A Year In Review: 1,000 Words or Less:

Testing the theory that a picture is worth a thousand words, here's 2007in 1k or less:



Happy New Year, everyone!

Fun With Typos:

Iris just got an SMS from a friend of hers, wishing her a "guten Putsch ins Neue Jahr," rather than a "guten Rutsch."

How delightfully German.

Who's Talking About Whom?

Here's an interesting bit of "political porn" (term and story both cribbed from Waldo).

Look who's talking about whom. Fascinating. (Give you one good guess as to which candidate is named most often by the others.)

Clearing off the Book Bar:

The book bar on the right is getting a bit overloaded by now, isn't it?

Gimme a sec. *clears things out* There we go.

The principal purpose of the book bar -- besides showing what I'm reading to anyone who wishes to know -- is to remind me what books I need to 'review' for my own purposes. In principle, I think this is a good idea, particularly for books that I read that are useful for my dissertation research -- what better way to tie off a book than to sit down and bang out a few hundred words on its themes, argument, evidence provided for support, claims, shortcomings, etc.? I've pulled it off a few times, but, clearly, it's more intent than follow-through.

I won't call it a resolution, but I'm going to be better about that in the New Year -- beginning with a short review of the DeLillo soon and a lengthier treatment of the Parenti (which is 'double-parked' on my 'doctoral - religion' bookshelf behind me, rather than being properly shelved in the 'doctoral - crime' section, where it should be, mocking me). Several themed labels will grow as I pull this off.

For now, though, I'll just catalogue the last 2 or so weeks:

David Herbert Donald: Lincoln

Chester G. Hearn: When the Devil Came Down to Dixie: Ben Butler in New Orleans

Mark E. Neely, Jr.: The Last Best Hope of Earth: Abraham Lincoln and the Promise of America

Phillip Shaw Paludan: The Preidency of Abraham Lincoln

James Takach: Lincoln's Moral Vision: The Second Inaugural Address

Gordon H. Warren: Fountain of Discontent: The Trent Affair and Freedom of the Seas

Ronald C. White, Jr.: Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural

Robert W. Young: Senator James Murray Mason: Defender of the Old South

There, that's better.

Probably not difficult to guess what I've been working on lately. :)

Giuliani Commercial:

I’m going to stick with this picture when talking about Benito Giuliani precisely as long as he sticks with his numeric theme and gives me reason to complain about him.

The occasion for this particular gripe is a commercial he unveiled this week, the text of which was helpfully included in a story I spotted at Y! News.

Here’s the text of the ad:

"Right before Sept. 11, and months before, I had read this book about the greatest generation written by Tom Brokaw. And the book explains how brave and how persistent and how courageous the people were in the generation that won the Second World War. And during the day of September 11, living through the things that I saw and observed, immediately when I saw people helping each other, I saw the picture of the firefighters putting the flag up, I said these are the children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the greatest generation. They have the same resolve. The same understanding.

"When you challenge Americans, there's no country that stands up stronger and better than the United States of America. When you try and take something away from us like freedom, my goodness, Americans are going to be one in resisting you.

"So, the Islamic terrorists would make a terrible mistake if they confuse our democracy for weakness. Our democracy means we disagree with each other, but when you come and try and take away from us our freedom. When you try and come here and kill our people, we're one and we're going to stand up to you and we're going to prevail. I'm Rudy Giuliani and I approved this message."

Leave aside for the moment the contrast between a war on a state and a war on an idea – a contrast that the Right is only too happy to draw when it comes to increasing the power and reach of the federal government (oh, the delicious, dystopian irony). Think instead about the irony of Benito Giuliani, of all people, defending rights and freedoms; think instead about the irony of Benito Giuliani, of all people, touting the right to disagree as a principle – a laudable principle – of the American democracy. Then come back to the contrast between a war on a state – i.e., WWII – and a war on an idea. (I actually love the implied comparison to Roosevelt, but that’s neither here nor there.)

Anyone doubt, based on his record, that Benito would throw the lot of us under the bus if he felt it were necessary to do so? Does anyone seriously think that Benito would let pesky little things like civil liberties and the Bill of Rights interfere with a good, old-fashioned jackbooting?

If you do doubt it, you haven’t ever paid any attention to ol’ Rudy. Of the major candidates on both sides, he’s the most naturally authoritarian of the lot, and if the hyperbole can be forgiven in this case, he would be only too happy for it to be his boot stomping on the face of humanity evermore.

All in the name, of course, of protecting “freedom.” Personally, I’d rather the Right go back to its roots and resume “liberty;” at least then they weren’t as thoroughly disingenuous as they are with their talk of “freedom.”

Raiders-Jaguars: Week 16

Huh boy. Way to follow up a great effort by laying a total and complete dud.

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

• Domenic Rhodes.
  27 for 115. That's the lone highlight of the game.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Nothing.
  This game was so laughable there was nothing to like, nothing to hate (save all of it), and absolutely nothing to be ambivalent about.

Things I Didn't Like:

• The Refs.
  Seriously, four unsportsmanlike conducts? Look, zebras, do your damn jobs correctly next time, and talk to the Raiders coaches and their designated player representatives on the field before you decide first that they're going to decline a penalty and then -- still without talking to them -- that they're going to accept it. I can see why this set the Raiders off that badly. Shit, nothing else was going right in the game, so that little bit of frustration built up in the first half (and over the course of the season) came pouring out. I'm by no means excusing Sapp and Burgess for that, but to overreact like that when it was YOUR mistake in the first place? Idiots.
  
  Now, did Sapp bump the ref or did he not? I didn't see it, and they claim he didn't, and the lack of suspension suggests that it was his mouth that got him in trouble, not his gut. Still, they were awfully quick to deny any contact with the ref -- either they were attacking rather than going on the defensive, or they knew what was coming and stating the truth. Either way, it's fishy all around.

Next week: Today, at home against SD. As meaningless as the difference between 4-12 and 5-11 is, this is an important game, and I hope that they treat it as such. It'd be nice to go from 17-down against the Wet to 3-up, it'd be nice to beat SD for the first time in 10 tries, it'd be nice to beat every team in the division this season, and it'd be nice to beat them all the second time around after losing to each the first time out.

It'd be really nice if LT doesn't break 150 and doesn't throw a TD pass. It'd be REALLY nice to get JaMarcus a win in his first start -- let's step it up and support the rookie, guys.

And it'd be really, really, REALLY nice for the Raiders to beat the Chargers and the Steelers to take care of the Ravens -- that'd give SD the 4 seed and send Jacksonville to Qualcomm for Wild-Card weekend. Right now, the team that's playing the best football in the NFL, far and away, is Jacksonville.

Go Raiders. Go Jags. ;)

NFL Week 17:

Commence the slaughter of my picks -- god only knows how the dozens of backups getting extended PT will hammer the below list:

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

The Political Compass Returns!

This sort of thing is fun from time to time: the Political Compass test.

My results: left libertarian. Duh.

Is Rudy Giuliani too Neo-Conservative for Conservatives?

Michael Desch thinks so.

I agree with the majority of the article, though I suspect that's more accidental than born of any deep agreement with the author beyond Benito Giuliani. It's good to see more attention being paid to the circle of advisors around the candidates; ultimately, they're probably more important than the candidate themselves. (That said, there's still the always-open question of which way --- toward which advisor and which policy line -- the candidate will ultimately break.) I'll be honest and admit that I find the caricature more fair than hyperbolic, too, given Giuliani's record in New York and his stated desires for his presidency; of the Republican lot, I find him most repugnant and frightening, something that the picture isn't at all designed to capitalize on!

Is it reading too much into this article to say that this is but another example of everyone knowing whom they do not want to win in '08, and too few people knowing whom they do want to win? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have someone they can get excited about, and the bases are fracturing. Interesting to watch.

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 16:

PIT @ STL - PIT Losing Parker probably dooms the Steelers to a first-round exit, particularly if they are seeded 4 going in and get the Jaguars.

DAL @ CAR - DAL Continuing with the theme of good teams having star players hurt at the wrong time -- could TO's ankle affect the NFC playoffs, or is Dallas balanced enough to compensate? More to the point, how does losing TO for any amount of time affect their balance?

NYG @ BUF - NYG Here's hoping that the G-men follow conventional wisdom and rest Jacobs next weekend -- I'd like my gamble (picking up Bradshaw) to pay off.

KC @ DET - DET So Kitna was wrong about 10 -- the Lions have a shot at a non-losing season; that in itself is a bonus.

PHI @ NO - PHI New Orleans let their season go. The Eagles are building a bit of momentum for next season.

OAK @ JAC - JAC Rookie played a rookie game, no doubt about it. Bad decisions, too much faith in his physical abilities and a lack of understanding of the level of competition he's playing against. Can't really hold it against him, since he was just trying to make plays. Still, when you defend your QB as "just trying to make plays," you know the result isn't good. The TD in garbage time, and the 2-point conversion, are probably very big, and I actually take Russell at his word when he says "who cares? It was one game. There's a lot of football left to play." Not this season, there's not, but a big win over SD heading into the offseason would help get the Raiders going in the right direction; it's hard to forget that their big playoff runs of the early years of this decade started with that shootout win at KC in the 1999 season finale. Here's hoping.

CLE @ CIN - CLE I thought Cleveland could take this one from a team clearly mailing it in. Oops. Way to go, Browns -- you had the chance to clinch, and now you have to go get a W this weekend.

GB @ CHI - GB Man, Lovie has really made good on the "I'm going to beat Brett" promise, hasn't he?

HOU @ IND - IND Now is the time to take bets to see how many snaps Manning gets before Sorgi takes over.

ATL @ AZ - AZ But in overtime. Atlanta has played very well in a few games of late, which begs the question: what the hell was Petrino doing that they can start being competitive against better teams as soon as he leaves? Watching this season unfold, watching Kiffin and Petrino, I have to say, I'm not at all sorry Bobby didn't go to Oakland last season.

TB @ SF - TB Even with the division wrapped up, Tampa should still have won this game. Shaun Hill doesn't look half-bad, though.

NYJ @ TEN - TEN The Titans are bewildering -- they allow bad teams to keep them close, and they have to get lucky to win. Not a good formula, because if they make the playoffs, it'll be as the 6, and either Pittsburgh or SD should be able to bounce them with minimal difficulty. The way they're playing, though, it won't be an issue -- Cleveland will get the 6.

BAL @ SEA - SEA Another loss for Baltimore, and McGahee is out for the finale.

MIA @ NE - NE By now, it's boring, and I'm starting to think that the Pats will lose in the playoffs.

WAS @ MIN - MIN Once again: damn you, Redskins!

DEN @ SD - SD What's with the temper tantrums in this game?

For the week: 12-4.

For the season: 149-91.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas from the three of us, and a couple of cute baby pics for all! :)

Blonde + Southern = Let Your Stereotypes Run Wild:

Is Europe a country?

Hard as I try, I can't gin up a comment to go along with this one. Watch the video, you'll see why.

I Guess He Was on the 'Naughty' List:

Constitutional lawyer Bill Goodman, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, delivered 37,000 copies of the Constitution to the White House dressed as Santa Claus.

For my part, while I can't imagine W receiving an epiphany from the Constitution short of Jesus Christ himself returning and handing him a copy (thus confirming the fantasy of many American lawmakers) -- and, honestly, I'm not sure that would be enough, either -- I figured, what the hell, I'd sign and up the count by one.

Follow the link at the AlterNet page, or click here to read the accompanying letter and sign up to send over another copy in your name.

Also, I will probably listen to this later: the CCR's oral argument in the cases of Al Odah v. U.S. and Boumediene v. Bush is available here. Should be highly interesting.

A Discovery:

My baby girl is a sleep-talker.

Bush's Latest Hypocrisy:

I really do wonder sometimes whether he's as myopic as he sounds.

Speaking of Vladimir Putin being named Time Person of the Year:

"I presume they put him on there because he was a consequential leader," Bush said. "And the fundamental question is, consequential to what end? What will the country look like 10 years from now? My hope, of course, is that Russia is a country that understands there needs to be checks and balances."

Is it even possible that he wasn't serious? At the same time, how on earth could he have been? The man who has pushed partisan conflict with Congress harder than any President in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Carter, who was hated by a Democratic Congress) has the chutzpah to say this about another leader? The same man who has spent six-plus years trying to accumulate all of the decision-making authority in the federal government into his own office is taking shots at other people for failing to observe division of powers and checks and balances?

George W. Bush, of all people, has the balls to wonder how another head of state will be viewed in 10 years?

Seems to me that the President should reread Matthew 7 and Luke 6. "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Mt. 7:5, NRSV) One would think that someone who claims to base their entire life on their born-again faith would have some greater sense of humility and fallibility; what seems rather to be the case is that Bush, having drunk from the Water of Life, considers himself invulnerable and above reproach. That's a poor attitude for a Christian to have.

This is not to say that Putin merely has a speck in his eye, by any means. He certainly has a beam of his own in his eye, not a little sliver.

Still, the hypocrisy of Bush's attitude is staggering. I don't often presume to speak for Jesus, not to the extent others do, certainly, but I've read the gospels, several times, and I can't dodge the feeling that Jesus of Nazareth would be thoroughly embarrassed by people like W.

He's like a spoiled child at this point, so accustomed to getting absolutely everything that he wants that he simply cannot handle being told no on occasion. That those occasions are only too rare is the principal source of my contempt for the Democratic Party right now.

Raiders-Colts Week 15:

Even I laughed at the idea that the Raiders could take the Colts, but I underestimated the pride with which the team would play on Sunday (that Indy was running a backup front four helps a bit, too). The Raiders worked hard and played very well on Sunday, coming up short against a better team. I was actually almost as impressed by this loss as I was by the Denver win.

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

• Aggression and Pride.
  The Raiders have nothing to play for but victories, improvement and pride. They didn't get the W, but they played hard enough to earn it -- and, more importantly, they played smart enough to earn it.
  
  The play that typified the aggression Oakland played this game with: when the Colts got the ball back on downs with 1:41 left, the Raiders called timeout. The message clearly was that if Indy tried to run the clock out, Oakland would take one more shot. Dungy got the message, and the Colts executed a couple of plays to get the first down and close the game out. Still, the point was clearly made and clearly taken.


• The Defense.
  The defense was fantastic all day. Holding Indy to 58 yards on the ground? And keeping it close? The Colts may not need to run for big numbers with that passing game, but the Raiders held their offense in check all game. They bent, but they never broke. Most importantly: 58 rushing yards allowed. 58.
  
  Indy punted more often than they found the end zone, which is something of a rarity, and this was only the second game this season that the Colts had been held to a single offensive touchdown.


• Justin Fargas.
  26 for 89 and a TD, broke 1,000 yards for the season for the first time in his career -- and he beat Joseph Addai to 1,000, at that.
  
  Sorry about the MCL sprain, Justin -- you won't get any more this season, but this will be the first offseason that I hope you remain a Raider. I have to admit, I rather like the prospect of a Fargas/Bush two-headed monster next season.


• The Offensive Line.
  Was excellent, and relatively clean -- only Carlisle's hold was called against the OL, who, for the third straight game, did not allow a sack. THAT is impressive.


• Penalties, Turnovers, Sacks, TFL.
  -3, +1, +3, 0.
  This was a curious game. The only turnover was Howard's INT off of Manning's tipped pass. Manning was sacked three times -- a very high number for the Colts to allow in a game -- while neither McCown nor Russell was sacked. Both teams had two runs stopped for a loss.
  
  The Raiders lost the penalty battle, but they responded well to the penalties. Some of the penalty calls were questionable: the last two Oakland offensive plays could easily have been called, the penalties on Huff and Asomugha could as easily not. Can't very well complain about ticky-tack calls that aren't flagged and whine about those that are, though. What was impressive about the penalty situation is that the Raiders didn't harm themselves offensively with penalties; when the offensive penalty was called, they overcame the First and 20.
  
  Granted, it's one thing to overcome mistakes, but something else entirely to not make them at all. Still, it's good to see.


• the drive.
  Can't capitalize this, because I don't want any confusion with The Drive, but come on -- Howard breaks up the 4th-and-goal play, and then the Raiders go 99.5 yards in 20 plays over 11:49 to score a TD and close to 10-7? From 17-0 to 10-7 that way?
  
  Thus, the drive. Or, maybe more appropriately, the quarter, since that drive took nearly a full quarter. Very impressive.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• Lane Kiffin.
  I loved the aggression, from the opening series to trying to deny the Colts Victory Formation. I also love the commitment to trying to win games now, rather than fold the hand and play the run out.
  
  Here's what I don't like: he's got his guys working very hard, and he and his coaching staff are making them better, bit by grudging bit, but Kiffin isn't giving them the most important thing to play for: the future. It's a delicate balance between throwing in the towel, and risking what you've built thus far, and holding on too long to grab an extra W, costing the team a little bit more time.
  
  Naturally, I mean Russell. He's got to play, and soon. It was the right call not to throw him into that whoopin' in Green Bay. It was the wrong call not to give him the second half on Sunday -- or at least the two-minute drill at the end of the second quarter, and maybe also the last offensive series. That could have been called another way to give the Raiders two cracks at it, were Kiffin so inclined, but if this kid is the future, why not give him the two-minute drill at the end of the first half, see how he handles that pressure? That scenario has the virtue of being high-pressure and calling for quick decision-making and precise on-field leadership while at the same time being at the end of the half, not the game.
  
  Kiffin has his players working and playing hard. They're clearly practicing hard, because they're getting better at the little things that recent Raiders teams have not done so well with -- you know, the basic fundamentals of the game. At the same time, could he help their morale by letting them play not for that particular Sunday, but for the future? They all know Russell is going to be the guy next season -- give the team the chance to play together for a couple of tough games, let them maybe win one of these (ideally against SD) and take some confidence into the offseason.
  
  Let the team play for its own future, not its soon-to-expire present.
  
  Rumor has it that the Raiders are considering starting Russell this weekend. Good. Start him, and let the team play for itself as it wants to be, not as it is.

Things I Didn't Like:

• Special Teams.
  Two straight weeks with a punt-return TD. At least this one was clean, but at the same time, giving Indy cheap points is a recipe for a loss.

Next week: at Jacksonville. I just want to see #2 in the road whites, ideally direting his first (several) scoring drive(s). And let's go, Rhodes -- this is your shot, and I need the fantasy points!

NFL Week 16:

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

Three Short Comments:

First: smoke billowing from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, appearing to be located within Vice President Cheney's office.

What do you bet he had 'suggested' a fire in the circular file while he was out of the office?

Second, Bush signed a bill mandating higher fuel efficiency.

Well, it's about #$%^&* time, Mr. President.

One thing that caught my interest in the story: It requires refineries to increase the use of ethanol from about 6 billion gallons a year this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022 and mandates that by then at least 21 billion gallons are to come from feedstocks other than corn.

The next sentence is Bush commenting on hog farmers getting nervous because the price of corn was going up, due to corn being diverted from feed to ethanol production.

Take a hint, guys -- stop feeding slaughter animals corn. The rest of you, lawmakers: stop subsidizing corn at such ridiculous levels, and shift those subsidies to crops instead.

And, lastly: some cities on the Plains are now ten days without power following yet another ice storm in that region.

I grew up in a part of the country that got a lot of whoppin' thunderstorms, pretty well at any time of the year; when it wasn't a summer t-boomer, the occasional winter Nor'easter would blow in and drop a foot or so of rain overnight. Occasionally, a hurricane would track up from North Carolina and dump buckets of water for hours on end before tracking either inland or off to see. Once, we even came close to a direct hit, before Gloria trucked up the coast to Long Island.

Every time a big storm hit, the power lines would drop, and it took anywhere from a few hours to better than a week to get the power back on. Every time, they simply re-erected the poles, restrung the lines, and waited until they had to do it again.

I'm genuinely curious as to how often it is cost-effective to re-erect downed power lines before the threshold is crossed and burying them is a cheaper option. At least Virginia finally read the cards and started burying lines, rather than propping them back up.

Plains states, take the damn hint already.

FCC Votes 3-2 to Allow Greater Corporate Media Consolidation:

Stories abound: try here, here, here, or here.

I don't need to tell you that I think that this is a terrible idea. The slippery slope leads to a monolithic media corporation that controls the overwhelming majority of what we 'know' about the world around us. This is yet another reason I personally favor the "small is beautiful" principle, particularly with institutions that are ideally accountable to me, but which in reality is only modestly accountable to me (government) and with institutions that are not even remotely accountable to me, but to whom I am held accountable (big business).

A free press is one of the cornerstones upon which a free society can be built. A free press does not guarantee a free society, though the converse applies: a press beholden to governmental or corporate interests (or, as in this case, both) will guarantee that a society will continue to lose its freedom as it loses access to information.

Contact your Senators and Representatives, tell them that you oppose this, and that Congress should exercise their authority to throw out the new rules. You can also go here and take part in the online campaign to force Congress' hand on the matter. You can also sign their open letter petition to the Congress.

Wow -- in the time it took me to write up this post, better than 20,000 people signed the open letter. That's a good sign.

Pro Bowl Rosters Are Out:

And they're terrible. AFC is here, NFC is here.

I won't complain about 0 Raiders on offense, because not a single player performed at anything even resembling a Pro Bowl caliber, save Jordan for the first four games. However, where's the love for Asomugha, Morrison and Howard? Not only are they not even so much as alternates, they're not even being talked about as snubs. Asomugha I can somewhat understand, because he's being avoided (25 thrown-tos and counting -- this through 14 games) so completely as to take away all of his numbers. That, though, tells me that he should very much be in the Pro Bowl.

Morrison and Howard? That's a tougher one to explain. The top two MLBs in the AFC are Kirk Morrison and DeMeco Ryans right now, period. Thomas Howard is clearly playing at a higher level than Mike Vrabel this season. Yet both got snubbed -- although at least Scouts, Inc. admits that they would have snubbed Howard.

Like Warren Sapp and Nnamdi Asomugha last season, those three are the victims of playing great, great seasons on a bad team. (Incidentally, compare Sapp's numbers to Jamal Williams and Vince Wilfork and tell me which of them is having the better year -- better yet, watch them play, and see how much more disruptive a force Sapp is than either of those two DTs.) There's probably nothing that can change that, but which is easier: to make big plays and be a "game-changer" on a team that's loaded with talent, or to make big plays and be a "game-changer" on a talent-poor team?

Of the three, I'll pick Howard as the biggest snub, because he's having a ridiculously good season. Want to see a game-changing play? Check out his fourth-down pass defense in the back of the endzone on Sunday. That was a true game-changing play, and is merely emblematic of the way he's played this season.

Who else got snubbed?

Try Fred Taylor, David Garrard, Barret Ruud, Jordan Gross, Jahri Evans, Eric Steinbach, Charles Woodson, Michael Roos, and Darnell Dockett. Easy list to make. All of them, all of them, are having phenomenal years. Not one of them is so much as an alternative.

Oh, and remember the #1 overall pick last season, Mario Williams? Look at his numbers and the way he can dominate his side of the line, and then tell me he shouldn't be on the AFC squad.

The Pro Bowl rosters always leave off people who deserved to go. This season, far too many people made it on reputation (Ogden, Vrabel) and too few made it on their season. Those that should have gone based on their performance this season too often were left off the roster entirely.

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 15:

DEN @ HOU -- A hard game to pick, but I'll go with the student upsetting the master: HOU And the student did win the game.

CIN @ SF -- This outta be one to remember: CIN I second-guessed this pick, and I shouldn't have.

BUF @ CLE -- CLE Now THAT is football weather!

TEN @ KC -- TEN The win keeps the Titans alive.

GB @ STL -- GB The Pack just keeps on rolling.

BAL @ MIA -- BAL You had to figure Miami would've gotten a win sooner or later, but it was getting to be time to seriously think about 0-16. How bad does it have to feel in Baltimore after that game, though? Also, thanks, Ravens -- I could've used a good game from McGahee against that god-awful run defense. Way to be patient for me.

NYJ @ NE -- NE I thought the Pats would go for 100 this game; turns out they were lucky to hit 20. And what a time for an anemic offense -- this game and the Eagles/Cowboys sank one of my fantasy teams, dropping me into the third-place game rather than the championship. Jerks.

ARI @ NO -- NO Too little, too late.

JAC @ PIT -- JAC Now this was an entertaining game.

ATL @ TB -- TB The Raiders may get yet another NFC Super Bowl team on their schedule if Tampa can run the tables. I'm not counting on it, though.

SEA @ CAR -- SEA Seriously? They had to work that hard to get ten points?

IND @ OAK -- IND But the Raiders played them tough and made them win the game, rather than just waltzing in and winning before kickoff. I loved the aggressive play and play-calling here; as the Raiders continue to improve their roster, they'll figure out how to win these huge games.

PHI @ DAL -- DAL Thanks for a low-scoring affair, guys -- would it have killed you to jam a couple of touchdowns out there for me? And why is it that when all four NFC East teams are playing each other I manage to pick BOTH games wrong?!

DET @ SD -- SD Where, exactly, were the Lions on Sunday? Did they suit up the team from two years ago when no one was looking? Detroit is going to lose 10 this season, rather than win 10.

WAS @ NYG -- who cares, it'll just be wrong anyway: NYG Oh goddamnit. At home, against a backup quarterback, with the chance to wrap up a playoff spot, the Giants went out and stank up the joint. Seriously, the NFC East is killing me -- and I continue to be wrong every damn week about the Redskins.

CHI @ MIN -- MIN I find it funny that people are talking about Chicago "giving Klye Orton a look" -- what, they've never met or something?

For the week: 11-5. A wee bit better than the 9-7 I was posting the last couple'a.

For the season: 137-87.

A Scapegoat?

The FBI is investigating the special inspector general in charge of the Iraq reconstruction. Stuart Bowen is being investigated for potential fraud, abuse and electronic tampering -- including attempts to force his way into his employees' email accounts.

With as much corruption and fraud as has been unearthed in the Iraq reconstruction, it's awfully difficult to dodge the suspicion that this is a classic scapegoating. Pick a member of the class of "transgressors," heap all of the crimes of the community onto its back, and exile it into the wilderness. Meanwhile, "justice has been done," and everyone can feel good about a token display of justice and the supremacy of law, while the remainder of the class of no-goodniks continues to graft and defraud as they see fit.

Baby's First Christmas Tree:

This was the first year that the tree of us could "decorate for three," so to speak, and like last year, I had every inclination of taking advantage of our high ceiling (which peaks at around 16'). Unlike last year, however, I got close to my wish: this tree is probably between 11-12', and thus the tallest I've ever had.

It was a bit awkward getting it onto the car, as you can see:



What with it being almost exactly as long as the car and all.

Still, it looks good set up, and Lilja seemed to like it -- the wide eyes in the first were due to the flash, but look how interested in it she is (and yes, a bit skeptical):





And the finished product -- no tinsel this year, I didn't want it on there (the pink boot? That's the "Baby's First Christmas" ornament my folks brought over when they visited):





(Smaller than the others so it's expandable with a click.)

Raiders-Packers, NFL Week 14:

Haha. Damn. THAT was a whoopin' -- a true woodshedding if ever there was one this season.

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

• The Pack Didn't Ring Up 50.
  Not exactly a positive, but the closest I could come in this game. The Pack was dominant all across the board, on all three sides of the ball.

Things I was ambivalent about:

• The Offensive Line.
  The line played adequately, but not well. They were generally good enough, but never outstanding. McQuistain was made look pretty silly by Aaron Kampman pretty well all day, but he did adjust and start to play Kampman better toward the end -- a positive -- and this is a good sign, potentially down the road.
  
  It's maybe a bit uncharitable to put the line in the Ambivalent category, but they just weren't good enough to be something that I liked. However, this was the first time since 1990 that the OL didn't give up a sack in back-to-back games. That was a weird stat to hear -- even during the good years at the beginning of this decade, and the playoff years in the early 90s, the QB got sacked at least once every second week.

Things I Didn't Like:

• The Officiating.
  Did not ultimately change the outcome -- a 30+ margin is never officiating -- but the Packers got 14 cheap points on two god-awful calls: three players in motion on the punt that Dwight fumbled and which was recovered for a TD, and an uncalled clip (Jon Alston was clipped, for those keeping score) on the punt return TD. 24-7 is quite bad enough, thanks; no need for the refs to spot the home team 14 cheap ones. Damn Hochuli.

Next week: Indy at home. This will not be fun. However, JaMarcus will get time, and against a great team in the process. Who knows -- sunshine, dog's ass, Raiders steal one at home?

(Notice I didn't pick the home team for this game.)

W00T!

W00t is the Merriam-Webster Word of the Year.

We all learned in elementary school that you can't use a word to define itself, but in this particular instance, the only thing one can say, I suppose, is W00T!

A Step Away from Torture as Policy?

Courtesy of Fox news, even: The House passed a bill that would ban waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods (presumably not unlike those portrayed in AI's Unsubscribe Me campaign [which I was sure that I had linked here before -- apparently not]).

The Senate has to do its part, and the House vote was 222-199, a long way away from being veto-proof, but a veto-proof margin on the Senate bill -- or one that's close to veto-proof -- may pull the House margin the right way for an override vote.

It'll probably be vetoed, since the White House clearly is invested in torture as a method, but it's a good step in the right direction.

Finally, the damn Democrats deliver something worth all the sound and fury.

NFL Week 15:

DEN @ HOU -- A hard game to pick, but I'll go with the student upsetting the master: HOU
CIN @ SF -- This outta be one to remember: CIN
BUF @ CLE -- CLE
TEN @ KC -- TEN
GB @ STL -- GB
BAL @ MIA -- BAL
NYJ @ NE -- NE
ARI @ NO -- NO
JAC @ PIT -- JAC
ATL @ TB -- TB
SEA @ CAR -- SEA
IND @ OAK -- IND
PHI @ DAL -- DAL
DET @ SD -- SD
WAS @ NYG -- who cares, it'll just be wrong anyway: NYG
CHI @ MIN -- MIN

On Torture, Probativity and Swimming:

Evidence obtained via torture may be considered admissible in military courts: "If the evidence is reliable and probative, and the judge concludes that it is in the best interest of justice to introduce that evidence, ma'am, those are the rules we will follow," Hartmann said in response to questions from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.

I have two immediate questions at this point. First, since Hartmann would not state whether waterboarding was torture (and thus illegal), what happens if we come to our collective senses and recognize that the practice is torture?

Second, and maybe more important in my reckoning, is the question of "probative." What does it mean, exactly? I know what the dictionary says, and I know what probative usually means in a legal context, give or take some finessing in one way or another.

I think it critically important to clarify what is meant by "probative" now, concurrent with attempts to make it clear that because we regard waterboarding as torture when done to Americans, we need to regard it as torture when done by Americans, as I've already stated. (And the source on that again, just in case.)

To his great credit, Senator Lindsey Graham understands this: Hartmann also declined to say that waterboarding would be illegal if used by another country on U.S. forces, drawing expressions of concern from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). Graham has advocated that techniques used by all U.S. agencies conform to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading tactics.

I don't know that I've ever had occasion to say this before, but good for Graham -- he's absolutely correct.

This is why we need to clarify both "probative" and "torture," and simultaneously. There are numerous examples of cases being thrown out of court or convictions overturned because the police applied "back-room" interrogation techniques that produced fraudulent confessions. What on earth makes anyone think that torture is more reliable? We recognize that torutre-obtained information is unreliable; about this there is neither doubt nor debate. However, when we're talking about waterboarding, the moral relativists on the right seem to believe that because waterboarding is not currently defined as torture -- and is equivalent to going for a swim -- then it must perforce be reliable.

I am terribly sorry to point out the lunacy of this, but there it is. Waterboarding isn't torture folks, not anymore, not since we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding our GIs. Now, it's like a dip in the pool.

Almost makes you wonder how they think it's effective at all; for my part, I've never been particularly more inclined to divulge secrets after a few laps.

Maybe I'm not swimming correctly, I don't know.

Grading My Picks: NFL Week 14:

CHI @ WAS -- CHI Damn Redskins screwing me up again -- have I picked any of their games correctly this season yet?!

MIA @ BUF -- BUF I'm starting to believe that Buffalo might be on the right track; now they just need to find that starting QB.

DAL @ DET -- DAL Made me sweat this one before pulling it out.

CAR @ JAC -- JAC Needless to say, Carolina has a lot of decisions to make in the offseason. Jacksonville, for what it's worth, if they can get past their mental hurdle with the Colts, could be a conference power for a few seasons.

OAK @ GB -- I'm taking the upset: OAK LOL. Remember last week when I said that the only disappointment with the Raiders/Broncos game was that the Raiders didn't hang 50 on Denver when they could have? A Green Bay fan could be upset about that this week. Total domination on all three sides of the ball, and not only were the Raiders dominated, they also caught bad breaks along the way.

STL @ CIN -- STL Once again, I need to check the injury report -- StL's QB situation in that sort of flux would make a difference in a pick on the road.

SD @ TEN -- TEN Tennessee should have taken this one, and should be genuinely upset with themselves that they didn't.

TB @ HOU -- TB The Texans aren't quitting, and that's good news for Kubiak, particularly heading into the "family reunion game" against Denver.

NY @ PHI -- PHI Once again: I hate the NFC East.

ARI @ SEA -- SEA Seattle rang up 42 without any appreciable contribution from Alexander. Nice.

MIN @ SF -- MIN And all without AP, for the most part. This is very premature, since it was only San Francisco, but could Minnesota be working their way to a fifth Super Bowl defeat?

CLE @ NYJ -- CLE Cleveland is the only team with a winning record that has lost to Oakland this season.

KC @ DEN -- DEN Watching Jay Cutler this week, I have to wonder where this guy was last week in Oakland -- not that I'm terribly upset at the way it worked out, mind.

PIT @ NE -- Screw it: PIT For a half, it looked like I might have been right. Then the Pats showed up.

IND @ BAL -- IND Is the Billick Era finally going to end?

NO @ ATL -- NO I almost pity the Falcons, until I remember that I don't care about them one way or another. The Raiders have the NFC South on the schedule next season, though, so I suppose I hope that the turmoil persists or worsens until then.

For the week: 9-7. A bit too consistent, given the paltry number.

For the season: 126-82.

Huh -- A Political Candidate Calculator that Represents Perceived Reality:

At least in my case.

Of the field of announced candidates, Dennis Kucinich is far and away my favorite choice.

This candidate calculator agrees, to the tune of 94.3%.

Check that one out, rank the issues, and see who comes up.

Ron Paul on HR 1955:

Ron Paul recently commented on HR 1955, the "Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act." This is a terrible piece of legislation that has the potential to carry USA PATRIOT even further. Paul, rightly and correctly, opposes the measure. I'm far from a Paulite, but the man certainly makes a lot of sense on many issues, particularly when he's defending general individual freedom as a protection against government power.

Paul's reponse is sufficiently brief and sufficiently lucid that I've copied it entirely. Check the bolded portions:

Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” -- a claim for which there is no evidence -- there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem.

Couldn't have said it better, and unfortunately for the rest of us, no one else (except Kucinich) is saying it even as well.

Bush vs. Iran: Thanks A Bunch, Gerry.

Surprise! Bush lied about Iran. So what? Another untrustworthy politician (who still somehow rates too favorably in that category) went out and continued to threaten war, knowing that intelligence reports were coming to him telling him that Iran suspended its weapons program in 2003, all the while trying like hell to make the American public believe that Iran was mere minutes or hours away from destroying Israel. And just a real nice touch, Cheney, threatening "serious consequences" in the event of Iranian "non-compliance." (I have to interject an aside here: these chuckleheads are coming dangerously close to imposing the rhetorical universal negative on Iran the same way they did Iraq. "No weapons [program]? Yeah? PROVE IT!" A universal negative cannot be proven; if the discussion ever firmly reaches that point, invasion plans are being drawn up -- count on it, and start counting down.)

...

Consternation -- particularly at the general lack of consternation. Even admissions that they were lying provoke . . . at best a muted response, except for (some of) those campaigning for the presidency. "But that's just politics."

Sadly, that's how it looks right now.

Not to kick a guy while he's dead, but I blame Ford.* I blame Ford for pardoning Nixon, and setting a precedent that the president is above the law. I don't believe that was Ford's intent any more than I believe that he accepted a deal to pardon Nixon in return for appointment to the Vice Presidency; that seems to me to confuse contingency with conspiracy, and, reading through the available record, I think that Ford was simply to obtuse to understand what his advisors were telling him: that he was making a mistake (that he may have been wilfully obtuse is also a possibility, and I'm mostly there).

Could we have kept a tighter rein on Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush had Ford allowed -- rightly and correctly -- Nixon to be prosecuted, convicted, and tossed into prison for at least a token term before being pardoned? Come on, Gerry, we should have gotten at least a token display of justice, rather than an outright subversion of such.

Now, we have one war started under false pretenses and using falsified intelligence, and another that seems to be inexorably approaching.

Damn Ford.

*Naturally, this doesn't absolve Bush, Cheney, everyone in the administration, the Democrats, and the population of the country in general for their complicity in this nonsense, in both the narrow and the broad senses and contexts. I blame Ford for his action and the precedent; the individuals that followed certainly also are personally responsible for their own crimes, be they of commission or of omission.

Another Reason I Wouldn't Vote for Fred Thompson:

A couple of days ago, when the NIE report on Iran was released, I recorded my skepticism that this was entirely good news, noting that I could easily imagine

a future news conference held where the fact that the 2007 report admitted prior mistakes is used to cast doubt on the 2007 report itself . . . "we were right to acknowledge that we could be wrong, because we were, we just weren't wrong about what we said we were wrong about, but rather we were wrong about being wrong about that." This lunacy -- entirely plausible, unfortunately -- is another thing that tosses cold water on this report for me.

Looks like Fred Thompson has already gone there:

"I hope that they are accurate with this assessment, but right now, I don't have the confidence in our own intelligence capabilities to make that assessment," the former Tennessee senator said after speaking to dozens of supporters at a gun shop in this early voting state. "One thing that crosses my mind is that this is information that the Iranians have put out, that they want us to kind of relax a little bit."

Yes. The Iranians put out our NIE. Good call, Fred.

Pick Up a Wallet, Become a Criminal:

Here's an interesting story out of New York. Apparently, transit authorities and NYPD are trying to combat petit theft on the subway by leaving dummy wallets and bags around, within sight of uniformed officers. If someone picks up the wallet/bag and doesn't return it to the officer, then the officer can make the call as to whether the person intended to return it, or to steal it.

To spice things up a bit, they've gone so far as to include live dummy AmEx cards in the wallets, so they can go for grand larceny -- a felony, and a permanent black mark.

The point of all of this?

Last year, the NYPD's Transit Bureau arrested 101 individuals with prior arrest histories through the decoy program.

Rather than trying to find people, they're drag-netting and hoping to get lucky. No word in the article on how many were arrested based on what the officer assumed their intent was.

Always be suspicious when the state starts looking for new ways to turn people into criminals. New ways to bump up the crime stats + new ways to pad arrest s