Free agency kicked off this morning, with plenty of big moves expected, and plenty of fans desperately hoping that their teams make "the big move" to get "the big guy."
Unfortunately for me, I'm a Raider fan, so the start of the free agency period means precisely bupkus.
Why so negative?
Pretend you're an employee whose skill set is sufficiently valuable as to put your projected salary in the millions annually, and pretend that your skill set is so unique and rare that there are only a handful of prospective employers. Thirty-two, say.
Now, several of these companies have good, solid long-term track records, but have fallen on hard times of late, and are looking to better themselves in a hurry. Your skill set is a match for most of these "looking-to-rebound" companies. Take two that have hit the market hard and fast, and whose recent financial statements show possibilities for robust growth (i.e., lots of cash on hand with comparatively little debt load).
One was a terrible performer in the third and fourth quarters of FY 2007, even though they had some reason for hope at the conclusion of the first quarter of FY 2007. The owner is looking to sell part of the organization, in order to prepare for an orderly ownership and management transition down the road, he says. Significant changes have also been made at the upper management levels, where a person has been installed as President who has considerable experience, a track record of success, and a willingness to do what is necessary to get the job done. This company will likely continue to underperform for some time yet, but with the new management structure coming in, the signs are positive. (Plus, what young millionaire wouldn't want to go, shall we say, sport fishing in South Beach?)
The second company also displayed some positive signs in the first quarter of FY 2007, but FY 2007 was like the previous four years, and the company performed incredibly poorly in the final two quarters. Nor was this really unexpected, at least, not to outside observers. This organization can't really be said to be underperforming, since there's very little reason to believe that their performance is not reflective of the competence of the organization. The owner is erratic and mercurial, and is believed not to trust upper and middle management, such as there is in this company, whose organizational structure is less a flow chart and more a Rorschach test. There are questions as to the stability of the management structure, and the indications are that upper and middle management (again, such as they are) could be replaced at any time, leaving you, a young millionaire, with no indication that the management team you're agreeing to work for will remain your bosses, even through the end of FY 2008. There are persistent rumors of relocation, which you find understandable, given the irremediably poor state of the primary office facilities, but that merely adds to the instability. Lastly, you've heard from colleagues that the work environment is toxic and the best option is to avoid this company at all costs.
Were it me, I'd give 1-15 Miami a harder look than 4-12 Oakland.
Look at the insanity that is the Raiders, and ask yourself one question:
Would you want to work for that organization?
I wouldn't, not as it is now. Goofiness and quirkiness and an absolute, dead-set, stubborn refusal to "play the game" is perfectly fine, if you succeed. If you fail, utterly and miserably, with no real prospects of turning it around by doing it "your way," then your way is clearly wrong and you need to reorient your approach. Period. Try try again, sure, but learn something along the way and adapt.
Most other people probably wouldn't want to work for an openly dysfunctional company, either.
Any wonder I said "who the fuck cares?" about the start of free agency? What masochistic loser wants to go to a miasma like Oakland? And for what, to lose a few years off of an already short career?
Why "Adios, Lane?" Because this particular lunacy is starting to feel Shanahan-esque. The combine has come and gone, and the NFL beat reporters were apparently falling all over themselves to snicker giggle ask Lane if shut up, I'm gonna ask him a question:
"Uh, giggle coach, are stop it, I'm asking him, are you still, like a coach, or something? Huh-huh-uh-huh-huh-huh"
Kiffin wouldnt dignify the question with a response, basically, which leads me to two contradictory conclusions:
1. He's still playing hardball with Davis. "You want me gone, fire me."
2. Cooler heads prevailed, there actually isn't a controversy in Oakland, and the organization -- somewhat inexplicably -- chose discretion as the better course; i.e., if we ignore it, it will eventually go away.
Somehow, these are equally plausible to me, but I have a suspicion that 1. is true, and 2. is wishful thinking.
My less-than-bold prediction: The Oakland Raiders will have a new head coach sometime between now and Week 5. Either Kiffin will be gone sometime this offseason (and if that's the plan, let's get a move on, before more time is lost), or Al is willing to harm his franchise -- again -- in order to punk his coach -- again.
If Kiffin is the HC come Opening Sunday, and if the Raiders manage 2-2 or 3-1 in their first month, then he's probably got the rest of the season. If they play passably, and their record is a fair reflection of that, then the storm may begin to pass (begin, mind).
If the Raiders are 1-3 or 0-4, he's out, and yet another season is down the drain.
Now, permit me to put on my "Al's Own" brand "Crazy Ol' Bastard Tin-Foil Hat, 100% Guaranteed to Make Your Inner Conspiracy Nut Wet Himself With Glee, Because They Made Him" and imagine a situation that the NFL office could throw at the Raiders to screw them over. What if their first quarter schedule is this:
@ SD
@ BAL
NE
@ NO
Let's see. A team they can't beat right now, based simply on the quality of the teams on the field. A defense that is still good enough to choke the life out of the Raiders, esp. given the cross-country flight. The Patriots (seriously, need I say more?). An offense good enough to make the Raiders underachieving D look even worse than it did last season.
This is an easy 0-4 schedule for this team. Five bucks says they get a start that looks an awful lot like this.
Adios, Lane. It could've been fun; instead, it's been interesting.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The First Baptism:
We did the first baptism over here on Sunday, and Lilja was fantastic -- didn't cry at all, and I swear she listened to the sermon beginning to end; I've never seen her pay that kind of attention to someone talking for that long.
It was a lovely day, and we'll do it again this summer with my family. Here's the girl of the hour in her dress and enjoying herself at her party afterward:
It was a lovely day, and we'll do it again this summer with my family. Here's the girl of the hour in her dress and enjoying herself at her party afterward:
Various Environmental Stories:
The Doomsday Seed Vault is now open in Norway, ready to host millions of seed samples, in case the ecosystem is globally wrecked at some point, or if we find out that GM crops are actually not as bright an idea as initially thought. I had thought that this opened a few years ago, but that may have been only the announcement that it was being developed. Hopefully it won't be necessary for this to be a widespread emotion, but "thank you, Norway."
This is pretty cool -- scientists are developing nanoscale crystals that are capable of selectively absorbing compounds; the lead photo is of a crystal that can absorb 80x its weight in CO2. This could be a tremendous advance, though the nefarious possibilities are equally conceivable, and I would wonder where these CO2-laden crystals can be stored safely; if they're destroyed, I wouldn't even be able to guess as the immediate impact of hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 hitting the atmosphere essentially instantly. (I'm not altogether sanguine about the "permissive" effect of these crystals, either -- if they do work as "scrubbers," then there's no incentive to develop non-polluting technologies.)
Finally, a study talking about the effect of methane hydrates on the end of the ice ages. I'd read about these a little while back; I think it was Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers : How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth
. A great book for those interested in the subject.
This is pretty cool -- scientists are developing nanoscale crystals that are capable of selectively absorbing compounds; the lead photo is of a crystal that can absorb 80x its weight in CO2. This could be a tremendous advance, though the nefarious possibilities are equally conceivable, and I would wonder where these CO2-laden crystals can be stored safely; if they're destroyed, I wouldn't even be able to guess as the immediate impact of hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 hitting the atmosphere essentially instantly. (I'm not altogether sanguine about the "permissive" effect of these crystals, either -- if they do work as "scrubbers," then there's no incentive to develop non-polluting technologies.)
Finally, a study talking about the effect of methane hydrates on the end of the ice ages. I'd read about these a little while back; I think it was Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers : How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth
. A great book for those interested in the subject.
When Free Trade Isn't:
Seems that Clinton and Obama have spent some time lately quibbling over who has the best response to the problems that NAFTA has created. Not much of a surprise that this comes up now, being that Ohio is one of next week's must-wins, but it occasions a chance to revisit the debate going on right now with regard to free trade.
From the BusinessWeek article:
Doubts are creeping in. We're not talking wholesale, dramatic repudiation of the theory. Economists are, however, noting that their ideas can't explain the disturbing stagnation in income that much of the middle class is experiencing. They also fear a protectionist backlash unless more is done to help those who are losing out. "Previously, you just had extremists making extravagant claims against trade," says Gary C. Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Now there are broader questions being raised that would not have been asked 10 or 15 years ago."
Neither candidate will be able to right the ship, of course, but the next four or eight years could be more impactful, more determinative of the nation's economic future than previously thought, particularly if the talk and the policies move, however slowly, back toward protectionism. In my view, a period of modest protectionism may be in order, until the trade treaties begin to be oriented around fair trade, rather than free trade, and until the global impacts of trade are more readily assessible and enforceable through treaty measures.
In the meantime, I'll be very interested in reading Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
, based largely on this review by Chalmers Johnson.
From the BusinessWeek article:
Doubts are creeping in. We're not talking wholesale, dramatic repudiation of the theory. Economists are, however, noting that their ideas can't explain the disturbing stagnation in income that much of the middle class is experiencing. They also fear a protectionist backlash unless more is done to help those who are losing out. "Previously, you just had extremists making extravagant claims against trade," says Gary C. Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Now there are broader questions being raised that would not have been asked 10 or 15 years ago."
Neither candidate will be able to right the ship, of course, but the next four or eight years could be more impactful, more determinative of the nation's economic future than previously thought, particularly if the talk and the policies move, however slowly, back toward protectionism. In my view, a period of modest protectionism may be in order, until the trade treaties begin to be oriented around fair trade, rather than free trade, and until the global impacts of trade are more readily assessible and enforceable through treaty measures.
In the meantime, I'll be very interested in reading Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
, based largely on this review by Chalmers Johnson.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Vote for Buddy!
Anyone interested in doing my buddy Chach and his dog Buddy a favor?
The U.S. Humane Society is sponsoring a "Cute Pet" contest as part of its Spay Day 2008, and Buddy has been entered, with good reason -- that's a good-lookin' dog.
Click here to go and vote for Buddy! Search under Owner's Last Name for "Heil," and Buddy's page will be returned. While you're there you can also vote for other cute critters, but only one vote per pet per email address (hint: vote for Buddy from multiple addresses -- you know you want to!)
Here he is in all his doggy glory:
The U.S. Humane Society is sponsoring a "Cute Pet" contest as part of its Spay Day 2008, and Buddy has been entered, with good reason -- that's a good-lookin' dog.
Click here to go and vote for Buddy! Search under Owner's Last Name for "Heil," and Buddy's page will be returned. While you're there you can also vote for other cute critters, but only one vote per pet per email address (hint: vote for Buddy from multiple addresses -- you know you want to!)
Here he is in all his doggy glory:
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Madan Sarup: Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World
Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World
, much to my surprise, turned out to be more of an overview of theories of culture and identity than it was anything else. I had gone into it expecting more original content, and was somewhat disappointed in that aspect of the book, but that disappointment is compensated for by the strength of the material that is there; it's hardly Sarup's fault that it's not the book that I wanted to read -- the book that it is is well worth the time. The book is fluidly written, to the point that in places you have to force yourself to slow down and tread carefully, because it's too easy to get caught up in the prose and ignore the content. The curious thing is that while this book doesn't offer much in the way of original thought or advancement beyond the theories and constructs that Sarup works through, it's not at all a glorified book report, which is what would ordinarily be suggested by that complaint. As an overview of modernist and postmodernist thought it is great, packing a great deal of information and clarification into a small package without, as I stated above, burdening the text (and reader) as a result.
Still, there is more going on here than is apparent. There are a couple of moments where you have to step back and say "well, of course, that's just obvious, isn't it?" Again, this is deceptive. I'm coming to be of the belief that a truly great insight can come in two broad categories: either eminently resistible or totally obvious. Many of the insights to be found in the great cultural theorists, meaning the insights and theorists that remain relevant (meaning specifically that the particularly conditions of the modern moment haven't rendered them functionally obsolete) are insights that make you say little more than "duh," until you reflect that someone actually had to say it at some point. There are a few such moments scattered throughout this book, and those alone make it worth a read.
A final feature that recommends this book: the range of disciplines and approaches incorporated into Sarup's thought and explication. It is frequently awkward to read a theorist that has cobbled together too many different disciplines and approaches, because they often overlook or misinterpret -- or even just get it wrong because they do not sufficiently appreciate the thought process and viewpoint fostered by the other disciplines. Sarup manages to avoid this throughout the book. It's out of print, unfortunately, but if you can track down a copy, it's well worth going through, one chapter at a time.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Turnabout is a Downed Satellite:
Remember when the U.S. got all pissed off that China had the temerity to try to whip it out and measure it in public by shooting down a satellite with a missile? Guess what we did yesterday.
Some people are spinning this, pointing out (rightly or not, I haven't checked) that the Chinese missile hit a satellite several hundred miles up, scattering debris in to the path of other orbiters and leaving the mess out there, whereas the U.S. missile hit our bird just before re-entry, maximizing the frictive burnup of the pieces as they reentered the atmosphere.
Pardon my being slow, but how does this make it better? If we were worried that China was posturing and demonstrating its capabilities, shouldn't we have come up with a better spin line than that? It's like there's no official effort not to be hypocritical anymore.
Let's see. A multi-stage missile taking out a falling object just before it enters the atmosphere. I know I've heard this one before, back when I was a wee lad, somewhere in the early/mid-80s . . .
Some people are spinning this, pointing out (rightly or not, I haven't checked) that the Chinese missile hit a satellite several hundred miles up, scattering debris in to the path of other orbiters and leaving the mess out there, whereas the U.S. missile hit our bird just before re-entry, maximizing the frictive burnup of the pieces as they reentered the atmosphere.
Pardon my being slow, but how does this make it better? If we were worried that China was posturing and demonstrating its capabilities, shouldn't we have come up with a better spin line than that? It's like there's no official effort not to be hypocritical anymore.
Let's see. A multi-stage missile taking out a falling object just before it enters the atmosphere. I know I've heard this one before, back when I was a wee lad, somewhere in the early/mid-80s . . .
A Tale of Two Corners:
Never a dull moment in The Nation, is there?
First, Nnamdi Asomugha has been designated the exclusive franchise player. This means that he'll be making in the neighborhood of $9.5 mil, with a possible raise forthcoming if people like Asante Samuel and Marcus Trufant sign fat deals, thus pushing up the average price of the Top Five corner. The distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive is material to the situation -- a n-e designation would leave Asomugha free to negotiate with other teams and, should one attempt to sign him to an offer sheet, let the Raiders either accept the draft choices as compensation or deny the signing. The exclusive designation signals to me that the Raiders intend to try to get a deal done and not let Nnamdi get away, even for two firsts.
On the other side, and a step down on the depth chart, Fabian Washington has been charged with domestic battery during an argument with his girlfriend. Apparently, when police arrived at the scene of the domestic disturbance, there were "light red marks" on Washington's girlfriend's neck. The reason for the fight? According to Fabian, it was his "hanging out with other girls."
He's already lost his starting gig to Stanford Routt, which is something of a commentary on his abilities, given that Routt is a hell of a burner but not much of a cover man just yet, but if this report is true, he needs to be traded immediately. First of all, you're paying first-round money to a backup. Second, if he did try to choke out his girlfriend, well, grounds enough for dismissal in my eyes. Third, he's clearly fucking stupid if he's a pro athlete and "hanging out with other girls." If he's dumb enough and careless enough to take on that level of potential problem off the field, then he has no business on the field. Many people may disagree with that, but I see no reason to take a chance on a careless underachiever who is a situational player at this point in his career; better character guys can be had to replace the skill set that trading Washington would deprive the team of, and maybe you can fill his position with someone with his head on straighter.
First, Nnamdi Asomugha has been designated the exclusive franchise player. This means that he'll be making in the neighborhood of $9.5 mil, with a possible raise forthcoming if people like Asante Samuel and Marcus Trufant sign fat deals, thus pushing up the average price of the Top Five corner. The distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive is material to the situation -- a n-e designation would leave Asomugha free to negotiate with other teams and, should one attempt to sign him to an offer sheet, let the Raiders either accept the draft choices as compensation or deny the signing. The exclusive designation signals to me that the Raiders intend to try to get a deal done and not let Nnamdi get away, even for two firsts.
On the other side, and a step down on the depth chart, Fabian Washington has been charged with domestic battery during an argument with his girlfriend. Apparently, when police arrived at the scene of the domestic disturbance, there were "light red marks" on Washington's girlfriend's neck. The reason for the fight? According to Fabian, it was his "hanging out with other girls."
He's already lost his starting gig to Stanford Routt, which is something of a commentary on his abilities, given that Routt is a hell of a burner but not much of a cover man just yet, but if this report is true, he needs to be traded immediately. First of all, you're paying first-round money to a backup. Second, if he did try to choke out his girlfriend, well, grounds enough for dismissal in my eyes. Third, he's clearly fucking stupid if he's a pro athlete and "hanging out with other girls." If he's dumb enough and careless enough to take on that level of potential problem off the field, then he has no business on the field. Many people may disagree with that, but I see no reason to take a chance on a careless underachiever who is a situational player at this point in his career; better character guys can be had to replace the skill set that trading Washington would deprive the team of, and maybe you can fill his position with someone with his head on straighter.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Clinton to Democrats: "Get Real"
You have to be kidding me.
Someone, please tell me how I can reasonably view this as anything other than an outraged sense of flouted entitlement.
If Clinton wants to put her record on display to try to demonstrate how she'd be a president capable of bringing change, I'm all for it. The sooner people see through her bullshit, the better.
Change? Find me meaningful differences between Clinton (II) and Bush (II) since they've been in office. Please. There just aren't enough of them, but she has the . . . chutzpah to claim that she's the realistic choice a) for victory and b) for change?
Here's a great one:
``We've got to be focused on what kind of choice we actually have before us,'' Clinton said in a speech at Hunter College in New York City. ``It's time we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions.''
What kind of choice would we have between Clinton and McCain? Put most bluntly, we'd have a choice between someone who has tried like hell to be everything that Bush has, while trying equally hard to sound like the dead opposite, and, well, someone who has tried like hell to be everything that Bush has, while trying equally hard to sound like the dead opposite.
Clinton said she is better able to tackle economic and health-care concerns and assume the role of commander-in-chief in a dangerous world.
It may be unfair to judge Clinton based on her catastrophic fuck-up of health care reform in '93, but, unfair though it may be, she has 0 credibility in my eyes on that issue.
Clinton is better able to tackle economic concerns -- and remember, she's the candidate of solutions, not just words? That must be why she's trying like hell lately to oppose NAFTA, when earlier -- and not terribly long ago -- she was talking about "revisiting" NAFTA, and before that -- not long before that, mind -- she was touting NAFTA as a success of her husband's presidency.
Which of those positions does she mean when she says that she's the candidate ready to hit the ground running? In which direction is she going to sprint?
Her idea of the role of CinC is another reason I wouldn't vote for her: she was dead wrong on Iraq and is somehow perversely proud of it. Being ready to be CinC does not mean being ready to sign off on bombing the bejesus out of people who aggravate you; unfortunately, Clinton has done too well in her attempt to paint herself as a hawk, and I cannot take her seriously as a rational head of state anymore because of it.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, Obama's getting the Teamsters' endorsement.
Ten straight butt-whippings for Clinton, and she's lost out on the Teamsters?
YAY!!!! One Bush Lite candidate may be going down faster than we could have hoped.
Someone, please tell me how I can reasonably view this as anything other than an outraged sense of flouted entitlement.
If Clinton wants to put her record on display to try to demonstrate how she'd be a president capable of bringing change, I'm all for it. The sooner people see through her bullshit, the better.
Change? Find me meaningful differences between Clinton (II) and Bush (II) since they've been in office. Please. There just aren't enough of them, but she has the . . . chutzpah to claim that she's the realistic choice a) for victory and b) for change?
Here's a great one:
``We've got to be focused on what kind of choice we actually have before us,'' Clinton said in a speech at Hunter College in New York City. ``It's time we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions.''
What kind of choice would we have between Clinton and McCain? Put most bluntly, we'd have a choice between someone who has tried like hell to be everything that Bush has, while trying equally hard to sound like the dead opposite, and, well, someone who has tried like hell to be everything that Bush has, while trying equally hard to sound like the dead opposite.
Clinton said she is better able to tackle economic and health-care concerns and assume the role of commander-in-chief in a dangerous world.
It may be unfair to judge Clinton based on her catastrophic fuck-up of health care reform in '93, but, unfair though it may be, she has 0 credibility in my eyes on that issue.
Clinton is better able to tackle economic concerns -- and remember, she's the candidate of solutions, not just words? That must be why she's trying like hell lately to oppose NAFTA, when earlier -- and not terribly long ago -- she was talking about "revisiting" NAFTA, and before that -- not long before that, mind -- she was touting NAFTA as a success of her husband's presidency.
Which of those positions does she mean when she says that she's the candidate ready to hit the ground running? In which direction is she going to sprint?
Her idea of the role of CinC is another reason I wouldn't vote for her: she was dead wrong on Iraq and is somehow perversely proud of it. Being ready to be CinC does not mean being ready to sign off on bombing the bejesus out of people who aggravate you; unfortunately, Clinton has done too well in her attempt to paint herself as a hawk, and I cannot take her seriously as a rational head of state anymore because of it.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, Obama's getting the Teamsters' endorsement.
Ten straight butt-whippings for Clinton, and she's lost out on the Teamsters?
YAY!!!! One Bush Lite candidate may be going down faster than we could have hoped.
I've Been Cited:
I think this is just freaking cool: I'm cited in Mission and Menace: Four Centuries of American Religious Zeal
. A little bit strange to have that much work reduced to a footnote and an entry in the bibliography, but a lot more gratifying to see it included that way to begin with! Sweet! Check the book out -- it's fantastic, start to finish.
More Baby Photoshopping:
There's something about our baby that brings out the Photoshop in people. This was done up by a buddy of mine (who should be congratulated for the fellowship he just received!) based on the picture I use for my desktop.
Is there a single way in which this is not awesome? Thanks, man!
Monday, February 18, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Kosovo Declares Independence:
Probably won't be any international fallout from this. Bears watching.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Two Great Tips from Daniel:
First, thanks, Daniel, for these two tips.
Let's talk two Republicans: John McCain and Mitt Romney.
McCain:
It would be churlish (as well as hypocritical) to criticize McCain for where his wife's money comes from, churlish for obvious reasons, hypocritical because I thought that the analogue was wholly irrelevant four years ago, and think that it remains irrelevant now; so long as the income is legitimate -- and not in the sense my ancestral countrymen may mean when they speak of "legitimate business" and the like.
That said, as an aficionado of good beer, Cindy McCain's money coming from distributing Anheuser-Busch products is -- well, it's just wrong. Seriously. President Budweiser? C'mon now.
Also, anyone else find it a bit, shall we say, conspicuous that McCain's official website has a page for his wife -- and her recipes? (Amy if you see this, that's gotta make the diss., right? With a footnote to this page for the reference and all?).
Ah, McCain, you crazy, sun-baked, "Au H2O" bastard, you.
Second Republican: Mitt "I'm So Skeezy, I Got Kicked Out of the Used-Car Salesman's Fourth of July Barbecue for Being Skeezy" Romney.
Romney's "Fuck it, I quit" speech was quite the hum-dinger, apparently, and it's just chock-a-block with jaw-dropping goodness. Just horrible stuff.
Leading off with a bit of light humor:
Eleven states have given me their nod, compared to [McCain's] 13. Thank you to those 11.
(APPLAUSE)
Of course, because size does matter, he's doing quite a bit better with the number of delegates he's got.
Not so sure I'd make the "I-have-a-smaller-penis" joke, but whatever works with the crowd, I guess.
Moving on:
I'm convinced that unless America changes course, we could become the France of the 21st century.
(BOOING)
ROMNEY: Still a great nation, but not the leader of the world, not the superpower. And to me that's unthinkable.
The UK would have been a better analogy, though Imperial Germany may have been the more historically accurate. France? Hasn't been a superpower since Napoleon Bonaparte, but poor Mitt couldn't resist pullin' the cheap heat.
Speaking of a professor whose work he claims to have read:
ROMNEY: He's a professor emeritus at Harvard University. I presume he's a liberal. I guess that's redundant.
(LAUGHTER)
Maybe the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. Maybe Samuel Huntington is a liberal now, who knows. Oh, and as for Landes? A quick search will let you make up your mind on whether or not Mitt's guy is a liberal.
Well, we believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity. Almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity. Opportunity's in our DNA.
Americans love God, and those who don't have faith typically believe in something greater than themself, a purpose-driven life, if you will.
This is actually a fairly remarkable couple of paragraphs -- from the blatant lie that America values education to the casual, almost-too-good-to-be-true shout out to Rick Warren and Saddleback Ministries over in Anaheim. "See, megachurches? I could'a been yo' contenduh."
The threat to our culture comes from within.
In the 1960s, there were welfare programs that created a culture of poverty in our country. Now, some people think we won that battle when we reformed welfare. But the liberals haven't given up.
Yeah, but it's the left that engages in the class-baiting, right, Mitt?
Also, didn't you presume to claim guidance from a liberal? Sheesh. That's just sloppy, man.
The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography, even celebration of it, and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare, have led to today's grim realities: 68 percent of African- American kids born out of wedlock, 45 percent of Hispanic kids, 25 percent of white kids.
How much harder it is for these kids to succeed in school and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.
I'm modestly surprised that "out-of-wedlock" is still such a bad word -- would President Romney have brought back primogeniture? -- but you must love the causal link: welfare + Hustler = 1/4 crackers being born bastards.
And is it wrong to read that last quoted sentence and think it's incredibly ballsy for a Mormon to hearken back to the values of the Founding Fathers while faith-baiting, knowing full well that his own faith only arose after the founding generation was cold in the ground? There's something just plain anachronistic about that.
Here's the bit that Daniel quoted me that got me looking for this speech:
Europe -- Europe is facing a demographic disaster.
That's the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life, and eroded morality.
I have no response to this, save this one: I am continually unsurprisedly surprised by the depths of certainty that are generated by the most abysmal ignorance. "Eroded morality" must mean tits on tv, far as I can figure; disrespect for the sanctity of human life presumably means not bombing the fuck out of countries to prove a point and having to negotiate and operate from a position of weakness, I don't really know. Failed families? I've got nothing there, since I haven't the first clue what he meant with that; conveniently, neither did he, but it's easier to say than explain.
Not to mention, the "Demographic disaster" he means isn't the aging of the population and the decline of the welfare state -- and by the way, Mitt, what do you find so disastrous about said decline, specifically? -- but MUSLIMS. See, this is how it works: Stop believing in God, fail your families (bad grades? still grasping for this one), stop bombing shit around the world (or in Europe, as the general extent of European bombing campaigns were confined to Europe), and oh, invent tv and put big ol' titties on it. Bounce 'em up and down a bit, too. Yyyyyeeeaaaahhhhhh. That's nice.
Then the MUSLIMS will come and take over your continent.
See how that works? Simple!
China, and Asia are emerging from centuries of poverty. Their people are plentiful, innovative and ambitious.
Yes. China, and Asia, are, much the same way that France, and Europe, suck. Oh, but here's another *shh* demographic disaster: our competitors are plentiful. Little bastards are everywhere!
Our prosperity and security also depend on finally acting to become energy-secure. Oil-producing states like Russia and Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran are siphoning over $400 billion out of our economy. That's almost what we spent annually for our national defense.
It is past time for us to invest in energy technology: nuclear power, clean coal, liquid coal, renewable resources, energy efficiency.
(APPLAUSE)
Simply put, America must never be held hostage by the likes of Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad.
Let's see -- Russia, Putin; Venezuela, Chavez; Iran, Ahmadinejad; Saudi Arabia -- huh, must've forgotten that one.
Also, let's look at the clarion call to investment in energy technology, including the mammoth pipe dreams "clean coal" and "liquid coal" (not exactly what it is, but that's one of them silly verifiable/falsifiable things Mitt hates -- you know, facts) -- Mitt is the kind of jackass that would tell you we need to get to Titan before the Russians or the Chinese do, since "thar's black gold in them thar hills!"
Immediately following the above:
Our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping up of government spending.
Because the key to the future is for YOU! to invest in your own liquid coal plant. What, you wanted the government to invest in it to benefit you?! You must be one of those god-hating, tits-on-tv-watching bastards, aren't you? And I mean that in the traditional sense, bastard.
Let's not just focus on the pork alone, even though it is indeed irritating and shameful.
Holy crap, innuendo! And a startlingly candid admission. Kudos, Mitt!
You know, I've found that most politicians don't seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth and the wealth of our families. They act as if money just happens, that it just happens to be there.
But every dollar represents a good or service that's been produced in the private sector.
By "private sector," of course, he meant "China."
Get out -- get out that weed whacker and take it to regulations and reform entitlements and, by the way, stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government.
Ah, yes, it's the unions that are to blame. Greedy bastards, demanding even the slightest bit of power! When will these peons -- I mean, workers -- learn that they are not entitled to have a say in their own futures?!
But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years, when troops were reduced by 500,000, when almost 80 ships were retired from our Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25 percent.
We were told we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend; we didn't get the peace.
When all else fails, blame Bill, whose military cuts were proportionally smaller than Bush 41's were. Yet another verifiable/refutable thing that Mitt hates.
The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the Constitution.
At last, something accurate -- you're right, Mitt, and these new departures include torture as policy and the fact that apparently, as of 2001, there has been no such thing as habeas corpus in the Constitution. Really -- see for yourself. (You fuck.)
America must always remain, as it has always been, the hope of the Earth.
My god, but it must have really sucked to have lived before 1776, when the very idea "hope" was an unimaginable concept. Truly the founders were men of vision indeed, that they could create this idea of "hope" that Romney speaks of!
Yeesh.
Let's talk two Republicans: John McCain and Mitt Romney.
McCain:
It would be churlish (as well as hypocritical) to criticize McCain for where his wife's money comes from, churlish for obvious reasons, hypocritical because I thought that the analogue was wholly irrelevant four years ago, and think that it remains irrelevant now; so long as the income is legitimate -- and not in the sense my ancestral countrymen may mean when they speak of "legitimate business" and the like.
That said, as an aficionado of good beer, Cindy McCain's money coming from distributing Anheuser-Busch products is -- well, it's just wrong. Seriously. President Budweiser? C'mon now.
Also, anyone else find it a bit, shall we say, conspicuous that McCain's official website has a page for his wife -- and her recipes? (Amy if you see this, that's gotta make the diss., right? With a footnote to this page for the reference and all?).
Ah, McCain, you crazy, sun-baked, "Au H2O" bastard, you.
Second Republican: Mitt "I'm So Skeezy, I Got Kicked Out of the Used-Car Salesman's Fourth of July Barbecue for Being Skeezy" Romney.
Romney's "Fuck it, I quit" speech was quite the hum-dinger, apparently, and it's just chock-a-block with jaw-dropping goodness. Just horrible stuff.
Leading off with a bit of light humor:
Eleven states have given me their nod, compared to [McCain's] 13. Thank you to those 11.
(APPLAUSE)
Of course, because size does matter, he's doing quite a bit better with the number of delegates he's got.
Not so sure I'd make the "I-have-a-smaller-penis" joke, but whatever works with the crowd, I guess.
Moving on:
I'm convinced that unless America changes course, we could become the France of the 21st century.
(BOOING)
ROMNEY: Still a great nation, but not the leader of the world, not the superpower. And to me that's unthinkable.
The UK would have been a better analogy, though Imperial Germany may have been the more historically accurate. France? Hasn't been a superpower since Napoleon Bonaparte, but poor Mitt couldn't resist pullin' the cheap heat.
Speaking of a professor whose work he claims to have read:
ROMNEY: He's a professor emeritus at Harvard University. I presume he's a liberal. I guess that's redundant.
(LAUGHTER)
Maybe the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. Maybe Samuel Huntington is a liberal now, who knows. Oh, and as for Landes? A quick search will let you make up your mind on whether or not Mitt's guy is a liberal.
Well, we believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity. Almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity. Opportunity's in our DNA.
Americans love God, and those who don't have faith typically believe in something greater than themself, a purpose-driven life, if you will.
This is actually a fairly remarkable couple of paragraphs -- from the blatant lie that America values education to the casual, almost-too-good-to-be-true shout out to Rick Warren and Saddleback Ministries over in Anaheim. "See, megachurches? I could'a been yo' contenduh."
The threat to our culture comes from within.
In the 1960s, there were welfare programs that created a culture of poverty in our country. Now, some people think we won that battle when we reformed welfare. But the liberals haven't given up.
Yeah, but it's the left that engages in the class-baiting, right, Mitt?
Also, didn't you presume to claim guidance from a liberal? Sheesh. That's just sloppy, man.
The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography, even celebration of it, and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare, have led to today's grim realities: 68 percent of African- American kids born out of wedlock, 45 percent of Hispanic kids, 25 percent of white kids.
How much harder it is for these kids to succeed in school and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.
I'm modestly surprised that "out-of-wedlock" is still such a bad word -- would President Romney have brought back primogeniture? -- but you must love the causal link: welfare + Hustler = 1/4 crackers being born bastards.
And is it wrong to read that last quoted sentence and think it's incredibly ballsy for a Mormon to hearken back to the values of the Founding Fathers while faith-baiting, knowing full well that his own faith only arose after the founding generation was cold in the ground? There's something just plain anachronistic about that.
Here's the bit that Daniel quoted me that got me looking for this speech:
Europe -- Europe is facing a demographic disaster.
That's the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life, and eroded morality.
I have no response to this, save this one: I am continually unsurprisedly surprised by the depths of certainty that are generated by the most abysmal ignorance. "Eroded morality" must mean tits on tv, far as I can figure; disrespect for the sanctity of human life presumably means not bombing the fuck out of countries to prove a point and having to negotiate and operate from a position of weakness, I don't really know. Failed families? I've got nothing there, since I haven't the first clue what he meant with that; conveniently, neither did he, but it's easier to say than explain.
Not to mention, the "Demographic disaster" he means isn't the aging of the population and the decline of the welfare state -- and by the way, Mitt, what do you find so disastrous about said decline, specifically? -- but MUSLIMS. See, this is how it works: Stop believing in God, fail your families (bad grades? still grasping for this one), stop bombing shit around the world (or in Europe, as the general extent of European bombing campaigns were confined to Europe), and oh, invent tv and put big ol' titties on it. Bounce 'em up and down a bit, too. Yyyyyeeeaaaahhhhhh. That's nice.
Then the MUSLIMS will come and take over your continent.
See how that works? Simple!
China, and Asia are emerging from centuries of poverty. Their people are plentiful, innovative and ambitious.
Yes. China, and Asia, are, much the same way that France, and Europe, suck. Oh, but here's another *shh* demographic disaster: our competitors are plentiful. Little bastards are everywhere!
Our prosperity and security also depend on finally acting to become energy-secure. Oil-producing states like Russia and Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran are siphoning over $400 billion out of our economy. That's almost what we spent annually for our national defense.
It is past time for us to invest in energy technology: nuclear power, clean coal, liquid coal, renewable resources, energy efficiency.
(APPLAUSE)
Simply put, America must never be held hostage by the likes of Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad.
Let's see -- Russia, Putin; Venezuela, Chavez; Iran, Ahmadinejad; Saudi Arabia -- huh, must've forgotten that one.
Also, let's look at the clarion call to investment in energy technology, including the mammoth pipe dreams "clean coal" and "liquid coal" (not exactly what it is, but that's one of them silly verifiable/falsifiable things Mitt hates -- you know, facts) -- Mitt is the kind of jackass that would tell you we need to get to Titan before the Russians or the Chinese do, since "thar's black gold in them thar hills!"
Immediately following the above:
Our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping up of government spending.
Because the key to the future is for YOU! to invest in your own liquid coal plant. What, you wanted the government to invest in it to benefit you?! You must be one of those god-hating, tits-on-tv-watching bastards, aren't you? And I mean that in the traditional sense, bastard.
Let's not just focus on the pork alone, even though it is indeed irritating and shameful.
Holy crap, innuendo! And a startlingly candid admission. Kudos, Mitt!
You know, I've found that most politicians don't seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth and the wealth of our families. They act as if money just happens, that it just happens to be there.
But every dollar represents a good or service that's been produced in the private sector.
By "private sector," of course, he meant "China."
Get out -- get out that weed whacker and take it to regulations and reform entitlements and, by the way, stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government.
Ah, yes, it's the unions that are to blame. Greedy bastards, demanding even the slightest bit of power! When will these peons -- I mean, workers -- learn that they are not entitled to have a say in their own futures?!
But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years, when troops were reduced by 500,000, when almost 80 ships were retired from our Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25 percent.
We were told we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend; we didn't get the peace.
When all else fails, blame Bill, whose military cuts were proportionally smaller than Bush 41's were. Yet another verifiable/refutable thing that Mitt hates.
The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the Constitution.
At last, something accurate -- you're right, Mitt, and these new departures include torture as policy and the fact that apparently, as of 2001, there has been no such thing as habeas corpus in the Constitution. Really -- see for yourself. (You fuck.)
America must always remain, as it has always been, the hope of the Earth.
My god, but it must have really sucked to have lived before 1776, when the very idea "hope" was an unimaginable concept. Truly the founders were men of vision indeed, that they could create this idea of "hope" that Romney speaks of!
Yeesh.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Did Gruden's Construction Project Damn the Raiders to this Circle of NFL Hell?
An interesting post over at Thoughts from the Dark Side made me stop and think.
First off, thanks, Patrick, for linking the slo-mo and the still of the Snowjob from your older post. I'd never seen those angles like that before, and while it changes nothing, thanks for the visual confirm of what everyone already knows: it was a fumble, and the Raiders got jobbed for neither the first nor the last time (though the Snowjob would still maybe not be as egregious as the "safety" against Seattle a few years prior, were it not the playoffs).
Patrick's point is essentially this: the Raiders of the Gruden era were old, and were never built to be rebuilt. They were, in a sense, built in just the way that Al likes his teams to be built (reputedly): built to be refurbished and retooled, but never demolished and reconstructed ground-up. Patrick speculates that Gruden left because he saw essentially his own writing on the wall, that the team was going to die of NFL old age sooner than expected and couldn't be rebuilt, but somewhat undercuts his point with I think a better one: Gruden was not successful again until he got Jeff Garcia in at QB -- a Gannon-like player and leader. If we agree that Gruden's team was built on the plug-and-play method, then theoretically the model is sustaining, particularly as vets hit free agency younger than they used to. It also seems to be the way the Raiders have always done business.
Not so fast. I wondered who was a Gruden draft pick that made anything of themselves, and looking at the team's draft history, I found four: Woodson (98, 1), Rod Coleman (99, 5) SeaBass (00, 1) and Lechler (00, 5). A CB, K, LB/DE and P. That's it, that's the sum total of the Gruden-era draft picks that can be counted as truly good players at the NFL level.
Pretty sad pickings, eh? I read through some other years, and was fascinated to see that, on balance, the Raiders have always been terrible at drafting players outright. They also have had a surprising amount of drafts either without first-round picks, or with long stretchs of time (up to four rounds) without a pick -- which tells me they were doing a lot of trading and packaging to hire good players away from other teams; but isn't that what we've always known about the Raiders? What they've been incredibly good at -- or astoundingly lucky with -- is late-round gems. Art Shell was a 3, which I'd consider late for the best ever to play his postion, Cliff Branch and Dave Dalby were both 72 4s, which alone makes that a great draft, in 77 you get Lester Hayes at 5 and Rod Martin at 12, and He Who Is Simply Bo was an 87 7. Incredible -- and, not for nothing, these late-round gems were all drafted decades ago. Part of the problem.
The Raiders also seem to have one quirk that seems to be indicative of future success, despite their justified reputation for building via other castaways: they have series of great drafts, which either precede or prolong success. For instance, from 67-72: Upshaw, Stabler, Shell, Atkinson, Hubbard, Chester, Irons, Tatum, Villapiano, Branch and Dalby. Or 81-83: Long, Allen, Squirek, McElroy, Mosebar, Pickel, Townsend. Shorter list, and nary a draft worth mentioning until 87/88. Translation? Shorter success.
The Raiders can delude themselves all they want about their history of bringing castaways from other teams into the fold and becoming a great team that way. That has always been an element, no doubt about it. They've only been successful, however, when they could add from others and draft well themselves.
That's the problem. The Raiders' last great draft was probably 1988, and it lasted only the first round. Granted, Tim Brown, Terry McDaniel, and Scott Davis is a hell of a round -- a remarkable round -- but after that? Bupkus. Wisniewski followed in 89, but for the next six or seven years, squat (including the god-awful debacle that was the 91 draft -- yeesh.) Yes, Greg Biekert (93, 7) was a nice pull, and Rob Fredrickson had a nice career, but did he play like a first?
Where does this leave us? With some reason for hope, actually. Ever since Gruden left, the drafting has gotten incrementally better, though you'd not yet know it by the result on the field. Ron Curry, a productive #1 or 2 guy when he has had to be, was a 2002 7. Asomugha and Fargas, 2003 (1 and 3, resp.). '05 brought Morrison (3), '06 Howard (2), along with McQuistain (3) and Huff (1), who may yet turn out to be good long-term players. It's not quite the 67-72 gold rush, but if the 07 class develops positively (Russell [1], Miller [2], Richardson [5], and O'Neal [6] have all showed at least some reason to expect positive things from them going forward, while Bush [4] remains a tantalizing mystery [and Henderson (3) simply a mystery]), then there is some reason to think that a run on good-to-great players is in the making; we'll need a great '08 draft to start to solidify that process, though.
Maybe there was something to it when Davis said that he found Kiffin's recruiting background attractive. Maybe Patrick is right and Gruden's model was fundamentally unsustainable. Maybe Callahan, Turner and Shell will deserve some credit if Kiffin can right the ship -- though Turner will still have to account for that horrid '04 draft: Gallery 1, Grove 2, Schweigert 3. Ouch. Most of the Nation is ready to run Schweigert out of town, and four seasons in, the jury remains out on both Gallery (seems actually on his way toward becoming a solid guard) and Grove (still a mystery in the middle).
If the Raiders are going to return to any semblance of respectability, they are going to have to be patient (ha) and get vets in to lead the younger guys. As their own history shows, though, they're also going to have to draft well, which they've only ever done sporadically, at best. Still, look back at the Raiders of the 70s and early-mid 80s, and look at those two windows of great drafts -- if '07 was the start of something (and we can add quality players in from every draft dating to '02, with the possible exception of '04), then the team may be on the road to rebound. I call it: 8-8.
First off, thanks, Patrick, for linking the slo-mo and the still of the Snowjob from your older post. I'd never seen those angles like that before, and while it changes nothing, thanks for the visual confirm of what everyone already knows: it was a fumble, and the Raiders got jobbed for neither the first nor the last time (though the Snowjob would still maybe not be as egregious as the "safety" against Seattle a few years prior, were it not the playoffs).
Patrick's point is essentially this: the Raiders of the Gruden era were old, and were never built to be rebuilt. They were, in a sense, built in just the way that Al likes his teams to be built (reputedly): built to be refurbished and retooled, but never demolished and reconstructed ground-up. Patrick speculates that Gruden left because he saw essentially his own writing on the wall, that the team was going to die of NFL old age sooner than expected and couldn't be rebuilt, but somewhat undercuts his point with I think a better one: Gruden was not successful again until he got Jeff Garcia in at QB -- a Gannon-like player and leader. If we agree that Gruden's team was built on the plug-and-play method, then theoretically the model is sustaining, particularly as vets hit free agency younger than they used to. It also seems to be the way the Raiders have always done business.
Not so fast. I wondered who was a Gruden draft pick that made anything of themselves, and looking at the team's draft history, I found four: Woodson (98, 1), Rod Coleman (99, 5) SeaBass (00, 1) and Lechler (00, 5). A CB, K, LB/DE and P. That's it, that's the sum total of the Gruden-era draft picks that can be counted as truly good players at the NFL level.
Pretty sad pickings, eh? I read through some other years, and was fascinated to see that, on balance, the Raiders have always been terrible at drafting players outright. They also have had a surprising amount of drafts either without first-round picks, or with long stretchs of time (up to four rounds) without a pick -- which tells me they were doing a lot of trading and packaging to hire good players away from other teams; but isn't that what we've always known about the Raiders? What they've been incredibly good at -- or astoundingly lucky with -- is late-round gems. Art Shell was a 3, which I'd consider late for the best ever to play his postion, Cliff Branch and Dave Dalby were both 72 4s, which alone makes that a great draft, in 77 you get Lester Hayes at 5 and Rod Martin at 12, and He Who Is Simply Bo was an 87 7. Incredible -- and, not for nothing, these late-round gems were all drafted decades ago. Part of the problem.
The Raiders also seem to have one quirk that seems to be indicative of future success, despite their justified reputation for building via other castaways: they have series of great drafts, which either precede or prolong success. For instance, from 67-72: Upshaw, Stabler, Shell, Atkinson, Hubbard, Chester, Irons, Tatum, Villapiano, Branch and Dalby. Or 81-83: Long, Allen, Squirek, McElroy, Mosebar, Pickel, Townsend. Shorter list, and nary a draft worth mentioning until 87/88. Translation? Shorter success.
The Raiders can delude themselves all they want about their history of bringing castaways from other teams into the fold and becoming a great team that way. That has always been an element, no doubt about it. They've only been successful, however, when they could add from others and draft well themselves.
That's the problem. The Raiders' last great draft was probably 1988, and it lasted only the first round. Granted, Tim Brown, Terry McDaniel, and Scott Davis is a hell of a round -- a remarkable round -- but after that? Bupkus. Wisniewski followed in 89, but for the next six or seven years, squat (including the god-awful debacle that was the 91 draft -- yeesh.) Yes, Greg Biekert (93, 7) was a nice pull, and Rob Fredrickson had a nice career, but did he play like a first?
Where does this leave us? With some reason for hope, actually. Ever since Gruden left, the drafting has gotten incrementally better, though you'd not yet know it by the result on the field. Ron Curry, a productive #1 or 2 guy when he has had to be, was a 2002 7. Asomugha and Fargas, 2003 (1 and 3, resp.). '05 brought Morrison (3), '06 Howard (2), along with McQuistain (3) and Huff (1), who may yet turn out to be good long-term players. It's not quite the 67-72 gold rush, but if the 07 class develops positively (Russell [1], Miller [2], Richardson [5], and O'Neal [6] have all showed at least some reason to expect positive things from them going forward, while Bush [4] remains a tantalizing mystery [and Henderson (3) simply a mystery]), then there is some reason to think that a run on good-to-great players is in the making; we'll need a great '08 draft to start to solidify that process, though.
Maybe there was something to it when Davis said that he found Kiffin's recruiting background attractive. Maybe Patrick is right and Gruden's model was fundamentally unsustainable. Maybe Callahan, Turner and Shell will deserve some credit if Kiffin can right the ship -- though Turner will still have to account for that horrid '04 draft: Gallery 1, Grove 2, Schweigert 3. Ouch. Most of the Nation is ready to run Schweigert out of town, and four seasons in, the jury remains out on both Gallery (seems actually on his way toward becoming a solid guard) and Grove (still a mystery in the middle).
If the Raiders are going to return to any semblance of respectability, they are going to have to be patient (ha) and get vets in to lead the younger guys. As their own history shows, though, they're also going to have to draft well, which they've only ever done sporadically, at best. Still, look back at the Raiders of the 70s and early-mid 80s, and look at those two windows of great drafts -- if '07 was the start of something (and we can add quality players in from every draft dating to '02, with the possible exception of '04), then the team may be on the road to rebound. I call it: 8-8.
More on the Intelligence Bill:
USA Today has a pretty well-written OpEd on the intelligence bill, and manages to get the gist of the problem distilled into three sentences. Bonus points for getting it right:
Bush warns that if phone companies don't get immunity, they'll never cooperate again. That's a concern, but it's doubtful that companies would rebuff lawful requests. Of greater concern is the message that illegal activity is acceptable and will be forgiven.
Good work.
Bush warns that if phone companies don't get immunity, they'll never cooperate again. That's a concern, but it's doubtful that companies would rebuff lawful requests. Of greater concern is the message that illegal activity is acceptable and will be forgiven.
Good work.
Back?
This is the first day since Saturday that I've not broken 101 -- in fact, to this point in the early afternoon, I've maintained a normal body temperature. Imagine that. Still wiped out, and a bit fuzzy in the head yet, but I should be back up to 100 (percent, hopefully, not degrees) in a day or so.
First time in my life that I've broken 104 that I know of; my peak temperature was 40.1 C, which is, what, 104.2 or so? Woof -- that was warm. Too bad I was freezing when I was that hot; it was miserable trying to cool off because I knew I needed to, but damn, man, I was cold.
Here's hoping all is past.
First time in my life that I've broken 104 that I know of; my peak temperature was 40.1 C, which is, what, 104.2 or so? Woof -- that was warm. Too bad I was freezing when I was that hot; it was miserable trying to cool off because I knew I needed to, but damn, man, I was cold.
Here's hoping all is past.
Big News Day:
Lots going on right now, from Obama taking the last eight primaries -- the Potomac Primaries by huge margins, no less -- to all sorts of shovels-ful of dirt being heaped on "privacy" in the U.S.
(Leading off, I wonder whether "Potomac Primaries" immediately identifies either the speaker or the referent as Democratic, or at least non-Republican -- seems to me that the conservative blogs in Virginia are quite happy generally referring to the "Chesapeake Primaries." A curious nomenclatural development, if nothing else.)
Let's see:
Once again, the Democrats in the Senate prove just how utterly useless they are. Bunch of chickens, giving in -- AGAIN -- to Bush and giving the telecoms retroactive immunity. At least Chris Dodd was honest about it:
"Those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties in order to be more secure are apparently prevailing."
Dodd is pinning his hopes for defeating the immunity clause on the House, which, to its credit, passed the RESTORE Act back in November by a 40-vote margin. Ok, well and good, but I foresee two problems. One, a 40-vote margin is hardly veto-proof, and Bush is, of course, threatening a veto without the immunity clause. Second, Dodd is probably giving the House Democrats too much credit for being able to do the right thing when the chips are down. Last I saw, Pelosi has been woefully weak at being able to convince her fellow donkeys to stop acting like pouting sycophants and actually stand up to the White House. I've a sinking feeling that this will be more of the same -- lots of sound, lots of fury -- unfortunately, all signifying nothing, since Bush is going to get what he wants. Again.
Cowards, the lot of them.
Chief ne'er-do-well at the moment, Jay Rockefeller:
"This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation," said Senator John Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee. His support for the plan, after intense negotiations with the White House and his Republican colleagues, was considered critical to its passage but drew criticism from civil liberties groups because of $42,000 in contributions that Rockefeller received last year from AT&T and Verizon executives.
Call me cynical, but I'm beginning to see why Rockefeller supports immunity. Of course, it may just be that he's from West Virgina (spelling intentional), what with that state's recently announced desire to turn traffic cameras into spy cameras. Gosh, who could have seen that coming eventually.
Before anyone would want to register the complaint that turning traffic cams into locating cams during an Amber Alert is acceptable, remember that the Beltway Snipers were driving a white conversion van . . . until it was actually learned that they were driving a sedan. I started paying attention after that little delightfully pointless nugget was put out there -- "Watch out for white conversion vans!" -- I counted over 150 of them in a seven-mile drive to work the next day. Pardon my saying so, but that was as shit-useless an alert as has ever been put out there, particularly since it was, you know, wrong. What would make credible the idea that looking for a black sedan during an Amber Alert justifies this, particularly when the kidnapper's vehicle will be a blue convertible?
Lastly, but in keeping with the same theme, back to Bush's veto. It is a remarkable threat.
Here are two elements of this story worth noting:
First, from RawStory:
"The senate bill also provides fair and just liability protections for companies that did the right thing and assisted in defending America, after the attacks of Sept. 11," Bush said.
As recently as his State of the Union address, Bush would only call for legal immunity for companies "believed to have assisted" in his so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Cross-check with the SoTU here.
Cheeky little thing, ain't he? Of course, anyone with any remnant of a questioning brain knew this was coming -- no reason to threaten to go to the mat over absolutely nothing, after all, but is anyone else disturbed by the link to spying on the populace and being patriotic and defending America? I thought America was We, the People, not They, Our Corporate Overlords. Silly me.
Second, look at the threat Bush is making and dissect it point-by-point (from the same RawStory article):
Bush has pleged to veto any bill without immunity, and he said Tuesday that he would not accept any more temporary FISA extensions. By midnight Saturday, when a stop-gap extension expires, Bush said he will get what he wants or do nothing to stop what he says are vital gaps in intelligence collection re-open.
Ok, here's how I read that. 1. I want the immunity in the final bill, and I want it a) now, b) retroactively, and c) on an unlimited basis going forward. 2. I'm not negotiating anymore -- it's my way or the highway, and in this cliche, the highway is actually the bin Laden Memorial Expressway. 3. If it's not my way, then I won't do anything about it -- I'll just have to make do with a bill that has known intelligence holes, and if something happens because we weren't able to acquire that intelligence, I guess it'll be Congress' fault. So be it.
First of all, his bluff is ridiculous, because everyone knows good and well that he's going to draft a Signing Statement and authorize what he wants, anyway, so it's simple posturing -- it pisses me off, greatly, that it's going to work, but that is, after all, the basis of my bitch against the historically useless Democrats. Second, and pardon my lapse into four-letter vocabulary on this one, but if he sincerely believed in the need for this, as he should, in order to so grossly violate the Constitution, to be willing to go forward and so cleanly threaten to blame his opponents for future attacks is churlish in the extreme, and only reveals what a monumental fucking asshole the guy is.
This is what we get for being so asinine as to elect guys "who are just like us," and "guys we can drink beer with HYUCK!" Dolts. THIS is precisely the bullcrap that the damn Democrats are supposed to be pointing out and rabidly attacking. But, again, useless, etc.
Now, let's see where Clinton and Obama will fall as this proceeds, although we can probably guess as to how they're going to act going forward. To his credit, and bumping him up a notch in my estimation, Obama voted to strip the immunity provisions from the bill; Clinton punted and is one of only two Senators not to vote (Lindsey Graham was the other, for whatever reason). Good for Obama;predictable "fie" on Clinton.
Oh, and in case anyone is keeping score, Bob Barr is to be counted among those rightly opposing RealID. Good for him.
(Leading off, I wonder whether "Potomac Primaries" immediately identifies either the speaker or the referent as Democratic, or at least non-Republican -- seems to me that the conservative blogs in Virginia are quite happy generally referring to the "Chesapeake Primaries." A curious nomenclatural development, if nothing else.)
Let's see:
Once again, the Democrats in the Senate prove just how utterly useless they are. Bunch of chickens, giving in -- AGAIN -- to Bush and giving the telecoms retroactive immunity. At least Chris Dodd was honest about it:
"Those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties in order to be more secure are apparently prevailing."
Dodd is pinning his hopes for defeating the immunity clause on the House, which, to its credit, passed the RESTORE Act back in November by a 40-vote margin. Ok, well and good, but I foresee two problems. One, a 40-vote margin is hardly veto-proof, and Bush is, of course, threatening a veto without the immunity clause. Second, Dodd is probably giving the House Democrats too much credit for being able to do the right thing when the chips are down. Last I saw, Pelosi has been woefully weak at being able to convince her fellow donkeys to stop acting like pouting sycophants and actually stand up to the White House. I've a sinking feeling that this will be more of the same -- lots of sound, lots of fury -- unfortunately, all signifying nothing, since Bush is going to get what he wants. Again.
Cowards, the lot of them.
Chief ne'er-do-well at the moment, Jay Rockefeller:
"This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation," said Senator John Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee. His support for the plan, after intense negotiations with the White House and his Republican colleagues, was considered critical to its passage but drew criticism from civil liberties groups because of $42,000 in contributions that Rockefeller received last year from AT&T and Verizon executives.
Call me cynical, but I'm beginning to see why Rockefeller supports immunity. Of course, it may just be that he's from West Virgina (spelling intentional), what with that state's recently announced desire to turn traffic cameras into spy cameras. Gosh, who could have seen that coming eventually.
Before anyone would want to register the complaint that turning traffic cams into locating cams during an Amber Alert is acceptable, remember that the Beltway Snipers were driving a white conversion van . . . until it was actually learned that they were driving a sedan. I started paying attention after that little delightfully pointless nugget was put out there -- "Watch out for white conversion vans!" -- I counted over 150 of them in a seven-mile drive to work the next day. Pardon my saying so, but that was as shit-useless an alert as has ever been put out there, particularly since it was, you know, wrong. What would make credible the idea that looking for a black sedan during an Amber Alert justifies this, particularly when the kidnapper's vehicle will be a blue convertible?
Lastly, but in keeping with the same theme, back to Bush's veto. It is a remarkable threat.
Here are two elements of this story worth noting:
First, from RawStory:
"The senate bill also provides fair and just liability protections for companies that did the right thing and assisted in defending America, after the attacks of Sept. 11," Bush said.
As recently as his State of the Union address, Bush would only call for legal immunity for companies "believed to have assisted" in his so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Cross-check with the SoTU here.
Cheeky little thing, ain't he? Of course, anyone with any remnant of a questioning brain knew this was coming -- no reason to threaten to go to the mat over absolutely nothing, after all, but is anyone else disturbed by the link to spying on the populace and being patriotic and defending America? I thought America was We, the People, not They, Our Corporate Overlords. Silly me.
Second, look at the threat Bush is making and dissect it point-by-point (from the same RawStory article):
Bush has pleged to veto any bill without immunity, and he said Tuesday that he would not accept any more temporary FISA extensions. By midnight Saturday, when a stop-gap extension expires, Bush said he will get what he wants or do nothing to stop what he says are vital gaps in intelligence collection re-open.
Ok, here's how I read that. 1. I want the immunity in the final bill, and I want it a) now, b) retroactively, and c) on an unlimited basis going forward. 2. I'm not negotiating anymore -- it's my way or the highway, and in this cliche, the highway is actually the bin Laden Memorial Expressway. 3. If it's not my way, then I won't do anything about it -- I'll just have to make do with a bill that has known intelligence holes, and if something happens because we weren't able to acquire that intelligence, I guess it'll be Congress' fault. So be it.
First of all, his bluff is ridiculous, because everyone knows good and well that he's going to draft a Signing Statement and authorize what he wants, anyway, so it's simple posturing -- it pisses me off, greatly, that it's going to work, but that is, after all, the basis of my bitch against the historically useless Democrats. Second, and pardon my lapse into four-letter vocabulary on this one, but if he sincerely believed in the need for this, as he should, in order to so grossly violate the Constitution, to be willing to go forward and so cleanly threaten to blame his opponents for future attacks is churlish in the extreme, and only reveals what a monumental fucking asshole the guy is.
This is what we get for being so asinine as to elect guys "who are just like us," and "guys we can drink beer with HYUCK!" Dolts. THIS is precisely the bullcrap that the damn Democrats are supposed to be pointing out and rabidly attacking. But, again, useless, etc.
Now, let's see where Clinton and Obama will fall as this proceeds, although we can probably guess as to how they're going to act going forward. To his credit, and bumping him up a notch in my estimation, Obama voted to strip the immunity provisions from the bill; Clinton punted and is one of only two Senators not to vote (Lindsey Graham was the other, for whatever reason). Good for Obama;predictable "fie" on Clinton.
Oh, and in case anyone is keeping score, Bob Barr is to be counted among those rightly opposing RealID. Good for him.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Sick
If I'm quiet for a few days, it's because I'm in bed most of the time. Temperature up to 101, killer, killer headache, and a host of other symptoms have me off the computer most of the time (except for right now, when I absolutely have to get something done) and -- more importantly -- away from my baby girl. :(
Man, that bit sucks, looking at her smile and reach her little arms out to me as I walk by, knowing that I can't pick her up.
Here's hoping I can get this kicked, and soon -- I gotta get back to work on all sorts of things, a few of which will appear here before too long.
Man, that bit sucks, looking at her smile and reach her little arms out to me as I walk by, knowing that I can't pick her up.
Here's hoping I can get this kicked, and soon -- I gotta get back to work on all sorts of things, a few of which will appear here before too long.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Andrew Keen: The Cult of the Amateur
One look at the title of Andrew Keen's book will give you a pretty good idea both of his subjects and his outlook:
The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture
Let me get part of this out of the way: Keen's approach is (obviously) pretty conservative, which is generally fine, except where he can't resist the one-liners and funny quips. Two wisecracks in particular stand out: first, he doesn't seem to think that former Senator George Allen's "macaca" faux pas was all that big a deal, really -- certainly not so offensive or monumental as it was made out to be by all of those "amateurs" out there; and second, he felt the need to describe the ACLU as an organization that goes out of its way to defend possession and manufacture of child porn. These little jabs take some of the steam out of the argument as it develops through the book, not because of my liberal leanings, but because the little asides are flatly unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the argument needs all of the steam it can muster. The basic point is this: the internet has given too many monkeys too many typewriters, and rather than inadvertently whipping out a Paradise Lost, they're basically flinging poo across the web. Fair enough, and hell, maybe I fling my share of poo out there, so tar me with the guilty brush.
Unfortunately, the argument stops there, right were it begins. The "culture" that is being killed? It's not based on any clear concept of culture that can be debated and discussed -- and wouldn't experts who have invested the time and effort into learning about culture from a theoretical point of view be upset by that -- but is presented as essentially an infrastructure of business and management connections that bring talent to the market; Keen's model, such as it is, is clearly of a culture industry, though not nearly so developed as the model that said term would ordinarily reference. Here again is an instance where Keen would be able to make a point, if he knew how to make it, but he essentially leaves it on the table, orphaned.
Keen's book is an interesting enough read, and does happen to provide some useful information on the economic elements of the explosion of poo-flinging monkeys on the web, but drops the ball most noticeably where it could make the biggest impact: the question of privacy. The best thread in Keen's argument isn't his now-paean to the "good old days," now-dirge for the fallen, to whose memory he and the other deposed guardians of a dethroned culture raise glasses and salute is the question of privacy in the world of Web 2.0. This is a legitimate concern, and Keen displays uncharacteristic acumen in working through the problems posed by the web, both via networking sites (Facebook, MySpace, etc.), financial transactions and identity theft, t the basic problem of the extent to which each of us is binarized (unfortunately not Keen's word -- I'll claim it, if that's not already been done). "Binarized" in the book means essentially reduced to just another set of data for the almighty algorithm to calculate when rendering its decisions on what information we seek along our particular paths of enlightenment. Penile discharge -- causes. Ever Googled that one? I hope not, since the cause of that should be obvious, but if you have, and a company like AOL gets hacked (oops!), any joker with a broadband connection can let any other joker know all about it, as well as the advice sites you frequented looking for tips on how to cover an affair, or maybe how to get the wife some antibiotics secretly (after all, if you're discharging . . . ).
Unnecessarily graphic metaphor aside, Keen hits on a legitimate problem, but poses contradictory suggestions as solutions. The biggest contradiction is the suggestion that privacy should be flagrantly and repeatedly violated when "the children" are at stake. Seems reasonable enough, but it raises other discussions that leap from the realm of a gripe about the typing monkeys and into criminology, retributive theory, questions of forgiveness, psychology and physiology, etc. Obviously, this book isn't the place for those types of concerns, but neither does Keen even possess the perspicacity to raise the possibility that his readers may wish to go elsewhere and continue thinking about the issues he's raised on their own.
In the end, the book is a fast, easy read and probably particularly exemplary in what it seeks to do: bitch and moan about how the internet is full of talentless hacks and our ill-defined culture is suffering as a result. Probably a fair gripe, to be honest, although Keen fails to deal adequately with the question of elitism vs. democratization (dismally dealt with when it is squarely addressed). The book is also worthwhile if you need a prod to go into the direction of the question of privacy in the Information Age. Unfortunately for Keen, there are better, more informative ways to get to that point.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Goodell to Indemnify Matt Walsh:
Roger Goodell plans to indemnify former Pats' video assistant Matt Walsh if Walsh is willing to talk about what he knows about New England's previous taping activities.
I don't expect much out of this, for two reasons stemming from statements in the article.
First, Goodell says that he's certainly willing to consider any "believable information." Depending on the threshold, that could be prohibitive, especially since:
Asked why the Patriots turned over six tapes, he replied: "That's what they had. My guess is they taped over some of those from time to time ... their notes were reflective of that."
Taping over previous video is not unusual for NFL teams.
Believability as a threshold may not be as prohibitive as lack of evidence.
Goodell may manage to win this one. By indemnifying Walsh, he's making sure he's covered in case of breach of contract. If Walsh talks to Goodell, he'll certainly be in breach, so this is the equivalent of offering immunity for testimony. At the same time, though, Goodell reserves the right (reasonably enough) not to pursue non-credible leads, and if all else fails, he can always say he tried and did everything possible (after the season, so as not to cause an unfair distraction away from the players and the games, naturally) to get to the bottom of this, but if the Pats were smart enough to tape over their videos, well, there's nothing he can do.
If the Pats weren't that smart, they'd better be now.
I don't expect much out of this, for two reasons stemming from statements in the article.
First, Goodell says that he's certainly willing to consider any "believable information." Depending on the threshold, that could be prohibitive, especially since:
Asked why the Patriots turned over six tapes, he replied: "That's what they had. My guess is they taped over some of those from time to time ... their notes were reflective of that."
Taping over previous video is not unusual for NFL teams.
Believability as a threshold may not be as prohibitive as lack of evidence.
Goodell may manage to win this one. By indemnifying Walsh, he's making sure he's covered in case of breach of contract. If Walsh talks to Goodell, he'll certainly be in breach, so this is the equivalent of offering immunity for testimony. At the same time, though, Goodell reserves the right (reasonably enough) not to pursue non-credible leads, and if all else fails, he can always say he tried and did everything possible (after the season, so as not to cause an unfair distraction away from the players and the games, naturally) to get to the bottom of this, but if the Pats were smart enough to tape over their videos, well, there's nothing he can do.
If the Pats weren't that smart, they'd better be now.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Super Tuesday:
Some random thoughts on Super Tuesday:
- Though it's easy to call this a victory for Clinton, it seems like a qualified victory, at best. First, she's still essentially a coastal victor, though TN was a nice pickup for her (don't mention AR -- that was a fait accompli). Second, she lost ground relative to Obama over the last six weeks. Yes, she whupped him in CA, but a month and a half ago -- even two weeks ago -- Super Tuesday was looking like an inevitable Clinton romp. Obama tightened it up and kept it close, and the longer he does that, the better chance he has of winning.
- Obama rolled up a nice roster of states (including the irrelevant-for-Democrats ND and ID) and kept Clinton winless in the interior blue states (MN) and belwethers (MO). He's going to have to get some big coastal states, though -- GA and CT were nice, but losing MA after two senatorial endorsements, getting clobbered in CA and failing to pull NJ are big back-breakers down the road -- unless he can nab PA and at least MD or VA in a few days. If Obama loses PA, Clinton can be coronated; the problem is that western PA is a Clinton-rich demographic: labor. Toss OH into the pot, too -- if Clinton takes both PA and OH, it's over. If Obama can take PA and VA, he's got a shot, but OH is the next prize.
- McCain is a clear winner, Romney a clear loser. Huckabee is the wild-card. People are talking about McCain/Huckabee, which is intriguing for several reasons. One, knee-jerk reactions aside, Huckabee isn't the solid conservative that McCain needs. True, Huckabee is a solid "values conservative," and true, Huckabee will have pull with the remnants of the Religious Right -- remnants that McCain desperately needs to hope to prevail in a general election. Huckabee is also a tax-raising semi-populist who questions the Gospel According to Friedman (Milton, Thomas, take your pick). As a luke-warm free-marketer, as a tax-raising Republican with, unfortunately for him, liberal economic tendencies, he may actually harm McCain with hardcore Conservatives who vote the idealized, pie-in-the-sky "bottom line."
- That said, though, an M/H ticket does have an advantage: it's an apprenticeship ticket, to all appearances. It has the feeling that the Dole/Powell rumors had in '96 -- one-term, old president grooming his successor and keeping the seat warm, enabling Huckabee to campaign for the presidency in 2012 virtually from the Convention forward. Given Huckabee's abysmal ignorance about the world around him -- an abysmal ignorance of which he is distressingly proud -- this scares me a wee bit; his anti-science viewpoints scare me in tandem. We've already had eight years of a wilfully obtuse, wilfully ignorant president; I'm not keen to try for any more at the moment.
- Lastly, karma bit the cheaters in the butt on Sunday; was it too much to expect it'd have done the same on Tuesday to the liars and thieves? Ah well, one can dream . . .
- Though it's easy to call this a victory for Clinton, it seems like a qualified victory, at best. First, she's still essentially a coastal victor, though TN was a nice pickup for her (don't mention AR -- that was a fait accompli). Second, she lost ground relative to Obama over the last six weeks. Yes, she whupped him in CA, but a month and a half ago -- even two weeks ago -- Super Tuesday was looking like an inevitable Clinton romp. Obama tightened it up and kept it close, and the longer he does that, the better chance he has of winning.
- Obama rolled up a nice roster of states (including the irrelevant-for-Democrats ND and ID) and kept Clinton winless in the interior blue states (MN) and belwethers (MO). He's going to have to get some big coastal states, though -- GA and CT were nice, but losing MA after two senatorial endorsements, getting clobbered in CA and failing to pull NJ are big back-breakers down the road -- unless he can nab PA and at least MD or VA in a few days. If Obama loses PA, Clinton can be coronated; the problem is that western PA is a Clinton-rich demographic: labor. Toss OH into the pot, too -- if Clinton takes both PA and OH, it's over. If Obama can take PA and VA, he's got a shot, but OH is the next prize.
- McCain is a clear winner, Romney a clear loser. Huckabee is the wild-card. People are talking about McCain/Huckabee, which is intriguing for several reasons. One, knee-jerk reactions aside, Huckabee isn't the solid conservative that McCain needs. True, Huckabee is a solid "values conservative," and true, Huckabee will have pull with the remnants of the Religious Right -- remnants that McCain desperately needs to hope to prevail in a general election. Huckabee is also a tax-raising semi-populist who questions the Gospel According to Friedman (Milton, Thomas, take your pick). As a luke-warm free-marketer, as a tax-raising Republican with, unfortunately for him, liberal economic tendencies, he may actually harm McCain with hardcore Conservatives who vote the idealized, pie-in-the-sky "bottom line."
- That said, though, an M/H ticket does have an advantage: it's an apprenticeship ticket, to all appearances. It has the feeling that the Dole/Powell rumors had in '96 -- one-term, old president grooming his successor and keeping the seat warm, enabling Huckabee to campaign for the presidency in 2012 virtually from the Convention forward. Given Huckabee's abysmal ignorance about the world around him -- an abysmal ignorance of which he is distressingly proud -- this scares me a wee bit; his anti-science viewpoints scare me in tandem. We've already had eight years of a wilfully obtuse, wilfully ignorant president; I'm not keen to try for any more at the moment.
- Lastly, karma bit the cheaters in the butt on Sunday; was it too much to expect it'd have done the same on Tuesday to the liars and thieves? Ah well, one can dream . . .
Monday, February 04, 2008
Random Thoughts Following the Super Bowl:
- I still say karma is obviously one bad mother.
- It was irritating watching Randy catch that TD pass. It was gratifying watching his face fall as the game closed down. It would have been neither in particular were it not for Jemele Hill's godawful article.
- The Giants' offense sucked, except for five minutes.
- Did neither coach really think it worthwhile to run the ball?
- I was hollering for the Giants to try and involve Boss for 3+ quarters before I got my wish, and look at the result -- a 45-yard catch-and-run. How did I know Boss'd be a winner? Look at his name, man: Boss.
- 18-1 has to hurt like hell when the 1 is the Super Bowl (a sentiment that Patrick at Thoughts from the Dark Side shares.
- Eli is one of the more undeserving MVPs in some time.
- Building on the above, once again, deserving defensive effort gets jobbed. Strahan, Tuck, Umenyiora -- pick a Giant's DL, they were the MVP. Give it to the lot of them. But not Eli. That's as egregious a mistake as the Dexter Jackson, with the exception that Manning actually got it off his name.
- Peyton is still better, and Eli still doesn't ever give the impression that he enjoys playing football.
- Now we Raider fans can get back to the "when will our guys get back there" and pin our hopes on the young talent emerging on defense, the young talent hopefully poised to emerge on offense, and reckon in terms of, say, three years to get a championship-caliber team ready ...
- ... then we can return to the reality of Raider Nation and await the firing of Kiffin, the spurning of the Raiders by Steve Spagnuolo (you know he has to be getting a call), and the elevation of Lofton to HC over Ryan. Whoops, did I just say that?
- It was irritating watching Randy catch that TD pass. It was gratifying watching his face fall as the game closed down. It would have been neither in particular were it not for Jemele Hill's godawful article.
- The Giants' offense sucked, except for five minutes.
- Did neither coach really think it worthwhile to run the ball?
- I was hollering for the Giants to try and involve Boss for 3+ quarters before I got my wish, and look at the result -- a 45-yard catch-and-run. How did I know Boss'd be a winner? Look at his name, man: Boss.
- 18-1 has to hurt like hell when the 1 is the Super Bowl (a sentiment that Patrick at Thoughts from the Dark Side shares.
- Eli is one of the more undeserving MVPs in some time.
- Building on the above, once again, deserving defensive effort gets jobbed. Strahan, Tuck, Umenyiora -- pick a Giant's DL, they were the MVP. Give it to the lot of them. But not Eli. That's as egregious a mistake as the Dexter Jackson, with the exception that Manning actually got it off his name.
- Peyton is still better, and Eli still doesn't ever give the impression that he enjoys playing football.
- Now we Raider fans can get back to the "when will our guys get back there" and pin our hopes on the young talent emerging on defense, the young talent hopefully poised to emerge on offense, and reckon in terms of, say, three years to get a championship-caliber team ready ...
- ... then we can return to the reality of Raider Nation and await the firing of Kiffin, the spurning of the Raiders by Steve Spagnuolo (you know he has to be getting a call), and the elevation of Lofton to HC over Ryan. Whoops, did I just say that?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Eli is the Wrong Choice:
Sorry, Eli, you played a nice game, but your DL was the MVP. Pick one -- Strahan, Tuck or Umenyiora -- any of them could, and actually should be MVP.
New York Giants: World Champions:
The Giants have pulled off the Super Bowl upset of my lifetime.
Holy shit, what a game. Makes it worth staying up past 4 am to watch it.
Karma is a motherfucker, ain't it, Belichick?
Holy shit, what a game. Makes it worth staying up past 4 am to watch it.
Karma is a motherfucker, ain't it, Belichick?
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Have the Patriots Been Cheating in All of Their Super Bowl Victories?
The smoke seems to be billowing away from that particular fire.
Very interesting. Naturally, as a Raider fan, I have to caution taking ESPN with at least a grain of salt when juicy stories are first reported, but this bears watching -- an opinion shared, apparently, by other people, such as Senator Arlen Specter.
I'd like to see the Patriots exposed for the cheaters that they seem to be as much as anyone, but while I appreciate Senator Specter's interest (and as one homer to another, can we get someone to fess up that it was a damn fumble already?!), I have one question:
Aren't there some other destroyed videotapes that he should be more concerned with?!
NFL vs. torture. I know that the former is more interesting and less unsettling, but, Senator, with all due respect, where the fuck are your priorities?
Very interesting. Naturally, as a Raider fan, I have to caution taking ESPN with at least a grain of salt when juicy stories are first reported, but this bears watching -- an opinion shared, apparently, by other people, such as Senator Arlen Specter.
I'd like to see the Patriots exposed for the cheaters that they seem to be as much as anyone, but while I appreciate Senator Specter's interest (and as one homer to another, can we get someone to fess up that it was a damn fumble already?!), I have one question:
Aren't there some other destroyed videotapes that he should be more concerned with?!
NFL vs. torture. I know that the former is more interesting and less unsettling, but, Senator, with all due respect, where the fuck are your priorities?
Friday, February 01, 2008
Wonderful Popular Political Discourse in America, Ctd.:
Following up his comment to this post, Robert over at the ICRVN expands the question he raised in his comment -- check it out, it's worth reading and thinking about (and maybe totally shitting in the punch bowl during political discussions, dropping it on Bush supporters, see what their reaction is).
I'll be keeping it in mind, because I actually know people who think in terms not sufficiently removed from those in the *cough* "insightful" emailer that prompted my original post.
I'll be keeping it in mind, because I actually know people who think in terms not sufficiently removed from those in the *cough* "insightful" emailer that prompted my original post.