of Jeff Gannon and loyalty oaths and a President and a White House doing everything short of saying "We're speaking to you live from POTEMKIN VILLAGE!", I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the executive branch concocting new ways to dispense with the freedoms that we need most -- of right to assemble and of the press -- and staging bogus "press conferences" to give the illusion of a critical media all the while insulating themselves from any real criticism -- and from any meaningful way for us to hear such criticism. The continued consolidation of the media doesn't help, either, but for me to support Clinton as a new kind of President, she's going to have to stop acting like the current one.

College FB Was Better to Me This Weekend Than Was the NFL:

Penn State 31:0 Temple.

No surprise there -- Joe Pa has never lost to Temple.

The big surprise was further south:

UVA 48:0 Miami.

That's The U, not Miami of Ohio.

First time UVA has ever won a game in Florida.

WAHOOWA!

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 10:

Stl @ No - 'Aints The upshot is that Stephen Jackson's big day helped me in one fantball league and didn't hurt me in another. Still, if the Saints are anything to me this year, it's unpredictable.

Buf @ Mia - Miami finally gets that first win So close.

Jac @ Ten - Titans Nothing the Titans did looked good Sunday.

Cle @ Pit - Steelers If only due to questionable clock management.

Phi @ Was - 'Skins Once again, I pick the Skins to win, and they lose. I stop picking the Eagles, they win.

Atl @ Car - Falcons Why is Carolina so bad at home?

Den @ Kc - Chiefs Either way, it's hard for me to be upset at KC losing.

Min @ Gb - Pack And how -- total domination. Good news for AP is he's only out a week; doubly good news for Raider fans who wish AP well.

Cin @ Bal - Bengals It's not quite Rob Bironas, but you'd have to be forgiven for looking at the final score and thinking that the Bengals only scored three times.

Det @ Ari - Lions How did this game happen?

Chi @ Oak - JaMarcus Russell leads a second-half rally, Oakland wins and the Russell Era begins when Chicago goes up 14 Idiots didn't even have the decency to get whipped so Russell could get some PT. Good news from a really bad loss, though: McCown should be totally done as a starter now; Kiffin hinted at a switch, and when Culpepper is finally done again, he'll have to finally let Russell play. One down . . .

Dal @ Nyg - Giants Oh, screw the NFC East.

Ind @ Sd - Colts Six INTs?!

Sf @ Sea - Seahawks At least there was no doubt about this one.

This week: 5-9. Easily my worst weekend of the season.

This season: 82-62.

NFL Week 10:

Stl @ No - 'Aints
Buf @ Mia - Miami finally gets that first win
Jac @ Ten - Titans
Cle @ Pit - Steelers
Phi @ Was - 'Skins
Atl @ Car - Falcons
Den @ Kc - Chiefs
Min @ Gb - Pack
Cin @ Bal - Bengals
Det @ Ari - Lions
Chi @ Oak - JaMarcus Russell leads a second-half rally, Oakland wins and the Russell Era begins when Chicago goes up 14
Dal @ Nyg - Giants
Ind @ Sd - Colts
Sf @ Sea - Seahawks

A UVA and Halloween Baby:

Two ... three ... four ...

Our little girl playing conductor in her swing.

Warren I. Cohen: The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations, Volume IV.: America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945-1991

Cohen’s book on Cold War American Foreign Policy is an excellent single-volume overview of the subject. All of the major subjects are covered, and he displays a welcome ability to be both critical of and sympathetic to the respective national leaders throughout the confrontation, particularly in the early years of the Cold War, from 1945 through the end of the Khrushchev regime in 1964. After that, the coverage and comparison of the leaders becomes less nuanced, and the coverage of some of the events suffers proportionally; as the leaders making the decisions are presented in bolder colors, rather than the more subtle tones of the previous chapters, the events themselves lose detail but gain definition. The uneven presentation of the leaders involved, and the concomitant depreciation in the presentation of the events in question, is the only complaint I would raise about this otherwise excellent work.

America in the Age of Soviet Power is not intended for a detailed study of the period and its events, but it is a perfect jumping-off point. It avoids most of the problems inherent in both “traditionalist” (realist) histories and “revisionist” histories, in some ways by blending both. At the risk of obscuring the problems inherent in using such a word, the result is a much more realistic presentation of the history of the period.

The book is structures in eight chapters with a short prelude and a fairly through summary conclusion. The first two chapters explore the situations first that existed at the end of World War II, when two victorious empires, variously battered and bruised but nevertheless with grand, worldwide visions of a new future, contemplated their positions in the world and sought ways to exert their will and influence across the globe. The second chapter examines in some detail the events between 1945 and 1950 that led to the demise of the “anti-Hitler alliance” and the chilling of relations between the superpowers.

Chapter three explores the Korean war and considers its consequences on the several Cold Wars. This is a point made implicitly by the book, though it naturally would have been stronger were it more explicit: viewing this period as “THE Cold War” is a limited perception; there was any variety of cold wars being fought. That between the U.S. and USSR is the preoccupation of this book, but that between the USSR and the People’s Republic of China, and between the PRC and the U.S., also receive considerable and necessary attention. The Korean War is treated here as the crucial factor in perpetuating the Cold War as long as it was, recapitulating a dominant theme in the historiography of this period, that the events between 1950-53 hardened stances and prevent rapprochement between or among the three principal cold warriors.

The next two chapters discuss the emergence of new political leadership in both nations, focusing predominantly on Eisenhower, Khrushchev and their respective inner circles. This chapter expands the focus of the work to include the Middle East, which became a major Cold War battleground from the middle of the 1950s forward. Chapter five, “Crisis Resolution,” provides a succinct, readable, and lucid detailing of the events between 1958 and 1962, the continuing Berlin crisis and the Cuban Missile crisis. Some surprising personality traits of people in leadership positions emerge in this chapter.

Chapter Six centers on Vietnam, and does a good job of providing the historical context of the war, of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, and of the misunderstandings, primarily U.S. misapprehensions of Vietnamese nationalism, that led to tragic policy decisions. Here Cohen delves more deeply again into the leaders themselves and tries to present a balanced portrait of their perceptions of their own actions and the contexts and sets of contingencies within which each understood themselves to operate. While not approaching the level of nuance and sophistication as his earlier balanced presentation of Truman’s and Stalin’s viewpoints, the development of the war as the leaders saw – and failed to see – it adds a level of interpretive depth that helps the reader contextualize the war and enables a strong synthesis of the major issues involved in Vietnam within a fairly short (thirty-five pages) framework.

The last two chapters follow the long demise of the Soviet Union, which Cohen argues began, somewhat paradoxically, before the USSR reached its peak diplomatic, military and political prominence, in the 1970s. Cohen briefly, but helpfully, summarizes the major diplomatic trends of the decade, including Nixon and Kissinger’s diplomatic overtures to Zhou Enlai and Brezhnev. Moving swiftly past Ford and Carter, Cohen turns to Reagan and quickly works through the succession of post-Brezhnev Soviet leaders, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, to get to Mikhail Gorbachev, at the end of whose rule the period understandably ends.

This book is an exemplary single-volume treatment of five decades of complex history. It is insufficient in scope to follow through on all of the interesting points that it raises, such as, for example, the idea of Robert McNamara endorsing permitting the USSR to attain strategic parity in the early 1960s, but it neither seeks to do this nor needs to. Although Cohen cannot dedicate the space to intriguing and important nuances that lie anywhere to the periphery of the core events that he discusses, there is enough running citation of other sources to provide a curious reader with further options. This sparse but adequate citation covers all of the major historiographical trends in Cold War research, and the bibliographic essay at the end of the book carries this further and is an excellent starting point for further research.

In the end, Cohen’s approach is best summarized in his own words: “Men and women usually see their self-serving acts as altruistic, their aggressive acts as defensive. The study of motivation is no easier when examining foreign policy decisions than other human endeavors.” (138) This is the idea that justifies his basic approach to the evens and personages in question, an approach that succeeds in illuminating and explaining the Cold War in ways that more rigidly ideological histories realist or revisionist cannot. This is a book that should be read by anyone interested in Cold War history, either as a primer preparatory to further reading or as a stand-alone book. Either way, readers will profit from Cohen’s clear, concise and very readable narrative.

Raiders-Texans Week 9:

The worst loss of the season, easily. You're at home and lose to a team without their #1 QB, their #1 RB, their #1 WR AND their #1 CB?!

Pathetic.

Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:

• Justin Fargas.
  23 for 104 and a TD. Good line, good game.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• The Kick.
  64 yards, and he nailed the upright halfway up?! Man. As they were lining it up, I was watching thinking, "this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen." The announcers clearly thought the same, since they were making quite a bit of it being something that "no one has ever done before, EVER," and pointing out that the last time a 63-yard kick was made, it was in Denver.
  
  "There the snap, and WHOA! IT COULD ... IT'S LONG ENOUGH AND IT'S OH! IT HIT THE UPRIGHT!"
  
  Only time I've ever seen a kicker get a standing O from a home crowd after missing a field goal. I loved it. Would have been thrilled for it to go in, but I loved it.
  
  I also liked the call, at the time -- end of the half, down by 14, why not? Try for the spark. I'm ambivalent about it because the defense couldn't hold the field, and 14-0 became 17-0 going into the break.

Things I Didn't Like:

• Penalties, Turnovers, Sacks.
  +3 (+4 in first downs via penalty), -2, -1. The sack I don't even remember, but what pisses me off about this line is it's generally pretty good, by Raider standards -- and they STILL lost an ugly game.
  


• Josh McCown.
  Just a god-awful game.


• The Defense.
  Sucked.

Next week: at home against Chicago. The Raiders have four more games that are winnable -- after that, December is going to crush them. Better get a couple more Ws while the getting is good.

Watching the game, I figured the Raiders were two losses -- i.e., two weeks -- away from the JaMarcus Russel era. Now I'm not so sure. For one thing, Kiffin has become a lot more eloquent in his explanations as to why Russell hasn't played yet -- which means he's thinking about it. To underscore that point, he's admitted to thinking about playing JaMarcus -- and in his Wednesday media session, he said it's "possible" that Russell could be the #2 guy this Sunday.

I'm going to revise my prediction:

The Raiders are 30 minutes and a 14+ deficit away from playing Russell. They go into halftime and it's not competitive? Thanks, Josh, take a seat. Here ya go, JaMarcus. Let's see what you got.

Prediction: Russell rallies the Raiders to a win at home against Chicago. I think he would lose the game were he to start it, and I make no prediction about him winning his first start, but I think his presence in the second half will give the team enough of a spark to sneak a W in this one.

Prediction 2: The Raiders become the last team in the NFL to recover a fumble, courtesy of Mr. Cedric Benson, the only man in the league whose hands are butterier than Culpepper's.

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 9:

SD @ MIN -- SD Good lord did Peterson go insane. It is very gratifying to watch the Chargers get taken down bit by bit by Norv. They had me worried there for a couple of weeks; I'm once again confident in their utter demise.

JAC @ NO -- JAC Not even close.

WAS @ NYJ -- WAS Made me wait until overtime, but I wound up being right, at least.

ARI @ TB -- TB The Bus are just playing solid ball right now, which is not a compliment -- they're at the level of their competition too frequently, rather than playing like the better team.

SF @ ATL -- ATL I feel sorry for whomever actually had to watch this monstrosity.

CIN @ BUF -- CIN Marvin Lewis will not be in Cincy next season -- and if they're smart, and it's even relevant, neither should CJ.

DEN @ DET -- DET And how -- I didn't expect a wipeout. Good news is Cutler's leg isn't broken.

CAR @ TEN -- TEN Carolina is one of those teams that makes me feel good as a Raider fan -- they have a better record, but they're just as awful.

GB @ KC -- KC I thought the short week would catch up to the Pack. I was wrong.

SEA @ CLE -- CLE Another OT squeaker. Good for Crennel, getting this team playing finally.

HOU @ OAK -- OAK It's bad news when the highlight of the game is your kicker missing a FG.

NE @ IND -- NE Not an inspiring performance against an undermanned Colts team that should have won the game despite missing key people on both sides of the ball.

DAL @ PHI -- PHI Philly is one of those teams this season that were I any smarter, I'd stop picking. (See also: Oakland.)

BAL @ PIT -- PIT Ouch -- just brutally ugly. The game was pretty bad, too.

For the week: 8-6.

For the season: 77-53.

NFL Week 9:

SD @ MIN -- SD
JAC @ NO -- JAC
WAS @ NYJ -- WAS
ARI @ TB -- TB
SF @ ATL -- ATL
CIN @ BUF -- CIN
DEN @ DET -- DET
CAR @ TEN -- TEN
GB @ KC -- KC
SEA @ CLE -- CLE
HOU @ OAK -- OAK
NE @ IND -- NE
DAL @ PHI -- PHI
BAL @ PIT -- PIT

It's Official: Welcome to Dodger Blue, Joe Torre:

The Dodgers have officially hired Joe Torre to be their next manager, and I withheld comment on the idea until it was concluded, one way or another. A couple of thoughts:

This brings LA an immediate cache that they didn't have last season, or recently, for that matter. It simultaneously brings necessarily heightened expectations for a fairly talented but divided and underachieving roster. This much is obvious, right?

Torre is a winner, pure and simple, which is something the Dodgers are in desperate need of.

Torre also has won with a lot, a lot of talent around him, and while the Dodgers do have talent, they may or may not be on paper in the NL's elite; the Yankees, on paper (and on the field, generally), were clearly (among) the AL's elite. This is the Phil Jackson question for Joe Torre: can he win with less, or will he have to convince McCourt to give him more to work with?

The talent question is precisely the opposite of his Yankees clubs, which makes it even more interesting: the Dodgers are pitching rich and batting poor, the opposite of NY. Thus, the Phil Jackson analogy doesn't hold as precisely, because while Torre has less talent to work with, he has an entirely different kind of talent that he never really enjoyed in New York consistently.

Now, because I can't really comment on this without talking about Grady Little, I liked Little, I did. He seemed like a good guy who knew what he was doing (most of the time). Sure, he was given to bizarre player movements, but the one that he's most pilloried for -- the Pedro Incident -- stemmed from too much trust in his players. In a way, it's hard to fault him for that.

Little may have been the better man to develop talent, which is certainly high on LA's list of priorities. Where Little clearly failed, though, was in managing the personalities within a divided and contentious clubhouse, particularly as losses continued to mount down the stretch. Torre is a consummate personality manager -- can he unite the Dodgers? If he can, that should be good for a handful of extra wins over the course of the season -- and in the West, a handful either way makes all the difference.

The biggest question remains, though: who will follow Torre to LA? Leave aside the Yankees for the moment -- what other free agents will go to LA for a chance to play with Joe? Could Schilling see Chavez regularly in his final season? Could Pettite decide to come over and give it a shot?

And, well, since I brought up Pettite, and thus the Yankees, the Dodgers have two obvious problems with their lineup: no consistent production at 3B, and a near-total absence of power (which has been the case for the duration of the last two managers, Little and Tracy, and goes further back than that).

Need at 3B, need for power. Just sayin' I won't be surprised is all.

An Experiment:

Two weeks ago, I mentioned that the Cavaliers were riding a seven-game win streak. They promptly lost their next game.

A few days ago, I mentioned that my LA Kings were riding a four-game win streak. They promptly lost their next game.

Here's a little fun with jinxes:

Hey guys, boy, look at those Oakland Raiders -- they've lost three games in a row now! Let's keep it going against Houston!

(What the hell, it's worth a shot!)