Randy Moss was Right to Quit on the Raiders:

So argues Jemele Hill in a god-awful piece on ESPN's Page 2 yesterday.

Hill's argument is essentially as follows:

A. Everyone knows that Randy Moss quit on the Raiders, but that's because
B. The Raiders suck. Therefore,
C. Randy was right to quit on the Raiders, because
D. The Raiders suck.

The article is a mess of absurdities and confused arguments that are expressed incredibly poorly -- and that's giving Hill a huge benefit of doubt.

Let's begin with the obvious: the contention that the Raiders suck and are disorganized and apparently directionless as a franchise. Hey, I'd love to be able to say she's wrong about this, but come on, of course she's correct here. The relevant question is not whether the Raiders suck -- because they do -- but whether that in any way provides justification for Moss' behavior.

It doesn't, and Hill cuts her own rhetorical throat by bringing in Barry Sanders, who felt about the Lions the way Moss felt about the Raiders. The critical difference, though, is that "Sanders never shorted his effort on the field." Full stop. Nice going, Jemele -- you're trying to justify Randy quitting by virtue of the fact that Barry . . . didn't quit. Good thinking.

Let's keep thinking backwards on Moss's career, shall we? Did he suddenly become a lazy, uninspired child of a man in Oakland? Not by a long shot. This is the same Randy Moss that was a lazy, uninspired child of a man in Minnesota, a team that won a hell of a lot more games while he was there than did the Raiders during their Moss Era. We can't rationalize this as just Moss quitting on a bad team, since he was already a quitter on a much better team before that.

Second, what exactly is meant by the assertion that "the Raiders quit on Randy"? This is the worst in superstar love-fest excess. The Raiders organizationally have no obligation to Randy to field a good product. They may have an obligation to themselves, and to all of their players, collectively, to field a good product, but they are not bound to construct a team to suit Moss's whims. There is a difference between trying to build around your star player to win and being beholden to them, a distinction that Hill either doesn't see or, more likely, ignores. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Raiders were no more obliged to build around a proven quitter than any other franchise would have been. To the extent that the Raiders "quit on" anyone, they quit on themselves and their fans. Period. They didn't quit on Randy Moss any more than they quit on Barry Sims or Stuart Schweigert.

"Ah, but you see, those two aren't elite players, like Randy is. He's better than they are."

Unquestionably. No one would seriously argue otherwise. Here's the rub, however: while Randy Moss improves teams, or does when he wants to play, he doesn't carry teams. He didn't carry the Vikings, he didn't carry the Raiders, and he didn't carry the Patriots. In this sense, the Kobe Bryant comparison is much more valid than the thoughtless and insulting Barry Sanders comparison; Kobe Bryant, after all, has yet to demonstrate that he can carry a team without elite talent around him, just as Randy Moss has failed to do. That both of them are world-class spoiled brats is a comparatively minor (but still relevant) point of comparison (and for the record, I say that as a lifelong, die-hard Lakers fan).

Third, Hill obviously has trouble differentiating between "wanting to leave" and "quitting." Of course Randy had a right to want to leave Oakland, the same way any employee has a right to see other employment when their bosses and companies are run as poorly as the Raiders are right now. Does any ol' 9-5er have the right to tell their bosses to stick it, to tell their coworkers "the hell with you, I'm not pulling my weight"? Not really, no; most people in that situation would be replaced, and rightfully so. Not Moss, though -- he's a star athlete, they're different from the rest of us. Sure, which perfectly explains the inane idea that he can be discussed as just another 9-5er.

What Hill overlooks is that Moss quitting on his organization has more of an effect than, say, Jemele Hill quitting on hers. If Hill were to go on a "Randy Strike," to write articles when she felt like it, to write sub-par articles (such as this one, frankly) when she felt like it,* ESPN would survive quite well. Sure, some of the weight may devolve on her coworkers, and they may lose respect for her around the office, but the work would still get done.

When your most talented player turns his back, though, the work doesn't get done, regardless of how poorly structured the organization and team are.

No one should question Randy's right to leave Oakland, should he find a way to do so. No one can legitimately blame him for wanting to do so, either. What people can, and should question is whether his behavior while in a bad situation was justifiable. It wasn't, and the comparison to Barry Sanders makes that point, rather than the intended.

Lastly, Hill makes a bold but ludicrous assertion:

Randy Moss has the right to win.

He doesn't just have the right to play, he doesn't just have the right to expect to win and to work as hard as he needs to help that happen, he has a right to win. Why? Because he's so talented, of course; he's so talented, he should be on the best team, surrounded by the finest collection of talent in the league. He deserves no less, as gosh-darn talented as he is.

What a brave new world that would be, when the undeniably talented have a right to ultimate success, just because "gosh, they're really talented."

* I would be remiss in not acknowledging the possibility that Hill meant this article to be deliberately ironic for just this reason. It is possible -- but pretty unlikely.

Isn't Popular Political Discourse in America Wonderful?

In response to a "own petition making President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest for crimes against the Constitution" has triggered an overwhelmingly negative response. Ok, perhaps that is to be expected, but this is one of the responses:

"Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont."

Read it again.

"Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont."

Awesome. Not only that, but this same emailer suggested that maybe members of the town council should be kidnapped, beheaded and have their executions videotaped and broadcast on the internet, presumably as a warning to other 'traitorous liberals.' After all, as a different respondent clarified:

"Be American, not a sniffeling liberal town that sleeps under the shield of safety provided to you by your President."

That's right -- liberals aren't Americans. Not real Americans, at any rate.

Disgusting.

Giuliani and Edwards are Out:

YAY -- Benito is out! One less jackboot to worry about this time around.

However, my man Edwards -- the only of the "majors" that I could actually vote for gladly -- is also dropping out. Shame. I wanted to see him keep going, maybe get a few surprise delegates here and there, make the final run that much more interesting. The linked writeup is actually pretty good, too, with an interesting assessment of Edwards' impact on the race.

However, back to Benito in Bizarroworld:

"I'm proud that we chose to stay positive and to run a campaign of ideas in an era of personal attacks, negative ads and cynical spin," Giuliani said as supporters with tight smiles crowded behind him.

No word on whether this was delivered with a straight face. The only thing that wasn't negative from Benito was "9/11;" whether that counts as an "idea," I don't know, but I suspect not.

Is Al Davis Wrong to Force Lane Kiffin Out as Oakland Raiders Coach? A Third Raider Fan Joins the Debate

Over at Thoughts from the Dark Side, Patrick and GG Eden, writing over from raiderfans.net have gone a full round on the Yay/Nay question that is on the minds on the entirety of Raider Nation (and I think I can say that truthfully, without being hyperbolic):

Should he stay or should he go?

Now it’s my turn to weigh in, over these two posts, although my position was halfway summed up in a comment left by Silver_N_Black in the comments to that discussion:

“I belive the truth lies somewhere between your two opposing viewpoints and ultimately both are at fault.”

There it is, in half a nutshell.

Here’s the other half:

We’ll never know who is in the right here, and it all hinges on the Arkansas situation.

That’s the elephant in the room that some people are talking about, but not enough; this isn’t necessarily to fault anyone, because the Raiders never let enough information out to permit genuinely informed opinions, so to some extent, we’re all going on our own biases and what we can get from the mainstream sports media (MSSM – a derogatory term that is perhaps overdue in the lexicon – or that I simply haven’t seen to date!).

I’ll organize my comments around the Pro (Patrick) and Con (GG) of keeping Kiffin and then sum up my own thoughts.

Pro – Keep Kiffin Around, Back Down Al!

In the main, I’m sympathetic to this argument, for the reasons I outlined in my own post on the question of whether Kiffin should be fired. To recap: firing Kiffin sends a bad signal to players at a bad time. The Raiders are still talent-poor, too talent-poor to make any legitimate progress toward lasting improvement. This team underachieved the last few seasons, but, honestly, not by a whole lot – they were never worth more than 6 wins in any given season with the constellation of players they have relative to the rest of the league. That is changing now, and the last couple of drafts are a big reason for that, but the Raiders are at a crossroads, where they can either make that leap forward and really get something going for themselves, or they can fritter away the talent they have that is poised to leave (Asomugha) and continue to piss away the years and drive off the talent they DO have in the fold one by one (Morrison, Howard, Miller – none of these are under non-voidable lifetime contracts that I am aware of).

In that sense, the sense of keeping the stable of players together for long enough to make a team of them, you have to have coaching stability. This argues for Al sucking it up and keeping Kiffin and making some sort of behind-closed-doors public obeisance to his coach. Is that asking too much? Maybe. Need a press conference be held to announce his faith in his coach? Absolutely not, and that would maybe be more distracting than anything else. Instead, Al can quietly signal the players that he’s behind his coach (enough, at any rate) by doing the opposite of the myriad things that he does to quietly undermine his coach; all that needs be rebuilt is the locker-room faith in the coaching structure – the MSSM doesn’t need a piece of it, and, frankly, neither do we. The players need to know that the ship is righted, and that’s the extent of it.

Patrick is right about some other things, too, in my estimation. To tie back to the previous point, Al can stop trying to interfere with the lineup on the field. That seems to me basic, and unquestionable: the owner may or may not be the ultimate decision-maker with the talent that is hired for the team; that’s essentially a philosophical discussion that will break down along known lines, and isn’t relevant here. Interfering with the product on the field is another matter entirely, and truth be told, Al’s on-field contributions have been purely detrimental for twenty years now. Marcus Allen – sitting, when he was still highly productive. James Jett, playing, constantly, for reasons no one was quite sure of. Tim Brown, losing four years to Davis’ inane and inexplicable dislike of him, while Willie Gault played ahead of him.

People like to talk about Gruden being the last Raider coaching success story, and they’re entirely correct. I’d even go so far as to say that Gruden is the only genuinely great coach the Raiders have had since Flores; Shell’s first go-round was too marked by underperforming teams to have been considered a great coaching job. Remember how Gruden started? Pissing off his boss in training camp by jettisoning some of “Al’s Guys” who were holding the rest of the team back. Remember Joe Aska? That’s one example. Gruden was in hot water, Davis overreacted, and took away some of Jon’s personnel power. I’m as much a SeaBass fan as anyone in the Nation – for whatever that’s worth – but taking him over Alexander was the height of stupidity. The rift that ultimately ended that relationship – and cost the Raiders Bruce Allen, to boot – opened nice and wide right there, Draft Day 2000. And let’s put that back into context. The Raiders had a nice running game in 2000 – to the tune of 2,500 yards. I don’t want to take anything away from Kaufman and Wheatley, but does anyone out there seriously think that Alexander wouldn’t have done at least as well his rookie season? Could the Raiders with Alexander have survived the Ravens? Could the Raiders with Alexander gotten that first down in New England when 14-blast didn’t work out – would they have made that play towork with Alexander? When they finally got to the Super Bowl, and it became only too apparent that they had to run the ball, could they have been more competitive with Shaun Alexander versus Charlie Garner? For me, the answer is yes to all of the above, so the objection that “Al should have personnel control because he’s the owner” has philosophical merit – until one reflects on the petty crap that Al pulls when he wants to make a point to his coaches. It’d be funny were it simply absurd; since Al’s power plays inevitably weaken his team, it’s more tragicomic than anything else.

Is Al Davis Wrong to Force Lane Kiffin Out as Oakland Raiders Coach? A Third Raider Fan Joins the Debate, Part II:

Con—Don’t Let the Screen Door Hit Ya Where the Good Lord Split Ya!

That said, however, the GG’s Con argument has a lot to recommend it, too. I have to start this bit by criticizing the form the argument takes, though, because in a way it detracts from the legitimate points being made.

The following paragraph is emblematic of GG’s argument:

“Even before the Kiffin fiasco began, one must appreciate that Al Davis is a popular target for criticism and blame. There are no doubt times in the past where Al Davis erred, or deserves criticism, blame. But if we’re to analyze the Kiffin fiasco properly, we cannot have a default attitude based on Al Davis’ past. Why? Because that is prejudice, bias. One must look at every case individually. The perception too is that Lane Kiffin is a young man with no precedence of being conniving, a fresh-faced innocent. But the reality is that Lane Kiffin is a baby-faced assassin. He is not stupid or lacking wiles. So he must be adjudged accordingly.”

There are two major argumentative problems here. One, GG gives the distinct impression that Al should be considered in this situation only -- after all, “one must look at every case individually” –- but Kiffin should be looked at in this scenario as having a history of being a conniving little trickster. That doesn’t fly; either the immediate context alone is important (a stance that I explicitly reject, always, but, again, that’s a philosophical question at root), or the line of events that led to the immediate context is important. This is what GG wants, but only halfway: his argument is predicated on this situation being a Kiffin-caused sequence of events – i.e., it’s not just the individual situation, but the individual situation as part of a reflected pattern of behavior -- Kiffin’s behavior, that is; Al’s response should be evaluated solely in this light. Sorry, but that doesn’t work. I’m with you for the first half, GG, but Al needs to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny, period, regardless of how savaged he is in the MSSM, or how deservedly (another debate for another time).

Having said that, I think that GG’s argument also suffers from contradictions brought about by false analogies and attempts to reconcile false analogies to the “reality” of the situation. For example:

“Another misconception is that the Oakland Raiders is [sic] run very differently from other NFL franchises. The only essential uniqueness is that Al Davis is the last of the great hands-on owners like George Halas and Paul Brown.”

GG, I get your point – the Raiders are essentially just like everyone else, so the fact that they’re always singled out is a bunch of bollocks – and I share the sentiment, as I’ll mention in a bit. However, I find it telling that the comparisons drawn are George Halas and Paul Brown. If one has to go back that far (one doesn’t, really, but that’s not the point) to make the comparison and defend Davis’ non-uniqueness, the point can’t be valid. Davis is unique, and for the reason stated – he “is the last of the great hands-on owners.” Davis’ style of ownership makes the Raiders different from other NFL franchises, simple as that.

I also object – in the strongest possible terms – to the idea that men like Davis “are not mere mortals like other men in their same fields, and therefore cannot be expected to be like them.” The second half is ok, for the most part – the truly great are different from those who are their peers by virtue only of profession, rather than success. Fine. They remain, however, mortal – not in the literal sense, though obviously that, but in the figurative sense. Al Davis is a mortal the same way Steve Young was mortal: he may not feel ready to quit, but he has to. He may still feel like he can contribute and compete at the top of his game, at the top of his profession, and for a while, for a disproportionately long while, in fact, he could.

But everyone on the top must come back down, either because they recognize that they’re going to get knocked off, because they do get knocked off, or because the terrain changes underneath them, and the peak that they sat on is no longer the paramount. Part of the problem with the Raiders is that not only does Al see himself as immortal – i.e., not bounded by any reasonable limits on his abilities and acumen – but he hasn’t seen even that the terrain has changed around him. Too many people conflate these two, treating them as one and the same, but I think that they have to be understood as two different problems. Perhaps Al could scale the new paramount, were he capable of adjusting his field of vision and looking around at the new world around him; until he goes even that far, we’ll never know.

But here’s where I start agreeing with GG: Kiffin is probably the originator of this problem. GG’s points are well taken, that only legendary coaches with established track records get the kind of pull Kiffin reportedly wants. Fair enough. My argreement ends where the “poor Al” pity party begins, though – Jerry Jones was a poor choice of comparison, given a) Jones’ track record of rebuilding a dominant team from scratch – which he may be doing twice now, and b) the fact that Dallas is a playoff team now, and maybe only a few players away from being a Super Bowl team, while the Raiders remain a total overhaul away from 9-7 (and remember when that was considered a crappy season? Man, good times.). Besides, as much as Jerry Jones hates his coaches, he never runs and guns them the way Al does – when was the last time Dallas went through four coaches in five years? It’s not that Al does it from time to time, it’s that he does it all the time -- to everyone, regardless of the cost to his franchise. In other words, Al puts Al above the Raiders, while I don’t think that the same could be fairly said of Jones and the Cowboys.

I also want to register one more disagreement with GG before I get to where he and I see the situation the same way: Kiffin didn’t display an obstinate inability to learn, as the second triad of division games shows – a close loss to KC became a close win at KC; a could’ve-should’ve game at Denver became a butt-whipping in Oakland the second time around (and the timeout trick was well-learned, for that matter), and the second SD game was much, much more competitive than the first – clearly, Kiffin and his team learned as the season went along.

However, what of Arkansas?

“At some point mid-season, Lane Kiffin is rumored and reported to be slyly seeking Head Coaching jobs in the NCAA while still under contract with the Raiders. Mid-season!”

Mid-season: before Bobby Petrino. Funny how that comes back into the discussion.

I confess, I have no idea what the Arkansas story actually is, but if Kiffin indulged even a little, even a little, then HE is the cause of this problem. Not Davis, not the Bush v. Jordan spat, not the Ryan decision: Lane Kiffin flirting with the idea of ditching the team mid-season. Even if it was just a moment, if it wasn’t only in Kiffin’s mind, if he did anything active, even to respond non-committally to approaches, he’s fully in the wrong. Fully.

Why fully? Because as horrible as Al Davis has to be to work for, Kiffin betrayed him. More than that, if there is any traction to the rumor, Kiffin betrayed his players, too. Al has a right to demand that his head coach is 100% committed to his franchise. Yes, Al makes this more difficult by treating his HCs like dogshit most of the time, but he still, even for all of that, has a right to expect that they are 100% committed to his franchise and the players. By even flirting with the idea of heading off to Arkansas – midseason, or just after (and let’s give Lane the benefit of the doubt and assume he’d have taken off after the last game, ala Saban), Kiffin runs the risk of losing the locker room as the players start to see that he’s not “In,” as he demands that they be.

The bottom line for me in where I ultimately would side in this is what is the truth with the Arkansas situation. If Kiffin was serious, he’s a prick better moved on from, regardless of the previous chain of events and coaches. Get rid of him, period, whatever the cost. If he flirted, or if he thought that he could use the Arkansas gig as leverage, then he’s sufficiently guilty of stupidity that he should be tossed out on his ass. Here’s where I come back to GG’s point about Al getting picked on: if there is any truth to the Arkansas rumor, and if it were ANY other owner in the league, the coverage in the MSSM would be lot more balanced, and it might even portray the coach as the bad guy. Not Al, though – even if Lane actually IS the jerk in this scenario, it’ll never, ever be reflected in the MSSM’s coverage. If the Arkansas thing is all smoke and mirrors, then the two Big Egos in the situation – Davis and Kiffin – need to have a meeting of the minds and clarify what’s going on. If this is all a result of the Ryan fiasco, then fish or cut bait, Al – stop jerking your HC around for no good reason.

Until the actual cause of the dispute is actually known, clearly know, this is all opinion anyway. The problem is that I keep looking at it from the perspective of the players, as best I can – as an employee. I’ve worked in companies with management turnover like the Raiders have, and you know what? It sucks. Middle management being hired and fired, upper management hiring and firing, a vague commitment to “growth” and “results,” but no real follow-through. An owner whose very presence was cause for general dread, because no one knew what was going to happen. Sound at all familiar? I can’t see any reason for a player to want to be in that sort of situation, when there are 31 more stable franchises they can seek employment from. And that, bottom line, is the real problem here.

Target: Free Speech on Campuses -- And Why Orwell is the Wrong Metaphor:

This short article provides a brief encapsulation of the "war on freedom" being waged by the growing Department of Homeland Security. The seven steps toward Lockdown U:

1. Target Dissidents. Nothing new about this -- look back only at RICO being used to harass anti-Vietnam protesters, or Hoover obsessing over King as easy examples.

2. Lock and Load. Add Shirley Katz to Seung-Hui Cho, and that pretexts the accelerating arming of campus security forces.

3. Keep an eye (or hundreds of them) focused on campus. Who minds a little CCTV in "public" areas, anyway?

4. Mine student records. To identify "persons of interest," of course.

5. Track foreign-born students; keep the undocumented out. And the bogeyman -- the "undocumented migrant" -- rears its ugly head once more.

6. Take over the curriculum, the classroom and the laboratory. Entirely self-explanatory -- but contains a kicker: DHS has founded and funded six of its very own "Centers of Excellence," research facilities that span dozens of universities from coast to coast. The latest is a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, the funding for which cleared the House in October. The center is mandated to assist a national commission in combating those "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system...to advance political, religious or social change." See also: point one. In today's political climate, Martin Luther King, Jr., would be considered a terrorist.

7. Privatize, privatize, privatize. And here you thought unfettered, unregulated markets were a good thing in the hands of corporations and entities so large that they simply cannot be held accountable. Tsk, tsk.

Remember when Bush said that Mandela had been killed by Hussein, thus announcing the "death" of the peacemaker per se?

The peacemaker has died (again) because those with the power have begun to succeed in construing and presenting every challenge to their hegemony as a threat -- to us, ostensibly -- and we've begun to accept that reasoning. The peacemaker is dead because we've begun, slowly, but surely to accept what is good for those in power as good for us. The peacemaker is dead because we're giving in to unreason and neglecting our own self-interest by neglecting the interest of those around us, all for the promise of the gold ring that those with the power will do everything they can to prevent from being handed down, or divvied any more than is necessary.

This is why the idea that this is somehow "Orwellian" is starting to grate on me. Sure, 1984 is the easy metaphor, I get that, but let me try a different analogy: the Gammas have cast their lot with the Alphas. I read through the Big Four Dystopias (1984, Farenheit 451, Brave New World, and The Handmaid's Tale), and there's one thing that Orwell's nightmare lacks, particularly when stacked beside the others:

A sense that those being oppressed share the culpability.

As soon as I figure out what the match for the hair is, I'll make the case that Samson actually works pretty well as a metaphor. Pulling the temple down on our own heads? You betcha. See also: Free Speech Zones.

A Transplant Changes A Girl's Blood Type:

An Australian girl who underwent a liver transplant has switched blood types. Crazy.

But this brings me to a (mostly idle) speculation:

What is the biological link to your self? To put it in slightly less esoteric terms, what fundamental element of your biological identity would you have to switch in order to not be you anymore? Sex is an obvious one, but that would certainly be contestable, but what about something 'innocuous' like blood type? I hear elsewhere that she switched from O- to O+, which is a happy incident for her later potential reproductive life, since a + Rh father with a - Rh mother can cause serious problems if it's not watched.

The potential uses of this seem to be huge -- but that question keeps rattling around in my brain: how much fundamental biological change can you undergo and remain you?

Lane Kiffin to be Fired?

And the lunacy that is the world of the Oakland Raiders continues unabated.

Reports all over the place, including at ESPN from Chris Mortensen and John Clayton, two guys who are well past the point where they have to "scoop" and generally know what they're talking about when it comes to personnel matters (though Clayton was convinced that it was going to be Steve Sarkisian last season, not Lane Kiffin).

This is beyond insane -- these are the actions of a man who wants to lose games. Yes, I know the Raiders were 4-12 last season, but when were they uncompetitive? At Green Bay and at Jacksonville. Well, ok, they got their butts whipped there, but they had a shot in the other ten, they had fourth-quarter leads in what, seven of them? That's bad, granted -- a good team wins games like that -- but had they started to learn how to do just that, to win those kinds of games? They closed out at KC and against Denver, their second two-game streak, before getting rolled by their December schedule (@ GB, IND [had a lead there, too, but couldn't hold it], @ JAC, SD). They lost four straight games in December -- two badly -- but all four to playoff teams, and they were competitive in the two home games.

How much better than the 2006 Raiders were the 2007 variety? Enough that people were starting to talk seriously about them being a player in the free-agent market again for the first time in a while, and not just because the franchise finally has money to burn, either -- there was an air of optimism that hasn't been seen at the end of a season in quite a while. It was almost to the point that Raider Nation could legitimately dare dream that big-ticket free agents would want to go to Oakland.

Then the drama with Ryan (who should have been fired and replaced, but that's beside the point). Then Sapp retired with just "I'm done!" This may have just been retirement, but it seemed like it could have been more; no way to ever know, I suppose.

And now, this.

How can this possibly be seen as a good idea by Darth Davis? The Raiders are talent-poor with a legitimate shot to become talent-rich within two years, with good drafting and good actions during free agency. Now? Kiss that plan out the window. March 1 will mean jack for Oakland fans this season, and the draft, if Al's threat is legitimate, is going to be another miserable flop (start getting ready for three DBs and a few other "really, really fast guys" -- athletes, not players).

Here's what the potential fallout could be:

• Free Agency = Squat.
  The Raiders may still have a shot at Albert Haynesworth, a paycheck player for his entire career, save for last season -- but let's be honest, he was a paycheck player until last season because he wanted to be a paycheck player from this season forward. If Tennessee doesn't keep him, Al will probably snap him up, and will overpay for Chester McGlockton redux. Not a good scenario.


• The Trading Block.
  The Raiders could still land Shaun Rogers in a trade -- the upshot is he's another talented guy who could be a monster force when he wants to be. The downside is he's phenomenally unmotivated most of the time, and thus is an underperforming body on the field. Chester McGlockton again? Great. Wonderful to be staring that in the face again.


• Free Agency Down the Road.

We can kiss Porter goodbye, and good riddance. No problems there, and no major loss; I halfway expect him to move down to SD, to be honest.

That's not the problem I foresee. What about Nnamdi Asomugha? He could void his contract and stick it out one more year, once he's franchised, and then say "Hasta" next offseason. That'd be a major loss, since the only good areas on the Raiders' right now are CB and LB (with an honorable mention to DE, which has performed somewhat well). Losing Asomugha would do what accused Shell of doing last season, setting the franchise back a decade. Not so much Nnamdi specifically, but what losing him would mean, given how it could happen -- more instability in the organization. Why wouldn't an elite player say "the hell with it" by now? All he's known in Oakland is instability, disorganization, and a franchise with absolutely no clue how to compete (except, you know, on the field in 2007 -- oh, wait).

Looking down the road a bit, what happens if the franchise continues to stumble and bumble around like a blind squirrel looking for a nut (and, unfortunately, proving the cliche wrong time and again) when Morrison's contract is up? Howard? Russell? Miller? That is the problem here -- not just losing Nnamdi, but losing Kirk (possibly also to Norv and SD?), and Thomas, and Jamarcus, and Zach -- all of the young talent that is being counted on to rebuild the franchise and put a great team on the field, and the talent that is sufficient to make that leap given good CONSISTENT coaching over that critical 2-3 year period, should up and leave if the organization continues to act in such a clueless, obstinately stupid fashion.

Of course, Patrick over at Thoughts from the Dark Side (a really excellent Raiders blog, fyi -- good reading over there constantly), has a story about a Raiders' exec going out and denying the rumors of Kiffin's imminent departure. I like the idea, though I have to say, I'm a hell of a lot less optimistic than Patrick is, and for the very reason he pointed out in a different entry:

"Davis has always said that he would rather be feared than respected. Right now, he is neither. In fact, Al, they are laughing AT you. The rest of the league has reached the point where they think the Raiders are a joke, and as a citizen of the Raider Nation that makes me sick.

According to ESPN.com, the early speculation for Kiffin’s replacement is Dennis Green. So Al, if you want to crown him, crown him. But if Kiffin pulls a Shanahan and makes a career of being a Raider Killer then he is who we thought he was."

Quite so. Even if this turns out not to be the case, and senior executive John Herrera is correct that this is a non-story, the damage has been done. The Raiders have made themselves look like idiots again, and, as it always does, it's going to cost them. Dearly.

Top Ten Astronomy Pictures of 2007:

Got this link sent to me yesterday -- the Top Ten Astronomy Pictures of 2007, courtesy of the Bad Astronomy blog.

Beautiful pictures, with nice captions to clarify what you're looking at.

My favorite of the lot:



This goes with the below post -- is it just me, or does this photo look like it could have been the basis for the god-machine in the episode "Godfellas"?

Gorgeous.

Futurama: Bender's Big Score:

I am a raging Futurama fan, and it's probably the only tv show that I can watch repeatedly and still find hilarious. Needless to say, I was thrilled when I found out about the four dvd movies in the works.

The first, Bender's Big Score, is a pretty good return for the show -- it's not as good as the best episodes, but it works quite well enough. All well and good, and known to anyone who's seen it.

Make sure to watch the extras. The math lecture is fascinating, and it's more than worth the price of admission to hear Al Gore refer to himself as a "voice-over comedian." Big lulz, bordering on epic for that line alone.

Highbrow Political Commentary:

JRD: You know what, why not just have Hillary and Barack battle it out on American Gladiators?

JRD: Nevermind - I just realized that'd mean we'd have to see Hillary in spandex.

Me: small price to pay for watching her get pugel-sticked off the platform

JRD: True.

Mitt Let the Dogs Out:

... lol?

Classic Advertisements: Very Much Non-PC:

Saw this floating around earlier, and if I could remember where I clicked from, I'd give some credit.

The below is a decently representative sample. What can be said but "Wow."

Enjoy!

EDIT: Found where I found them.

"Truth was first US casualty in Iraq war: study"

Gee, no kidding. It's not as if this is big news -- or shouldn't be, since Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) produced a report cataloguing administration lies in the runup to the Iraq War. Now a new study, jointly funded by The Center for Public Integrity and The Fund for Independence in Journalism, went back and examined public statements made by top administration officials in the lead up to the Iraq War, looking for times when they, shall we say, played fast and loose with the facts.

The tally? 935 lies. I'm honestly not sure whether I'm surprised that the number is so high, or that it feels so low.

Now for one of the kickers: George Soros is a major bankroller of CFPI. Think that's enough to set the dogs a'barkin? You're right -- it is enough.

This one is interesting, because it raises three major complaints about the story, two easily dismissible, one less easily dismissed:

1. The AP Story Neglected to Mention Soros' Involvement.
   Dismissibility: Easy.
   Let's face it, this complaint is basic sour grapes -- to complain about this is a naked attempt to politicize the issue in your own favor by bitching about the politicization of the issue in a way less favorable to you. In other words, Huston would want to see the study "tarnished" by virtue of its association with Soros (don't believe me? Look at the pic in the linked entry). At the same time, he pisses and moans about the fact that this is "old news" whose apparent purpose is to say once again "Bush lied, people died." Thus, for Huston, it's clearly partisan. Maybe. But the solution to that is to . . . make it partisan, only in the other direction?
   
   Pfft. Next.


2. Lies or Mistakes?
   Dismissibility: Moderate.
   This one is less easy to dismiss. Huston says that it is inaccurate to say that Bush lied when Bush was wrong. After all, everyone else -- including those damn good-for-nothing (except being used as a touchstone for stupidity, it seems) Demmykrats!! -- thought that Bush was right about them there WMDs.
   
   In a way, I'd want to say "ok, point taken, that may be a good call" -- except for the pesky little fact that not everyone bought into the official story. Now, these happen to be two of the books that I read in the runup to the Iraq War, and I came away from them (and others) convinced that the WMD issue was smoke being blown rather uncomfortably up my ass. If I can toddle on down to the local bookstore and get my hands on things like that, and can come to what came to be the correct conclusion based on indirect, secondary information, is it not reasonable to expect more from the people who are supposed to have the good info, the real, inside scoop, the stuff they keep classified, presumably for a reason?
   
   Yes, I think that is entirely reasonable, which is why I ultimately dismiss this objection. Is it an outright lie? Maybe not. But does a an act of deliberate omission count as a lie? If this couldn't be called that fairly, and I could see an argument being made (though not necessarily a good one) that this wasn't necessarily a deliberate omission, then does pursuing a policy based on data gathered in pursuit of affirmation rather than information count as a lie?
   
   I'd say so, yes. So while we have to split some hairs and think about what sorts of lies we're talking about, yes, it's still pretty clear to me that in any reasonable look at the situation, these "mistakes" have to be tallied as "lies."



3. They're Watering Down Their Own Accusations.
   Dismissibility: Easy to Moderate.
   Not as easy to toss out as the first, not as difficult to dispense with as the second. Here's the statement in question, from Huston's original post:
   
   Secondly, it is interesting that this "study" claims that Bush "lied" about links with al-Qaida. Yet even they have to massage that claim of a lie into "meaningful ties to al-Qaida." This means that even they are admitting that there are ties with al-Qaida but that they aren't "meaningful."
   Does that mean the "lie" is not that the ties exist but how "meaningful" they are? Instead of a lie we are squabbling over semantics. In essence, Bush DIDN'T lie about ties to al-Qaida, the is just a debate on how "meaningful" those ties are.
   
   I do love how people who would have nothing to do with Chonsky's politics embrace his linguistics -- after all, we're clearly operating under the assumption that "semantics" are "mere semantics" -- i.e., meaningless. Fair enough -- but only if "Furious green machines sleep restlessly." Semantics don't matter? Bah.
   
   That minor gripe aside, what we're talking about goes well beyond semantics, and concerns the reality of the situation; the semantic distinctions, in other words, are significantly more meaningful than mere syntax (which is probably what Huston meant, rather than semantics).
   
   For example: a couple of weeks back I typed up a short review of Christian Parenti's Lockdown America, which happened to contain a very interesting couple of pages on the 1988 California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. The act stipulates, among other things, that someone who is "gang labeled" gets extra years added to whatever criminal sentence they may receive. Elaborating on "gang labeled":
   
   How does one earn this dubious distinction? In Fresno, as in most of California, law enforcement uses a standardized list of ten criteria to vet alleged "street terrorists." The determinations include admitting to gang membership; associating with gang members; corresponding with gang members; having one's name appear on a gang document, such as a letter; being identified as a gang member by another police agency; having gang-style tattoos; making gang hand signs; writing gang graffiti; and, most pernicious of all, wearing gang clothing, such as red or blue jackets and babby pants. If a person meets three of these criteria, he or she is entered the Cal Gang database as a known gang member. To be deemed an associate, one need meet only two of the standards.
   This self-amplifying epistemology generates "offenders" at an exponential rate. Consider the escalating sequence: association with "known gang members" plus baggy pants and viola they open a gang dossier on you. Write a letter to your incarcerated cousin, an alleged gangbanger, and you are moved up the scale a notch from "associate" to "active gang member." (122)
   
   The rather elaborate point is this: non-meaningful links are non-meaningful. The italicized criteria in the quotation are ones that I would immediately discount as non-meaningful, so to bring it back into the context of the Iraq runup, I have many questions about these "links." To keep it very simple: from whom to whom, and in what capacity? Chemical Ali could have had a fifth cousin, thrice removed, who happened to be a jerkoff "foot soldier" in an organization that claimed to be linked to "this guy" who claimed membership in al Qaeda. Is that a "meaningful link"? Prima facie, no, absolutely not, and while it sounds like a ridiculous scenario, it's no more -- and I suspect far less -- ridiculous than knowingly *ahem* exaggerating *ahem* links and labeling them "meaningful," whether they were or not.
   
   Bottom line, this objection doesn't stand on its own legs, because the distinction between links and meaningful links is the equivalent to the distinction between hearsay and tangible evidence. The former is useless, while the latter is, dare I say, meaningful.

And, just for old time's sake, courtesy of Write Chic Press, a nice video calling attention to some of the more egregious and bald-faced statements. Enjoy?

The Governors Are Getting into the Act:

24 state governors have endorsed presidential candidates by now. Seems like rather a high number, what with Super Tuesday still a bit away, but there we have it -- close to 50% of the heads of states have sided with their chosen. Some of these are obvious -- such as Rod Blagojevich (IL) supporting Obama and Eliot Spitzer (NY) going for Clinton. An interesting surprise is PA governor Ed Rendell going for Clinton right now.

My own governor, Tim Kaine, has pledged (and campaigned via email periodically) for Obama. Whether Kaine or any other Democratic governor could actually help deliver VA's 13 votes into the blue column is more doubtful, so the value of the endorsement has to be taken with something of a grain of salt. Still, it's interesting to se the alignment of the governors with and behind the various candidates.

A Wireless Post:

We borrowed a wireless hookup to test it out, see whether it's worth buying for the two of us, so we can both work at the same time, rather than trying to stagger our research-related net use around the baby's sleep/awake schedule.

Result so far? I'm happy -- in the other room, working, looking up an article on Westlaw and playing around here a little bit. We have to give this particular set back soon enough, but I think it'll be worth picking up one for ourselves.

New England 21, San Diego 12

Eat it, Norv!

Still, that game was terrible. Just an awful, awful game.

Let's Go Pack!

Brian Schweitzer vs. Real ID:

Back a year or a year and a half ago, when discussions came up about '08, and people were talking about potential dark-horse candidates that had a good shot at at least stirring the mix up, I offered four (that I was wrong about all four is beside the point -- at least one of them will be a Senator come January):

- Al Gore (figured he'd formally declare by November-December. Whoops.)
- Mark Warner (who will replace the retiring John Warner, giving VA two Democratic Senators and a 2-2 swap since the '02 midterms, when John was reelected.)
- Janet Napolitano (I still think both she and Kathleen Sibelius have bright futures at the national level)
- Brian Schweitzer (bring some of the western/Rockies states further in)

Seems that Schweitzer has made a decision that justifies my hopes that he's make some noise at the national level. Not only does he oppose Real ID, he's willing to try and rally the state to call DC"s bluff -- maybe more properly, DHS' bluff -- that states not in line with the Real ID program will find their licenses and forms of identification discriminated against for federal purposes.

However, look at the list of states that have not either begun the Real ID process or have filed for an extension to the May 11 deadline:

"Schweitzer's letter went out to the governors of Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington."

Can't fly without a Real ID? Is the DHS really willing to provoke a showdown with Atlanta-Hardsfield, Chicago-O'Hare, with Pittsburgh and Philadelphia International, with the business/tech travelers going into and out of Seattle? I don't doubt it, actually -- DHS will certainly seek, like any good organization, to extend its scope of influence (such as needing Real ID to buy cold medicine -- or, later, any prescription?). That may be a nightmare scenario for only the most paranoid out there, though I suspect that a significant number of other, more 'normal' folk would have a problem with that, too.

The question is whether the businesses would tolerate that sort of nonsense and interruption of travel and commerce. My hunch is not, and since the money is where the power is, the money may force Congress to push DHS to blink on this one.

Either way, kudos to Schweitzer for giving this a whirl. I've contacted his office and asked him to extend his hand to my own governor, Tim Kaine, to try and pull VA into the line of the 'rebel' states on this issue.

Anyone sufficiently motivated can print off Schweitzer's letter (pdf is here and forward it to their own governor. Maybe it'll help.

Conference Championships:

SD @ NE -- NE I'm back to rooting for the Pats, despite the cheating -- or, rather, I'd rather see SD lose and Norv fall flat on his face -- again -- than see the Chargers win.

NYG @ GB -- GB It's been a nice run for the Giants, but it's over now.

Pack/Pats Super Bowl.

Waterboarding, Mike McConnell's Relativity Problem, and Glenn Beck is Still an Asshole:

Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, says that waterboarding would be torture were it done to him . . . but won't call it torture, just to protect the people actually doing it.

Lovely. I thought that this administration was supposed to disdain moral relativism?

Also, colossal asshole idiot Glenn Back is considering being waterboarded himself, to see what the fuss is all about.

On the one hand, I'm all for it (yeah, I know, see my own point about moral relativism -- but shit, this guy actually deserves it! ;) ), but on the other hand, I find the idea oddly chilling. Here's why: Beck will get waterboarded, and come back to his show saying either "that weren't so bad, we need to be even tougher on these jerks!" or "man, that sucked -- but you know what, they deserve it, so it's no big deal." Either way, I'd bet anything he'll append "And I have the moral authority to say that, since I've been waterboarded myself" to any discussion of the idea in perpetuity. In a way, this is a brilliant career move for him -- he gets to have that sort of "moral authority" [sic] and no one can legitimately question that. Right? Well, wrong, of course, for any number of reasons (let's start with the fact that this would be performed under controlled, friendly, clearly time-limited settings, just for one, and that it's a show waterboarding, not one meant to actually inflict pain, distress or extract "reliable" intelligence, for a second -- and the list could easily go on from there).

Only a true asshole would dream this up and try to exploit it. Bravo, Glenn.

Torture All Over the News I:

It seems we can add Thailand to the list of known places that the U.S. has outsourced torture. Seems that these "interrogations" were recorded, to boot, but this is turning into a Keystone Kops-style "whodunnit" -- who gave the order to have the tapes destroyed?

Michigan Republican Representative Pete Hoekstra says that it was a renegade CIA worker, defying instructions from above. That's a convenient way to look at it -- find the fall guy, have a public scourging and destruction of the scapegoat, move on with everything as status quo. *claps dust off hands* Nice work, lads!

Well, maybe not. Jose Rodriguez, Jr., the man who actually ordered the tapes destroyed, says that the CIA ordered the tapes destroyed -- that he was, in fact, acting on Agency orders from above. Convenient, isn't it, that the employee blames the agency, while the agency is trying to blame the employee?

While we're on the subject of tapes: the recycled its backup tapes, effectively destroying email communication records from a portion of 2003. Might they be trying still to cover themselves in the Plame leak?

Look, I get the whole post-Watergate desire to keep as much information as possible out of the spotlight, I really do -- particularly if it is info that pertains to deeds that should land your ass in the clink. That's exactly why some of these chuckleheads need to do time, but to legitimately do time -- none of this fall-guy scapegoat crap, a sentence actually fitting the crime, one that the sitting or future president won't pardon because "we need to move past it" or "they've suffered enough."

Fuck them. How about showing us that the rule of law still applies? Or are we SUPPOSED to think that once you're rich (and white, and male) the law actually does cease to bind?

Torture All Over the News II:

It looks as though Canada has declared Guantanamo a torture location. Duh, really, but it's good to see some allies stepping up and calling it like it is. Maybe continued negative publicity will prompt the correct response to the embarrassment that is U.S. policy on torture (i.e., we don't condone torture, and therefore we don't do it). At least one person, the current Chair of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen feels that we should close down Gitmo because of the black eye that keeps getting blacker. It's not the best of reasons, but hey, if it works, it's at least a half a start.

Mark Costanzo: Just Revenge: The Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty

Costanzo's goal in writing this book was to create a small, concise volume that could accompany the selection of readings for courses in such fields as "Criminology, Criminal Justice, Psychology and Law," etc. In this he has succeeded, and the book remains valuable both for its organizaiton and general lines of argument, though it is by now out of date and desperately in need of a revised, expanded second edition.

Costanzo hoped that the book would be beneficial to students primarily because he tried to organize it around themes that naturally arise in class discussions (and elsewhere) when the topic is the death penalty. In this he's done well; the nine chapters surround the history of the death penalty in the U.S.; the legal path from trail to execution; rthe question of the humanity of the death penalty; cost; fairness; deterrence; the question of public support; whether the death penalty is morally justified; and the symbolic politics of the death penalty.

Just Revenge has some strong successes, particularly where the fact that the book is dated is no detriment. Costanzo is strong on the line of cases that defined the death penalty from the legal moratorium through the major changes into the early 90s, culminating in Payne v. Tennessee (18-23) and on the process of voir dire, by which juries are selected for capital trials. Costanzo is right to point out how and why this is really a process of deselection, rather than selection, and briefly but effectively addresses the question of the effect this "death-qualification" has on juries: they are more likely to convict, in part because they are more likely to believe that both sides (prosecution and defense) believe that a) the defendant is guilty and b) that they both expect a jury to return a death sentence.

Costanzo is also particularly strong in the final chapter, on the symbolic politics that surround the death penalty. He recognizes, almost in passing, what many commentators fail to recognize, or to draw attention to: the death penalty is an issue of state control over life itself. Costanzo's conclusion is that "One of the reasons why execution chamgers still exist in America is that the United States has not experienced executions as an overt means of state oppression." (154) Certainly this is true, though it's still somewhat puzzling why more is not made of this issue.

That said, though, there are points where it is clear that the book is 10 years old. The signs range from nitpicky details to large-scale omissions. An example of the former is the claim on p. 10 that five Southern states -- Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas and Virginia -- accounted for 75% of all executions since 1977. True at the time. Now, however, the ranking five Souther states -- Texas, Virginia, Oaklahoma, Missouri and Florida -- account for 65% of the total number of executions. It's a minor detail, and something that both could be corrected in an expanded edition and would be soon enough dated itself, as soon as Oklahoma overtakes Virginia as #2 post-Furman in number of executions.

A larger lack in the book is the almost total absence of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This is understandable, since the book was published in 1997, but AEDPA is one of the most profound legislative acts to touch on the death penalty since the Gregg decision, so it would be nice for a second edition to include some extended treatment of the law and the changes that it brought about (far from "reform," as the bill was touted to be, these changes are singularly regressive and repressive -- all the more reason for greater attention to be paid to them).

Just Revenge succeeds in its aims of providing a great overview of a complex issue in a small package; an expanded second edition, to fill the gaps left in the wake of the first, would make it an even better contribution.

Former Republican Congressman Charged with Financially Supporting Al Qaeda:

No comments yet, since this is going to be the dominant news story for the short-term future: just take a look for yourself.

Michigan

Was mostly irrelevant from the Democratic point of view, what with Edwards and Obama not running there because the national party was punishing the state for renegading its primary up in advance of Super Tuesday. The punishment? The national Democratic party says it won't seat Michigan's delegates this summer.

Right.

They're going to make a big show of not seating a swing state's delegates at the national convention? They're going to make a show of effectively disenfranchising the state and it's labor interests? I'm not buying, particularly since Michiganders are (rightly) unhappy with that decision.

This is a mixed benefit to Clinton, who waltzed to victory, 55-40 over ... uncommitted? Seriously? Uncommitted got 40%? What would have happened had someone other than my main man Kucinich run? People were talking before Michigan that anything less than 60% unopposed was a defeat for Clinton, and I'm not terribly inclined to disagree.

They should parcel out the state's delegates to the Democrats still in the race as of Tuesday -- that seems to me the most fair thing to do.

On the GOP side, Mitt Romney, the only one that can threaten Clinton's "Campaign Bullshit Champion" crown, won the state's primary by almost ten points over John McCain. I have very little love for McCain, particularly after his absolutely unconscionable flip-flop on torture, though I liken him to the (backup) QB of the race -- gets far too much credit (for being a moderate, as inexplicable that is) and too much blame simultaneously. "He's overstating the case for our success in Iraq -- we're not doing nearly as well as he says we are!" Maybe not, but look at the political climate: the Democrats are falling over themselves to pull out faster but more effectively, while the Republicans are socking each other in the eye as they claim that they can get the job done faster and better.

Seems to me that claiming the job is going just great, thank you, as a prelude to a pullout isn't all that bad an idea. The left would get its fast withdrawl, the right gets to gloat that the job was "well done, well done indeed." I don't know that McCain is going to withdraw, obviously, but if he were inclined to do so, pimping the questionable success of recent efforts isn't a dumb move.

Enter this editorial savaging Romeny to defend McCain. Take it as you will.

Angela Y. Davis: Are Prisons Obsolete?

Taking the question straight on, the answer is yes, theoretically and abstractly, but unfortunately no practically. Davis rejects the “practical” caveat, but does an excellent job of quickly and effectively drawing the theoretical case for the obsolescence of prisons.

This slim, small volume is disproportionately intense; in relation to its size, it is very heavy without being cumbersome, partially because Davis explicates and explains, rather than citing throughout (136 notes for 115 pages), partially because she makes judicious use of lengthy quotations that make her points for her. Generally, I find this distracting, as do most people, I think, which is why it is a truism that you should quote as little as possible and limit lengthy quotations to situations of dire textual emergency, moments when you simply cannot make your point any other way. The conventional wisdom is either turned on its ear or borne out in this little book, because Davis’ lengthy quotations are perfect where and how they are – a minor structural miracle.

Argumentatively, this book presents little in the way of facts that are either new to me or cannot be found more extensively elsewhere, for example, in Christian Parenti’s Lockdown America. A notable exception to this is Chapter 4, “How Gender Structures the Prison System,” which is an excellent treatment both of gender within corrections discourse, and how that discourse itself is gendered.

The path of the argument is generally reducible to a few core arguments: 1. We should be thinking in terms of prison abolition, rather than reform; reform will only strengthen a fundamentally unjust, socially evil system (exaggerating her argument, but only barely); 2. Prison is an evolution of slavery, and is in many ways indistinguishable from continued forms of slavery, such as the chain gang – expressions that continued to code “criminality” primarily as “black male”; 3. “reform” is too flexible and fungible a concept to be bandied about or taken seriously as a useful idea; “reform” works both ways, though generally, given the politics of fear and exaggeration to which we are subject, tends to move in an ever more punitive direction, rendering prison merely a holding cell within which any number of overlooked and condoned tortures may take place; once we have collectively given up on the idea of reform and actual corrections, prison does not have a single redeeming feature, save being a