Unbelievable, by which I mean "infuriating, but as far from a surprise as could be."
Hillary's latest pull from Bush's Presidential Book of Assholery? Automated phone calls giving black voters false voting information.
We've heard this story before, including TWICE in 2000, in Florida, when Katherine Harris set about to systematically disenfranchise black voters, and in South Carolina, where Karl Rove merrily set about spreading rumors about McCain fathering illegitimate children of *gasp* mixed race.
Now, it's Clinton, doing it to Obama.
I've not exactly held my tongue about the fact that I really, really dislike Hillary Clinton. Really, really dislike her.
But this, compounding all of the other stunts she's pulled thus far?
How can anyone defend her at this point? Sour grapes are one thing, but this woman's sense of entitlement is genuinely frightening. She can't win, so she'll take down her party rival, doing by now her level best to make sure that McCain wins, out of, what, sheer spite? "If I can't have it, no one will?"
Clinton is willing to have her surrogates break the law in order to keep people from voting for her opponent.
Yet more proof that there is no meaningful difference between the asshole we have in the White House now and the asshole who wants to be there so badly she's willing to do any immoral, hateful thing she can to get there.
God, I can't wait until she's out for good.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Iran Drops the Dollar:
As the drums of war steadily beat louder, a new (but wholly expected) wrinkle has arisen in the story: Iran has dropped the dollar as its currency of exchange, this after cutting the dollar from their business as much as possible.
Iraq threatened to trade oil in Euros. Iraq was invaded.
Iran IS trading oil in Euros (and yen). Iran is soon to be attacked, if not outright invaded.
This has been obvious since September of 2001, and I've been expecting this catastrophic mistake for some time.
No good will come of the forthcoming attacks on Iran. None.
Iraq threatened to trade oil in Euros. Iraq was invaded.
Iran IS trading oil in Euros (and yen). Iran is soon to be attacked, if not outright invaded.
This has been obvious since September of 2001, and I've been expecting this catastrophic mistake for some time.
No good will come of the forthcoming attacks on Iran. None.
Monday, April 28, 2008
With Their Draft Picks, The Raiders Selected:
1. Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas.
I like the pick, but I don't love it. I want to love the first-round pick. I'm not enthusiastic about the fact that he doesn't always keep his legs moving -- RBs should always, always keep their legs moving. I don't get the impression that McFadden will run through much contact at the next level, which makes him a slightly faster Justin Fargas. A crowded backfield is even more crowded now, and I like the pick even less now that they didn't move Dominic Rhodes this weekend -- the asking price will necessarily be lower as a result.
Also, I wondered whether I was the only one who noticed this, but as Raidertopia points out, the chosen highlights for McFadden were of the negative variety, whereas most of the other picks had a bunch of positive highlights. Not to put a damper on the out-and-out bias, but I thought that the NFL Network's collection of Ryan Clady picks made him look utterly ridiculous (not surprisingly, this made me feel a bit better about Denver taking him), but point well made. I won't ever complain about Chris Long only having great, great highlights shown, but when 1, 2, 3 and 5 all have only their best moments shown, and 4 has some fairly ignominious ones in there, you have to wonder. All five had their fair share of boneheaded plays (this was perhaps most obvious in Jake Long's case, since Vernon Gholston's highlights at 6 were largely derived from those contests) -- with Chris Long maybe having the fewest bad raps against him -- but McFadden is the only one that had a more negative tone to his clips. Oh well.
Still, I really wish that this pick had been traded to drop and improve the OL.
4a. Tyvon Branch, CB, Connecticut.
Ugh. Are you serious? The Raiders sit on their hands for two rounds (or maybe not) and then finally trade up . . . to take a corner. I really need someone to explain to me Al's rationale for going CB multiple times every year. We get it: he loves corners. He's got a couple of good ones right now, though.
Now, Branch is one of the strongest corners around, even in comparison to the players in the game, and as I saw earlier today (don't recall where, thus no link -- sorry!), of the five players to match or exceed Branch's strength numbers at the combine, four are Pro-Bowlers, and the fifth is a solid starter. This gives me hope, despite the pick.
Rumor floating around the web right now is that he'll be a ST guy with an eye toward making him a safety. I find this prospect interesting -- it makes Schweigert totally redundant (thus dropping his already poor trade value even lower), and gives Huff some competition, and a little push from behind. If this turns out to be the case, then it's a great pick -- if he unseats Huff in the starting lineup, it's even better (though it indicates yet another first-round bust wearing silver and black).
4b. Arman Shields, WR, Richmond.
I know absolutely nothing about this guy save what I've read, so I'll just hope that he's as big and fast and talented as the reports indicate, that he learns and adjusts well to the pro game, and recovers fully from his injury. If so, fantastic.
6. Trevor Scott, DE, Buffalo.
As bizarre as this is going to be to read, I have to say it: I'm actually happier with this pick than with any other pick from the weekend. Does this mean I expect Scott to be better than McFadden, or to have a greater impact? No. It does mean, however, that I think it's a great pick for where and when it was -- and, oh yeah, actually targetted a position of need (crazy, that).
Kid played DE for two years and set his school's records in sacks and TFL. You've got to love the upside. He may need to get stronger through the legs, but that'll happen once he gets into camp.
I love this pick, I really do.
7. Chaz Schilens, WR, San Diego State?
Another guy I've never heard of, and ho hum, another WR taken. See also: Al's CB obsession. I understand that the Raiders' receiver corps is a work in progress, and that they need to upgrade. Fair enough. But is it a bad sign when the MSSM can't seem to agree on where he went to school? Was it Miami? Or did he actually go to San Diego State? (Note also that ESPN has no idea how tall the guy is -- nice.)
It'll be fun to watch a guy named Chaz, if only during the preseason.
Overall, I'd have to give this grade a good, solid C. Definitely just average, given what the Raiders needed, and the possibility that what they coveted may not work out as well as they hope. Still, it's not terrible, and there's potential for improvement at a few important positions.
I like the pick, but I don't love it. I want to love the first-round pick. I'm not enthusiastic about the fact that he doesn't always keep his legs moving -- RBs should always, always keep their legs moving. I don't get the impression that McFadden will run through much contact at the next level, which makes him a slightly faster Justin Fargas. A crowded backfield is even more crowded now, and I like the pick even less now that they didn't move Dominic Rhodes this weekend -- the asking price will necessarily be lower as a result.
Also, I wondered whether I was the only one who noticed this, but as Raidertopia points out, the chosen highlights for McFadden were of the negative variety, whereas most of the other picks had a bunch of positive highlights. Not to put a damper on the out-and-out bias, but I thought that the NFL Network's collection of Ryan Clady picks made him look utterly ridiculous (not surprisingly, this made me feel a bit better about Denver taking him), but point well made. I won't ever complain about Chris Long only having great, great highlights shown, but when 1, 2, 3 and 5 all have only their best moments shown, and 4 has some fairly ignominious ones in there, you have to wonder. All five had their fair share of boneheaded plays (this was perhaps most obvious in Jake Long's case, since Vernon Gholston's highlights at 6 were largely derived from those contests) -- with Chris Long maybe having the fewest bad raps against him -- but McFadden is the only one that had a more negative tone to his clips. Oh well.
Still, I really wish that this pick had been traded to drop and improve the OL.
4a. Tyvon Branch, CB, Connecticut.
Ugh. Are you serious? The Raiders sit on their hands for two rounds (or maybe not) and then finally trade up . . . to take a corner. I really need someone to explain to me Al's rationale for going CB multiple times every year. We get it: he loves corners. He's got a couple of good ones right now, though.
Now, Branch is one of the strongest corners around, even in comparison to the players in the game, and as I saw earlier today (don't recall where, thus no link -- sorry!), of the five players to match or exceed Branch's strength numbers at the combine, four are Pro-Bowlers, and the fifth is a solid starter. This gives me hope, despite the pick.
Rumor floating around the web right now is that he'll be a ST guy with an eye toward making him a safety. I find this prospect interesting -- it makes Schweigert totally redundant (thus dropping his already poor trade value even lower), and gives Huff some competition, and a little push from behind. If this turns out to be the case, then it's a great pick -- if he unseats Huff in the starting lineup, it's even better (though it indicates yet another first-round bust wearing silver and black).
4b. Arman Shields, WR, Richmond.
I know absolutely nothing about this guy save what I've read, so I'll just hope that he's as big and fast and talented as the reports indicate, that he learns and adjusts well to the pro game, and recovers fully from his injury. If so, fantastic.
6. Trevor Scott, DE, Buffalo.
As bizarre as this is going to be to read, I have to say it: I'm actually happier with this pick than with any other pick from the weekend. Does this mean I expect Scott to be better than McFadden, or to have a greater impact? No. It does mean, however, that I think it's a great pick for where and when it was -- and, oh yeah, actually targetted a position of need (crazy, that).
Kid played DE for two years and set his school's records in sacks and TFL. You've got to love the upside. He may need to get stronger through the legs, but that'll happen once he gets into camp.
I love this pick, I really do.
7. Chaz Schilens, WR, San Diego State?
Another guy I've never heard of, and ho hum, another WR taken. See also: Al's CB obsession. I understand that the Raiders' receiver corps is a work in progress, and that they need to upgrade. Fair enough. But is it a bad sign when the MSSM can't seem to agree on where he went to school? Was it Miami? Or did he actually go to San Diego State? (Note also that ESPN has no idea how tall the guy is -- nice.)
It'll be fun to watch a guy named Chaz, if only during the preseason.
Overall, I'd have to give this grade a good, solid C. Definitely just average, given what the Raiders needed, and the possibility that what they coveted may not work out as well as they hope. Still, it's not terrible, and there's potential for improvement at a few important positions.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Oakland Belatedly Takes a DL:
Trevor Scott, DE, Buffalo.
A bit undersized, but a converted tight end who was very productive once moved over to the other side to fill in after the school suffered a rash of inujuries -- kid played only two seasons on defense, but holds the school record for sacks.
Intriguing prospect, to say the least.
A bit undersized, but a converted tight end who was very productive once moved over to the other side to fill in after the school suffered a rash of inujuries -- kid played only two seasons on defense, but holds the school record for sacks.
Intriguing prospect, to say the least.
Need Help With This One:
The Raiders don't make a move into the second or third rounds via trade. Fair enough -- I can deal with this.
But they get to Round 4, where they pick fifth in the round, and promptly trade that pick plus one of their two sevens to Dallas . . .
in order to move up four places . . .
where they promptly draft . . .
A CORNERBACK?!
They already drafted a CB this year -- DeAngelo Hall, for whom they paid a 2 and a 5. Now they pick ANOTHER CB?!
I don't get it. I just don't. They need OL, DT, DE, S and SLB. What they've gotten is RB and CB -- both positions where they already have too many players and need to cut or trade the excess.
Apply the basic laws of supply and demand here -- the Raiders have too many CBs, thus driving the asking price down.
How does this make sense?
EDIT: The Raiders have traded Fabian Washington to Baltimore for a 4, which they used to take Richmond WR Arman Shields. It's an interesting pick, but the Raiders drafted Washington in the first round, and then traded him for a 4. Supply and demand.
But they get to Round 4, where they pick fifth in the round, and promptly trade that pick plus one of their two sevens to Dallas . . .
in order to move up four places . . .
where they promptly draft . . .
A CORNERBACK?!
They already drafted a CB this year -- DeAngelo Hall, for whom they paid a 2 and a 5. Now they pick ANOTHER CB?!
I don't get it. I just don't. They need OL, DT, DE, S and SLB. What they've gotten is RB and CB -- both positions where they already have too many players and need to cut or trade the excess.
Apply the basic laws of supply and demand here -- the Raiders have too many CBs, thus driving the asking price down.
How does this make sense?
EDIT: The Raiders have traded Fabian Washington to Baltimore for a 4, which they used to take Richmond WR Arman Shields. It's an interesting pick, but the Raiders drafted Washington in the first round, and then traded him for a 4. Supply and demand.
Some Thoughts After Day One:
The first day of the draft is now in the books, and all attention is turning to Day Two. With Day One immediately in the rear-view mirror, however, it's time to offer a few observations:
- I'll get this out of the way first: I'm delighted that Long went anywhere but KC. That said, I'm a bit irritated that Dorsey fell to 5 -- I'm not sure that I look forward to playing against him twice this season, with the interior of the Raiders' OL still far from a finished product.
- In fact, let me get this gripe out of the way: KC seems to have acquitted itself quite well on Day One. They needed OL, DL and CB, among other positions, and have taken good, good players at each position. Interestingly, they tapped the local well twice in squccession, drafting from Charlottesville at 15 and Blacksburg at 35. It'd be interesting to overhear their first conversation as Chiefs, see whether the rivalry rears its head for more than a moment.
- I hate Albert going to KC at 15, and I promise I'll get off the KC thing now.
- I do enjoy the fact, however, that Virginia's elite collegiate players all seem to be moving to Missouri: of the four VA players taken on Day One, three went to MO, with the fourth, Duane Brown, headed to Houston.
- Pittsburgh got lucky. The rich got richer on that one, nailing both Mendenhall and Sweed. A nice pair of pickups for a team that needed only to improve to be more competitive in a strong AFC.
- Speaking of improving: can Jacksonville parlay their draft into a shot to genuinely challenge Indy for the South this season? It'll be fun to watch.
- Building off of Jacksonville, you have to like how Baltimore handled their draft board yesterday. Joe Flacco may or may not turn out to be the answer at QB that the franchise has sought since relocating to Baltimore in the mid-90s. The way the Ravens wound up with a potential long-term QB and extra draft picks to boot was a thing of beauty. What's so interesting about Baltimore is that they always draft so well, and they have a deep well of talent -- they just can't maximize it, and, for all of their success drafting all over the field, they've been miserable with trying to get QBs and WRs. If Flacco turns out to be anything like Baltimore hopes, that could cushion their transition as they have to rebuild their defense over the next few seasons.
- Is Darren McFadden THE ANSWER for the Raiders? Let's not pin that much on the guy just yet, shall we? Nevertheless, Jeremy Green and Bill Williamson think that he is. I love Jeremy Green's obvious love for the Raiders -- such a vital antidote to the otherwise toxic attitude toward Oakland displayed by virtually every other ESPN personality. Still, like I've said before, McFadden is an extremely versatile player, and I like what Kiffin said yesterday (video avaialbe at Raiders.com): "Hey, I learned something from coaching Reggie Bush at USC -- it's far too easy to think that a guy this talented can learn to do everything, and what I found out there, and what Sean [Payton] found out in New Orleans, is that you have to teach them carefully and not try to make them do too much too fast, because otherwise you run the risk of making them not particularly good at anything." (Paraphrased.)
Kiffin was necessarily patient with Russell last season, he says he'll be patient with McFadden this season, which to me translates into not opening up against Denver with McFadden in the slot. Who knows, though. All the Nation can hope for is that McFadden takes his rightful place among the division's backs, and is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with LJ and LT.
- Now the question remains: can the Raiders get into the third round? We'll see in a few hours.
- A final thought: NFL.com has an interesting article up wherein the make the 'unusual' observation that five of the six players taken 1-6 feel like they should have been #1 and have a chip on their shoulders.
Really. I'm stunned.
What's interesting, though, is this exchange, reported in the article:
But Chris Long soared to the No. 2 spot in the draft not only because of his talent, Long said, but also because he has plenty of experience at handling situations when there is plenty to prove.
"I've dealt every day of my life with my dad's career, the comparisons to him, with people wanting me to live up to him," Long said of his father, Howie. Chris Long was asked by a member in his group how he felt about not getting No. 91, his dad's old Raiders number, since it was not available with the Rams?
"No," he answered, sternly. "I don't want to be number 91."
It was a clear statement from Long and it was an emphatic one.
Great and all, but I'm thoroughly confused, for just one reason:
Just plain sloppy writing?
- I'll get this out of the way first: I'm delighted that Long went anywhere but KC. That said, I'm a bit irritated that Dorsey fell to 5 -- I'm not sure that I look forward to playing against him twice this season, with the interior of the Raiders' OL still far from a finished product.
- In fact, let me get this gripe out of the way: KC seems to have acquitted itself quite well on Day One. They needed OL, DL and CB, among other positions, and have taken good, good players at each position. Interestingly, they tapped the local well twice in squccession, drafting from Charlottesville at 15 and Blacksburg at 35. It'd be interesting to overhear their first conversation as Chiefs, see whether the rivalry rears its head for more than a moment.
- I hate Albert going to KC at 15, and I promise I'll get off the KC thing now.
- I do enjoy the fact, however, that Virginia's elite collegiate players all seem to be moving to Missouri: of the four VA players taken on Day One, three went to MO, with the fourth, Duane Brown, headed to Houston.
- Pittsburgh got lucky. The rich got richer on that one, nailing both Mendenhall and Sweed. A nice pair of pickups for a team that needed only to improve to be more competitive in a strong AFC.
- Speaking of improving: can Jacksonville parlay their draft into a shot to genuinely challenge Indy for the South this season? It'll be fun to watch.
- Building off of Jacksonville, you have to like how Baltimore handled their draft board yesterday. Joe Flacco may or may not turn out to be the answer at QB that the franchise has sought since relocating to Baltimore in the mid-90s. The way the Ravens wound up with a potential long-term QB and extra draft picks to boot was a thing of beauty. What's so interesting about Baltimore is that they always draft so well, and they have a deep well of talent -- they just can't maximize it, and, for all of their success drafting all over the field, they've been miserable with trying to get QBs and WRs. If Flacco turns out to be anything like Baltimore hopes, that could cushion their transition as they have to rebuild their defense over the next few seasons.
- Is Darren McFadden THE ANSWER for the Raiders? Let's not pin that much on the guy just yet, shall we? Nevertheless, Jeremy Green and Bill Williamson think that he is. I love Jeremy Green's obvious love for the Raiders -- such a vital antidote to the otherwise toxic attitude toward Oakland displayed by virtually every other ESPN personality. Still, like I've said before, McFadden is an extremely versatile player, and I like what Kiffin said yesterday (video avaialbe at Raiders.com): "Hey, I learned something from coaching Reggie Bush at USC -- it's far too easy to think that a guy this talented can learn to do everything, and what I found out there, and what Sean [Payton] found out in New Orleans, is that you have to teach them carefully and not try to make them do too much too fast, because otherwise you run the risk of making them not particularly good at anything." (Paraphrased.)
Kiffin was necessarily patient with Russell last season, he says he'll be patient with McFadden this season, which to me translates into not opening up against Denver with McFadden in the slot. Who knows, though. All the Nation can hope for is that McFadden takes his rightful place among the division's backs, and is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with LJ and LT.
- Now the question remains: can the Raiders get into the third round? We'll see in a few hours.
- A final thought: NFL.com has an interesting article up wherein the make the 'unusual' observation that five of the six players taken 1-6 feel like they should have been #1 and have a chip on their shoulders.
Really. I'm stunned.
What's interesting, though, is this exchange, reported in the article:
But Chris Long soared to the No. 2 spot in the draft not only because of his talent, Long said, but also because he has plenty of experience at handling situations when there is plenty to prove.
"I've dealt every day of my life with my dad's career, the comparisons to him, with people wanting me to live up to him," Long said of his father, Howie. Chris Long was asked by a member in his group how he felt about not getting No. 91, his dad's old Raiders number, since it was not available with the Rams?
"No," he answered, sternly. "I don't want to be number 91."
It was a clear statement from Long and it was an emphatic one.
Great and all, but I'm thoroughly confused, for just one reason:
Just plain sloppy writing?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
KC Reels in Branden Albert:
This bothers me, for two reasons. First, KC already got Glenn Dorsey at 5, and now they made a good (if slightly expensive) trade with Detroit to get up and get Branden Albert at 15.
First, this bugs me because I have to watch a UVA guy, and a guy that I've said I think will wind up being the best LT taken in this draft, in KC red and gold.
Second, this bugs me because KC is drafting intelligently for once.
I miss the older, dumber KC.
First, this bugs me because I have to watch a UVA guy, and a guy that I've said I think will wind up being the best LT taken in this draft, in KC red and gold.
Second, this bugs me because KC is drafting intelligently for once.
I miss the older, dumber KC.
Welcome to Oakland, Darren McFadden:
I was at least right about this pick in the real mock, rather than the wishful mock -- me and 80% of the football-watching world.
Now it remains to be seen what happens with Rhodes and Jordan this weekend. Rhodes should get them a 2, which would be delightful.
Here's hoping that McFadden gets stronger through the legs and learns how to run through arm tackles. He's going to need to learn that skill, and immediately, in order to maximize his impact.
If he can take his "rightful place" among LT and LJ, even as the clear third in that triumverate, I'll wind up happy. If he gets laughed out of the conversation, well . . .
JaMarcus Russell has a genuine weapon in the backfield. Let's see how Kiffin and Knapp can utilize him this fall.
A Tale of Two Mocks:
I'm only going to mock out the first 10 picks, but I'll do it two different ways: assuming no trades, and what I'd actually like to see happen with the Raiders.
Top Ten Picks, No Trades:
1. Miami: Jake Long, OT, Michigan
2. St. Louis: Chris Long, DE, Virginia
3. Atlanta: Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
4. Oakland: Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Kansas City: Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
6. NY Jets: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
7. New England: Keith Rivers, LB, USC
8. Baltimore: Ryan Clady, OT, Boise State
9. Cincinnati: Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
10. New Orleans: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
What I'd Like To See:
1. Miami: Jake Long, OT, Michigan
2. St. Louis: Chris Long, DE, Virginia
3. Atlanta: Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
4. NY Jets (from Oakland): Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Kansas City: Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
6. Cincinnati (from Oakland): Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
7. New England: Keith Rivers, LB, USC
8. Baltimore: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
9. Oakland: Branden Albert, OL, Virginia
10. New Orleans: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
It's a goofy plan, what with the Raiders trading down twice, but they get the player that would probably have the biggest (immediate and lasting) impact on their future and fortunes, and they get him for cheaper, and haul in a few extra picks besides. It certainly won't pan out this way, and realistically, if there are two trades in the top 10, I think we can safely bet that it won't be the Raiders dropping twice, but it's nice to think about.
And, of course, "mock draft" may be quite the punny term for this little exercise, and if it is, feel free to tell me so!
Top Ten Picks, No Trades:
1. Miami: Jake Long, OT, Michigan
2. St. Louis: Chris Long, DE, Virginia
3. Atlanta: Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
4. Oakland: Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Kansas City: Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
6. NY Jets: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
7. New England: Keith Rivers, LB, USC
8. Baltimore: Ryan Clady, OT, Boise State
9. Cincinnati: Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
10. New Orleans: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
What I'd Like To See:
1. Miami: Jake Long, OT, Michigan
2. St. Louis: Chris Long, DE, Virginia
3. Atlanta: Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
4. NY Jets (from Oakland): Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Kansas City: Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
6. Cincinnati (from Oakland): Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
7. New England: Keith Rivers, LB, USC
8. Baltimore: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
9. Oakland: Branden Albert, OL, Virginia
10. New Orleans: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
It's a goofy plan, what with the Raiders trading down twice, but they get the player that would probably have the biggest (immediate and lasting) impact on their future and fortunes, and they get him for cheaper, and haul in a few extra picks besides. It certainly won't pan out this way, and realistically, if there are two trades in the top 10, I think we can safely bet that it won't be the Raiders dropping twice, but it's nice to think about.
And, of course, "mock draft" may be quite the punny term for this little exercise, and if it is, feel free to tell me so!
Draft Day Thoughts: Oakland Raiders Trade Bait:
Thoughts are floating around the web fast and furious, what with the draft being mere hours away, and one of the things on the minds of many in Raider Nation is "who won't be a Raider by the end of the weekend?"
It's a good question, and one that could have implications for who comes into camp with the Raiders this summer, although, based on the potential bait, any trades will probably be more meaningful for the later rounds than for the earlier.
Let's dispense with the obvious suspects first:
- LaMont Jordan, RB: Trade value: Next to none, if that much.
Call me crazy, but I have a hard time seeing the Raiders move Jordan, for several reasons: he has a bad back, a worse attitude, and a salary that far exceeds his performance. The conventional wisdom is that the Raiders must get rid of Jordan one way or another eventually, which lowers his trade value below that already preset by his health and attitude concerns.
Best value: Anyone who thinks that Oakland can get more than a 5 for Jordan is kidding themselves, and even that would be a good trade. A 6 is more likely, if anything at al.
- Fabian Washington, CB. Trade value: Moderate.
Washington is a cover-two CB who was forced to try to play man, and he never adjusted well enough. He lost his job to a track star last season, and, for the clincher, he has off-field problems to attend to. This is the worst possible climate to try and move Washington, who though he projects to have some success in a cover-two scheme, and may even be a dependable starting corner in the right system, has problems that affect his trade value in every conceivable way: a large crop of CBs in the draft, his character and baggage questions, the fact that he is a 1 that didn't pan out, and, last but not least, competition from other CBs: the Raiders nabbed DeAngelo Hall for a 2 and a 5, and Lito Sheppard wants out of Philly.
Best value: For whom would you rather trade: Washington or Sheppard? The answer to that question tells you what the Raiders may get for Washington: a 3 is a best case for this deal, more if he's packaged with someone else.
- Andrew Walter, QB. Trade value: Adequate.
He has a great arm and good size. He's also slower of foot than Drew Bledsoe, and needs to be reconstructed mentally as well as in terms of a new playbook. He's a total project, and more than that, a broken project, with the beating he took in 2006 (which, to judge from his limited time in preseason and the regular season in 2007, he hasn't shaken off).
Best value: Walter was a 3, and certainly won't go for that much or more. He's a possibility with a 4, but a 5 is more realistic.
Now for the potential/situational trades:
- Derrick Burgess, DE
Burgess has been a great acquisition for the Raiders, one of a precious few genuinely good off-season acquisitions in recent years. The problem is that he's outplayed his contract, and he knows it. (Think the dead opposite of LaMont Jordan.) Worse, he's seen people that have had less impact on the Raiders' D get bigger contracts than he has, and, to top it all off, was promised a new contract by the since-fired Mike Lombardi.
If the Raiders take a DE, then Burgess may be on his way out. Even if they don't, he may be a draft-day trade; what would be his value packaged with Washington for a defense-poor team like, say, Cincinnati? (The possibility for a big trade between these two lingers, and I won't write it off yet -- not until Cincy drafts at 9).
- Dominic Rhodes, RB
Perhaps the Raiders' most tradable player, Rhodes is immediately on the block if the Raiders take McFadden at 4.
Naturally, this is far from an exhaustive list, but some of these players may not be wearing Silver and Black by the time Monday rolls around. I've deliberately left one player off the list, rather than jinx anything and watch him be traded. Suffice to say there's one player the Raiders have that would certainly fetch them a 1, and he's the one player they cannot afford to let go. Here's hoping they don't.
It's a good question, and one that could have implications for who comes into camp with the Raiders this summer, although, based on the potential bait, any trades will probably be more meaningful for the later rounds than for the earlier.
Let's dispense with the obvious suspects first:
- LaMont Jordan, RB: Trade value: Next to none, if that much.
Call me crazy, but I have a hard time seeing the Raiders move Jordan, for several reasons: he has a bad back, a worse attitude, and a salary that far exceeds his performance. The conventional wisdom is that the Raiders must get rid of Jordan one way or another eventually, which lowers his trade value below that already preset by his health and attitude concerns.
Best value: Anyone who thinks that Oakland can get more than a 5 for Jordan is kidding themselves, and even that would be a good trade. A 6 is more likely, if anything at al.
- Fabian Washington, CB. Trade value: Moderate.
Washington is a cover-two CB who was forced to try to play man, and he never adjusted well enough. He lost his job to a track star last season, and, for the clincher, he has off-field problems to attend to. This is the worst possible climate to try and move Washington, who though he projects to have some success in a cover-two scheme, and may even be a dependable starting corner in the right system, has problems that affect his trade value in every conceivable way: a large crop of CBs in the draft, his character and baggage questions, the fact that he is a 1 that didn't pan out, and, last but not least, competition from other CBs: the Raiders nabbed DeAngelo Hall for a 2 and a 5, and Lito Sheppard wants out of Philly.
Best value: For whom would you rather trade: Washington or Sheppard? The answer to that question tells you what the Raiders may get for Washington: a 3 is a best case for this deal, more if he's packaged with someone else.
- Andrew Walter, QB. Trade value: Adequate.
He has a great arm and good size. He's also slower of foot than Drew Bledsoe, and needs to be reconstructed mentally as well as in terms of a new playbook. He's a total project, and more than that, a broken project, with the beating he took in 2006 (which, to judge from his limited time in preseason and the regular season in 2007, he hasn't shaken off).
Best value: Walter was a 3, and certainly won't go for that much or more. He's a possibility with a 4, but a 5 is more realistic.
Now for the potential/situational trades:
- Derrick Burgess, DE
Burgess has been a great acquisition for the Raiders, one of a precious few genuinely good off-season acquisitions in recent years. The problem is that he's outplayed his contract, and he knows it. (Think the dead opposite of LaMont Jordan.) Worse, he's seen people that have had less impact on the Raiders' D get bigger contracts than he has, and, to top it all off, was promised a new contract by the since-fired Mike Lombardi.
If the Raiders take a DE, then Burgess may be on his way out. Even if they don't, he may be a draft-day trade; what would be his value packaged with Washington for a defense-poor team like, say, Cincinnati? (The possibility for a big trade between these two lingers, and I won't write it off yet -- not until Cincy drafts at 9).
- Dominic Rhodes, RB
Perhaps the Raiders' most tradable player, Rhodes is immediately on the block if the Raiders take McFadden at 4.
Naturally, this is far from an exhaustive list, but some of these players may not be wearing Silver and Black by the time Monday rolls around. I've deliberately left one player off the list, rather than jinx anything and watch him be traded. Suffice to say there's one player the Raiders have that would certainly fetch them a 1, and he's the one player they cannot afford to let go. Here's hoping they don't.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
KC Trades Jared Allen to Minnesota, and One Raider Fan Is Very Unhappy About It:
The Kansas City Chiefs have traded Jared Allen to the Minnesota Vikings.
From an Oakland fan's perspective, this is a dream come true: a division oppoent trading their best player not only out of the division, but out of the conference? That's fantastic! If nothing else, Broncos, Chargers and Raiders fans were of a mind about this one today, and all were pleased.
Then, when the dust settled, Raider fans realized that they had a lot less ground to be pleased than do Broncos or Chargers fans, for one reason: this impacts Oakland's draft prospects, and doesn't impact either SD or Denver's board.
Consider the following: Jake Long is the #1 pick. This fact alone has a negligible impact on Oakland, but it does mean that Chris Long is on the board at 2.
But here's the kicker:
What if St. Louis takes Glenn Dorsey?
Chris Long is still on the board at 3, waiting to fall into Atlanta's lap. The conventional wisdom is that Atlanta wants a QB, and will be going after Matt Ryan here.
Take the conventional wisdom as correct on this one. Chris Long is sitting at 3, waiting to be picked up, and Atlanta gets a call from Carl Peterson. "Want to trade down?" Carl asks. Atlanta looks behind them at #4 -- Oakland. Took a QB #1 overall last season, probably isn't going to take Ryan away from us. "Sure," says Atlanta.
All of a sudden, Chris Long could be wearing red and gold. If there's a replacement for Jared Allen in this draft, it's Chris Long.
Howie's kid playing his home games in Arrowhead. That may be the end of Al, but it's a terrible scenario for the Raiders.
There is a silver lining: if that trade happens, Baltimore may be calling Oakland in a hurry, trying to get up to 4 to get Ryan before he falls to 5.
But, again, here's the bad news behind the silver lining: Carl Peterson could be calling in-state right now, trying to turn some of his 13 picks into the #2 overall.
There's no upshot to that scenario. If KC goes up to 2 to take Chris Long, that doesn't even help the Raiders make a trade they couldn't before, and, again, you're looking at "LONG" written across a red jersey instead of a black one.
As my brother, a Pack fan, said to me this morning regarding the Allen trade, "I'm not pleased." That's my reaction, now that the dust has settled and the euphoria has worn off: for now, until Saturday, I am really unhappy about this trade.
From an Oakland fan's perspective, this is a dream come true: a division oppoent trading their best player not only out of the division, but out of the conference? That's fantastic! If nothing else, Broncos, Chargers and Raiders fans were of a mind about this one today, and all were pleased.
Then, when the dust settled, Raider fans realized that they had a lot less ground to be pleased than do Broncos or Chargers fans, for one reason: this impacts Oakland's draft prospects, and doesn't impact either SD or Denver's board.
Consider the following: Jake Long is the #1 pick. This fact alone has a negligible impact on Oakland, but it does mean that Chris Long is on the board at 2.
But here's the kicker:
What if St. Louis takes Glenn Dorsey?
Chris Long is still on the board at 3, waiting to fall into Atlanta's lap. The conventional wisdom is that Atlanta wants a QB, and will be going after Matt Ryan here.
Take the conventional wisdom as correct on this one. Chris Long is sitting at 3, waiting to be picked up, and Atlanta gets a call from Carl Peterson. "Want to trade down?" Carl asks. Atlanta looks behind them at #4 -- Oakland. Took a QB #1 overall last season, probably isn't going to take Ryan away from us. "Sure," says Atlanta.
All of a sudden, Chris Long could be wearing red and gold. If there's a replacement for Jared Allen in this draft, it's Chris Long.
Howie's kid playing his home games in Arrowhead. That may be the end of Al, but it's a terrible scenario for the Raiders.
There is a silver lining: if that trade happens, Baltimore may be calling Oakland in a hurry, trying to get up to 4 to get Ryan before he falls to 5.
But, again, here's the bad news behind the silver lining: Carl Peterson could be calling in-state right now, trying to turn some of his 13 picks into the #2 overall.
There's no upshot to that scenario. If KC goes up to 2 to take Chris Long, that doesn't even help the Raiders make a trade they couldn't before, and, again, you're looking at "LONG" written across a red jersey instead of a black one.
As my brother, a Pack fan, said to me this morning regarding the Allen trade, "I'm not pleased." That's my reaction, now that the dust has settled and the euphoria has worn off: for now, until Saturday, I am really unhappy about this trade.
A Curious Note about Jake Long's Contract:
Long's reported contract terms are 5 years, $57.75 million, with $30 million guaranteed.
Last year's number one overall, JaMarcus Russell, signed a deal with $61 million over 6, with $32 of that guaranteed.
Compare them side-by-side at an annual payout based solely on the broad numbers:
Long: $11.55 mil./year, $6 mil./year guaranteed.
Russell: $10.2 mil./year, $5.4 mil./year guaranteed.
Last year, all you heard from that contract was how it was the richest ever for a rookie, how much commitment it was to an unproven player.
So far? I've heard nothing of the kind regarding Long's contract, which, while shorter, is richer than Russell's, even without the "quarterback premium."
At the risk of impugning the MSSM, has this anything to do with the players themselves (yes, I'm broaching the race question)? The positions? Or just the teams drafting them?
Last year's number one overall, JaMarcus Russell, signed a deal with $61 million over 6, with $32 of that guaranteed.
Compare them side-by-side at an annual payout based solely on the broad numbers:
Long: $11.55 mil./year, $6 mil./year guaranteed.
Russell: $10.2 mil./year, $5.4 mil./year guaranteed.
Last year, all you heard from that contract was how it was the richest ever for a rookie, how much commitment it was to an unproven player.
So far? I've heard nothing of the kind regarding Long's contract, which, while shorter, is richer than Russell's, even without the "quarterback premium."
At the risk of impugning the MSSM, has this anything to do with the players themselves (yes, I'm broaching the race question)? The positions? Or just the teams drafting them?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Jake Long is a Dolphin:
ESPN is reporting that Jake Long has signed and will go first to the Miami Dolphins on Saturday.
This impacts my plans for the weekend two ways. First, it means that the Raiders should be picking just after 9:30 local, rather than at 9:40, barring any trades. This is the minimal impact.
The greater impact is that I had planned to do a first-round mock for the first time ever, with "mock" being the operative word, since it would probably have been ridiculously off. I actually intended to do two different Long drafts, one predicated on Jake going 1, one on Chris. Now I can just toss the Christ-first draft idea and work from Jake on down.
Congratulations to Jake Long, who got paid, and to the Dolphins, who can now look toward the remainder of the weekend. Saint Louis, you're on the clock -- and I rather expect this to be a Long couple of first picks, if you will pardon (or mock) the bad pun.
This impacts my plans for the weekend two ways. First, it means that the Raiders should be picking just after 9:30 local, rather than at 9:40, barring any trades. This is the minimal impact.
The greater impact is that I had planned to do a first-round mock for the first time ever, with "mock" being the operative word, since it would probably have been ridiculously off. I actually intended to do two different Long drafts, one predicated on Jake going 1, one on Chris. Now I can just toss the Christ-first draft idea and work from Jake on down.
Congratulations to Jake Long, who got paid, and to the Dolphins, who can now look toward the remainder of the weekend. Saint Louis, you're on the clock -- and I rather expect this to be a Long couple of first picks, if you will pardon (or mock) the bad pun.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Oakland Raiders 2008 Draft Wish List: Round One:
I'll go ahead and get the obvious post out of the way first -- one fan's wish list for the first pick, in order of preference:
1. Chris Long, DE, Virginia
2. Trade down
3. Branden Albert, OL, Virginia*
4. Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Sedrick Ellis, DL, USC
Chris Long to the Raiders is a no-brainer for me, for all sorts of reasons. I've been worried for a while about him having to play out of his dad's shadow, but it looks like he has the skills and work ethic to make that happen (and good for him on both counts).
It's even worse a proposition to have him try to play out of Howie's shadow in Oakland, of all places; bear in mind, when Howie finally retired, he was the last of the Oakland Raiders -- precisely to the moment when the franchise moved back to Oakland from LA (as an aside, I have no idea who the last LA Raider was -- Tim Brown?).
Still, the upside outweighs the risks, and the word on Long is that he looks versatile enough to move inside or play OLB as well as end. Some people say he projects more as a 4-3 end than a 3-4 end, or as a hybrid DE/DT for hybrid defenses, but despite the uncertainty of projection, this is all music to my ears. The Raiders tipped their hand a bit last season, and did the expected thing: started to rotate back to a 3-4 base defense. Remember, when Rob Ryan got to Oakland, he tried -- with very limited success -- to implement a 3-4, with the wrong personnel (Sapp simply was not a 3-4 NT), and it should have been clear to everyone that he'd want to start working back there once he had the right personnel -- or, at least, no longer had the wrong personnel. Exit Sapp, enter 3-4, which the Raiders still can't run adequately (who would be the NT, again?), but Long as a situational stand-up rusher in a 3-4? Good news. Moving inside, rotating with Kelly and Warren from the 4-3? Awesome. Opposite Burgess in the 4-3 base? Even better.
I love Long at 4 -- IF he drops that far; personally, I have a hard time seeing him hit past St. Louis at 2.
Failing C. Long, the Raiders best bet, in my mind, is to trade down, get out of the 4 slot, and get some more first-day picks. Dallas is the pie-in-the-sky pipe dream pick, but the Raiders could get enough interest from, say, the Jets or the Bungles, maybe even the Ravens or Lions, at this slot, and can pick up players and picks. As ridiculous as it sounds -- and as certain not to happen as it is, Ocho Cinco and the 9 to the Raiders for the 4 and maybe a 5th? shrug Stranger things have happened, and likely will again, and for the record, I don't especially welcome TWO pain-in-the-ass receivers on the same team, as talented a pair as they would be together.
There are numerous trade possibilities open to the Raiders, theoretically, at least, though they may be hampered by the one thing that probably will not happen: the Jets trading up from 6 to 4 to go after McFadden. For that to really be a possibility, that would really have to mean that the Jets think that KC is going after McFadden, or that the Raiders want him badly, but not badly enough to stick to him. If KC goes after OL, as they should, and the Raiders look elsewhere, as they probably should, then the Jets can sit tight and wait. The Raiders could always draft McFadden and try to provoke a trade that way, which isn't a bad idea if Long is off the board -- worst-case scenario there is you get a player virtually everyone covets and who would a) provide Kiffin and Knapp with a lot of options on offense and on ST, and b) would put butts in the seats, which is almost as important at this point.
Branden Albert I had to asterisk like a Barry Bonds stat line, because no one has him going to Oakland at 4. The Raiders need line, though, and no one disputes that. Cornell Green vs. Paul McQuistain at RT is an interesting battle, but it's a sign of the dearth of talent along the line that a career backup and a not-yet-been player are fighting over the starting position. On the left side, it's Kwame Harris.
... seriously?
Albert is immediately competitive at either position, and this is the guy who will wind up being the best OL in this draft -- put me down on that right now. He's smart, he's strong, he's quick, has great feet, is very mobile, and is mean as hell in the trenches -- is there anything else you could ask for in an OL? Taking him at 4 does any number of things: it protects Russell's back better than Harris could OR it gets Gallery over to RG, thus upgrading both G positions OR gets rid of Gallery entirely (or, just as good, forces him to restructure his wildly exorbitant contract to a more reasonable level based on his performance to date -- it's not as if he has ANY leverage right now). Find me a Raider fan that wouldn't welcome an upgrade over Harris, Green, Cooper and/or Gallery -- Albert provides plausible scenarios for improvement at EVERY SINGLE LINE POSITION SAVE CENTER. If that's not a million-dollar pick for a franchise that's bleeding profusely along the offensive line, I don't know what is. In fact, I like Albert enough at this pick to almost bump him over "trade down," but the possibility to improve the OL with a later pick AND get more talent later is just slightly more attractive.
Still, leaving Albert on the board probably puts him in KC, which is just a terrible scenario.
More pixels have been dedicated to the "McFadden to the Raiders" scenario than any other that I have seen and, frankly, I have nothing to add. I like the pick, if it comes to that, because of all of the options that would open up. Just one example: for the first time in quite a while, the Raiders could legitimately run a 4-WR set: Walker-McFadden-Curry-Higgins/Carter. (Edit: Thanks to Patrick at Thoughts from the Dark Side for reminding me that Carter will be in Silver and Black this season.) Throw Miller out there on an underneath, and the Raiders actually have a chance to, say it with me, spread the field.
Why is this important? Look at good teams vs. bad teams, and pay attention to your perspective on the size of the field. Good teams make the field look big. Great teams make it look huge (think about how big the field looks when the Patriots or Colts have the ball on offense).
Bad teams, by contrast, play in a teeny little box. The Raiders are trying to fight out of that box, but they simply do not have the weapons to make the field any bigger; thus, they have to play "small" and can be defended "small." They're losing the ability to contest the whole field for lack of personnel. McFadden helps correct this.
Lastly, Sedrick Ellis. The Raiders need more DL help, and if Long and Dorsey are gone by 4, he's the guy. He's also trade bait that someone like Cincinnati would covet.
Any way it goes, it'll be interesting, and there will be cause to complain and to praise -- unless Al goes crazy and takes a DB first, in which case there will only be cause to complain.
1. Chris Long, DE, Virginia
2. Trade down
3. Branden Albert, OL, Virginia*
4. Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Sedrick Ellis, DL, USC
Chris Long to the Raiders is a no-brainer for me, for all sorts of reasons. I've been worried for a while about him having to play out of his dad's shadow, but it looks like he has the skills and work ethic to make that happen (and good for him on both counts).
It's even worse a proposition to have him try to play out of Howie's shadow in Oakland, of all places; bear in mind, when Howie finally retired, he was the last of the Oakland Raiders -- precisely to the moment when the franchise moved back to Oakland from LA (as an aside, I have no idea who the last LA Raider was -- Tim Brown?).
Still, the upside outweighs the risks, and the word on Long is that he looks versatile enough to move inside or play OLB as well as end. Some people say he projects more as a 4-3 end than a 3-4 end, or as a hybrid DE/DT for hybrid defenses, but despite the uncertainty of projection, this is all music to my ears. The Raiders tipped their hand a bit last season, and did the expected thing: started to rotate back to a 3-4 base defense. Remember, when Rob Ryan got to Oakland, he tried -- with very limited success -- to implement a 3-4, with the wrong personnel (Sapp simply was not a 3-4 NT), and it should have been clear to everyone that he'd want to start working back there once he had the right personnel -- or, at least, no longer had the wrong personnel. Exit Sapp, enter 3-4, which the Raiders still can't run adequately (who would be the NT, again?), but Long as a situational stand-up rusher in a 3-4? Good news. Moving inside, rotating with Kelly and Warren from the 4-3? Awesome. Opposite Burgess in the 4-3 base? Even better.
I love Long at 4 -- IF he drops that far; personally, I have a hard time seeing him hit past St. Louis at 2.
Failing C. Long, the Raiders best bet, in my mind, is to trade down, get out of the 4 slot, and get some more first-day picks. Dallas is the pie-in-the-sky pipe dream pick, but the Raiders could get enough interest from, say, the Jets or the Bungles, maybe even the Ravens or Lions, at this slot, and can pick up players and picks. As ridiculous as it sounds -- and as certain not to happen as it is, Ocho Cinco and the 9 to the Raiders for the 4 and maybe a 5th? shrug Stranger things have happened, and likely will again, and for the record, I don't especially welcome TWO pain-in-the-ass receivers on the same team, as talented a pair as they would be together.
There are numerous trade possibilities open to the Raiders, theoretically, at least, though they may be hampered by the one thing that probably will not happen: the Jets trading up from 6 to 4 to go after McFadden. For that to really be a possibility, that would really have to mean that the Jets think that KC is going after McFadden, or that the Raiders want him badly, but not badly enough to stick to him. If KC goes after OL, as they should, and the Raiders look elsewhere, as they probably should, then the Jets can sit tight and wait. The Raiders could always draft McFadden and try to provoke a trade that way, which isn't a bad idea if Long is off the board -- worst-case scenario there is you get a player virtually everyone covets and who would a) provide Kiffin and Knapp with a lot of options on offense and on ST, and b) would put butts in the seats, which is almost as important at this point.
Branden Albert I had to asterisk like a Barry Bonds stat line, because no one has him going to Oakland at 4. The Raiders need line, though, and no one disputes that. Cornell Green vs. Paul McQuistain at RT is an interesting battle, but it's a sign of the dearth of talent along the line that a career backup and a not-yet-been player are fighting over the starting position. On the left side, it's Kwame Harris.
... seriously?
Albert is immediately competitive at either position, and this is the guy who will wind up being the best OL in this draft -- put me down on that right now. He's smart, he's strong, he's quick, has great feet, is very mobile, and is mean as hell in the trenches -- is there anything else you could ask for in an OL? Taking him at 4 does any number of things: it protects Russell's back better than Harris could OR it gets Gallery over to RG, thus upgrading both G positions OR gets rid of Gallery entirely (or, just as good, forces him to restructure his wildly exorbitant contract to a more reasonable level based on his performance to date -- it's not as if he has ANY leverage right now). Find me a Raider fan that wouldn't welcome an upgrade over Harris, Green, Cooper and/or Gallery -- Albert provides plausible scenarios for improvement at EVERY SINGLE LINE POSITION SAVE CENTER. If that's not a million-dollar pick for a franchise that's bleeding profusely along the offensive line, I don't know what is. In fact, I like Albert enough at this pick to almost bump him over "trade down," but the possibility to improve the OL with a later pick AND get more talent later is just slightly more attractive.
Still, leaving Albert on the board probably puts him in KC, which is just a terrible scenario.
More pixels have been dedicated to the "McFadden to the Raiders" scenario than any other that I have seen and, frankly, I have nothing to add. I like the pick, if it comes to that, because of all of the options that would open up. Just one example: for the first time in quite a while, the Raiders could legitimately run a 4-WR set: Walker-McFadden-Curry-Higgins/Carter. (Edit: Thanks to Patrick at Thoughts from the Dark Side for reminding me that Carter will be in Silver and Black this season.) Throw Miller out there on an underneath, and the Raiders actually have a chance to, say it with me, spread the field.
Why is this important? Look at good teams vs. bad teams, and pay attention to your perspective on the size of the field. Good teams make the field look big. Great teams make it look huge (think about how big the field looks when the Patriots or Colts have the ball on offense).
Bad teams, by contrast, play in a teeny little box. The Raiders are trying to fight out of that box, but they simply do not have the weapons to make the field any bigger; thus, they have to play "small" and can be defended "small." They're losing the ability to contest the whole field for lack of personnel. McFadden helps correct this.
Lastly, Sedrick Ellis. The Raiders need more DL help, and if Long and Dorsey are gone by 4, he's the guy. He's also trade bait that someone like Cincinnati would covet.
Any way it goes, it'll be interesting, and there will be cause to complain and to praise -- unless Al goes crazy and takes a DB first, in which case there will only be cause to complain.
DRAFT WEEK!!
I'd have been a lot more active about this week heading into the draft than I have been, saved the nuisance of no broadband at home. If nothing else, I've learned that the blog has evolved with the increse in connectivity speed, and is essentially useless at dial-up speeds.
In any event, I'm going to try to have draft-themed posts running throughout the week. I've taken care of the logistical priorities, i.e., getting a line on a 6 of IBC Cream Soda and a 2L of Mt. Dew for Draft Weekend, I'm ready to fire up my very own Ant's Draft Day Nacho Platter, and I'm ready to stay up far, far too late into the early hours of the morning on Saturday and Sunday watching as much coverage as I can.
By the end of the weekend, I'll have a bellyache, feel somewhat loagy from more damn soda than I drink in eight months, be very irritable from too much tv, and, for good measure, be wicked tired and off-rhythm because the NFL, in all its foresightedness, has decided to move the draft to later in the day, so rather than kicking off at 6 pm my time, it'll be 9.
On the plus side, barring a trade (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TRADE DOWN!!!), the Raiders will be picking before 9:40 local. Gotta love the new ten-minute first round.
In any event, I'm going to try to have draft-themed posts running throughout the week. I've taken care of the logistical priorities, i.e., getting a line on a 6 of IBC Cream Soda and a 2L of Mt. Dew for Draft Weekend, I'm ready to fire up my very own Ant's Draft Day Nacho Platter, and I'm ready to stay up far, far too late into the early hours of the morning on Saturday and Sunday watching as much coverage as I can.
By the end of the weekend, I'll have a bellyache, feel somewhat loagy from more damn soda than I drink in eight months, be very irritable from too much tv, and, for good measure, be wicked tired and off-rhythm because the NFL, in all its foresightedness, has decided to move the draft to later in the day, so rather than kicking off at 6 pm my time, it'll be 9.
On the plus side, barring a trade (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TRADE DOWN!!!), the Raiders will be picking before 9:40 local. Gotta love the new ten-minute first round.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Baze et al. v. Rees
Seems that the Supreme Court today announced its opinion in Baze et al. v. Rees, upholding the constitutionality of lethal injection 7-2.
It's a bit more complicated than that, since it seems to be really a 3-4-2 decision, but this is hardly a surprise.
I'll comment further once I've read the opinion. At 97 pages, it's not nearly as long as Furman, but that's a pretty good length, so there's a lot to look at.
It's a bit more complicated than that, since it seems to be really a 3-4-2 decision, but this is hardly a surprise.
I'll comment further once I've read the opinion. At 97 pages, it's not nearly as long as Furman, but that's a pretty good length, so there's a lot to look at.
Thoughts on the Oakland Raiders' 2008 Schedule:
I was worried for a while that the Raiders would get hammered by the NFL and get both San Diego games, New England and a cross-country road game, say, Baltimore, in the first four weeks, to kill off the season just in time for the bye week (speaking of, is there some NFL by-law that the Raiders MUST have their bye week before week 5?). Fortunately, this turns out not to be the case:
DEN, @ KC, @ BUF, SD, BYE, @ NO, NYJ, @ BAL, ATL, CAR, @ MIA, @ DEN, KC, @ SD, NE, HOU, @ TB
Let's get the oddities out of the way first:
1. The Raiders play all three division opponents in the first four games, and then get them in a row weeks 12-14. Harsh. It's unfortunate that the Raiders get two of the first three at home, putting them on the road twice the second time around.
1b. Oh, and for good measure, after the third straight AFC West game at San Diego Dec. 4, they get New England at home. That's just piling on, loading arguably the two most talented teams in the league back-to-back like that.
3. I LOVE the games for weeks 9 and 10 -- Atlanta and Carolina, both at home. The Raiders, even at their worst, seldom lack for drama, and Hall going up against his old team one week and his "favorite" WR the next? I love it.
4. This schedule makes three straight pairings of Denver and Kansas City -- that's just damned odd.
Now, what can Raider fans hope for?
It all depends on Week 1. That could be the difference between a gentleman's 8-8 and a loser's 5-11. The Raiders have a great shot to get off to a good start -- three of their first four games are winnable, and while I'd rather get the road SD game out of the way first, they could get lucky there. Anything less than 2-2 in the first four puts the season in jeopardy, and 3-1 may be the best conceivable start (also unlikely, but one never knows).
After that, the schedule acutally is somewhat kind -- there are batches of tough games, but they are followed by streaks of winnable games. For example: SD, BYE, @ NO -- two potential back-to-back losses, but followed by a home game against the Jets. Weeks 9-11 could give the Raiders a legitimate shot at a three-game winning streak for the first time since 2002 (ATL, CAR, @ MIA), and if the Raiders can snag a couple into the second round of West games, they could put together a nice little run for themselves.
Prediction based on the schedule:
I have to predict two scenarios:
1. The Raiders beat the Broncos opening week. Based on the schedule and the staggering of opponents, the Raiders could actually get to 9-7, and maybe, maybe flirt with 10 wins.
2. The Raiders lose to the Broncos opening week. That would have the Nation looking at 4-12 again, maybe 5-11.
DEN, @ KC, @ BUF, SD, BYE, @ NO, NYJ, @ BAL, ATL, CAR, @ MIA, @ DEN, KC, @ SD, NE, HOU, @ TB
Let's get the oddities out of the way first:
1. The Raiders play all three division opponents in the first four games, and then get them in a row weeks 12-14. Harsh. It's unfortunate that the Raiders get two of the first three at home, putting them on the road twice the second time around.
1b. Oh, and for good measure, after the third straight AFC West game at San Diego Dec. 4, they get New England at home. That's just piling on, loading arguably the two most talented teams in the league back-to-back like that.
3. I LOVE the games for weeks 9 and 10 -- Atlanta and Carolina, both at home. The Raiders, even at their worst, seldom lack for drama, and Hall going up against his old team one week and his "favorite" WR the next? I love it.
4. This schedule makes three straight pairings of Denver and Kansas City -- that's just damned odd.
Now, what can Raider fans hope for?
It all depends on Week 1. That could be the difference between a gentleman's 8-8 and a loser's 5-11. The Raiders have a great shot to get off to a good start -- three of their first four games are winnable, and while I'd rather get the road SD game out of the way first, they could get lucky there. Anything less than 2-2 in the first four puts the season in jeopardy, and 3-1 may be the best conceivable start (also unlikely, but one never knows).
After that, the schedule acutally is somewhat kind -- there are batches of tough games, but they are followed by streaks of winnable games. For example: SD, BYE, @ NO -- two potential back-to-back losses, but followed by a home game against the Jets. Weeks 9-11 could give the Raiders a legitimate shot at a three-game winning streak for the first time since 2002 (ATL, CAR, @ MIA), and if the Raiders can snag a couple into the second round of West games, they could put together a nice little run for themselves.
Prediction based on the schedule:
I have to predict two scenarios:
1. The Raiders beat the Broncos opening week. Based on the schedule and the staggering of opponents, the Raiders could actually get to 9-7, and maybe, maybe flirt with 10 wins.
2. The Raiders lose to the Broncos opening week. That would have the Nation looking at 4-12 again, maybe 5-11.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
I AM SPARTAAAAAA!!
Sorry for the lame title joke, but it had to be done: doubled at 305 on the bench today, thus eclipsing 300 for the first time.
Soon I'll be able to add those all-important fifth and sixth plates, and then it's onward to 350!
Soon I'll be able to add those all-important fifth and sixth plates, and then it's onward to 350!
Monday, April 14, 2008
Malapropisms Heard Earlier:
Iris had a very interesting malapropism earlier today:
"I realized that Lilja is like our little Sunny Baudelaire. She's got really sharp teeth and she bites like the Dickinson."
Lemony Snickett, meet Iron Maiden.
I love it.
"I realized that Lilja is like our little Sunny Baudelaire. She's got really sharp teeth and she bites like the Dickinson."
Lemony Snickett, meet Iron Maiden.
I love it.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Poker!
Last night was a poker night at our place, and I took the time to introduce Lilja to the game. I wish I, or Iris, or anyone else had though to take a picture of her thoughtfully chewing on a poker chip, but alas . . . maybe next time.
It wasn't my best night ever, but it was close: bought in at 10, cashed out at 31.40. None too shabby. The first hour and a half or so, with Lilja on my lap, was fantastic -- I made most of that in that span. A couple of dead hours saw me go from around 27 down to 16, but the last hour and a half was great again for me, too, and saw me threaten to surpass my best night (10 to 35).
Good times, and we're doing it again in just a few weeks.
Oh, and I made a few pounds of pulled pork bbq sammiches. They seem to have gone over quite well, and I'm pleased with both of the sauces I made -- we may have finally found a couple of winners (one vinegar, one traditional) for ourselves.
It wasn't my best night ever, but it was close: bought in at 10, cashed out at 31.40. None too shabby. The first hour and a half or so, with Lilja on my lap, was fantastic -- I made most of that in that span. A couple of dead hours saw me go from around 27 down to 16, but the last hour and a half was great again for me, too, and saw me threaten to surpass my best night (10 to 35).
Good times, and we're doing it again in just a few weeks.
Oh, and I made a few pounds of pulled pork bbq sammiches. They seem to have gone over quite well, and I'm pleased with both of the sauces I made -- we may have finally found a couple of winners (one vinegar, one traditional) for ourselves.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Modem Post:
Heh. In the interim, we can go old-school and dial up via modem.
My god, this used to be fast. Yeesh. I've gotten older as I waited for the post window to open (which I suppose begs the question of why I bothered, but I was writing a needed email in another window at the time, so I suppose no harm done).
I'd not welcome a return to these speeds on a permanent basis.
My god, this used to be fast. Yeesh. I've gotten older as I waited for the post window to open (which I suppose begs the question of why I bothered, but I was writing a needed email in another window at the time, so I suppose no harm done).
I'd not welcome a return to these speeds on a permanent basis.
The Crucifixion of Christ: American Style:
Found this recently, and it's worth reprinting in its entirety. It's an interesting read -- a bit hyperbolic in places, but that's part of the fun of it:
"For God so loved the world..." he returned his only begotten son to the land where he shed his grace on thee.
Vindication for the faithful, rejoicing for the true believers, it was the second coming of Christ—and he was coming to America. Not to bring Armageddon, but to save mankind from Armageddon.
Jesus will make his first appearance at the intersection of the streets appropriately named "Liberty" and "Church" in New York City, located at what has come to be known as "Ground Zero."
Lower Manhattan was virtually shut down as millions of the faithful and curious flooded the streets to get a glimpse of the second coming of their lord and savior.
Even the New York Stock Exchange suspended trading as the crowds swelled from the Battery to midtown Manhattan. The joy and hope that Christ was bringing was palpable—breathtaking, you might say—in the near carnival-like atmosphere that was created in lower Manhattan.
Songs like "Jesus Is Just All Right With Me," "Amazing Grace" and "Jesus Christ Superstar" played from loudspeakers where the Twin Towers had once stood. American flags and crosses were everywhere.
Martin Luther King’s "dream" was now a reality, as black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, young and old, "red staters" and "blue staters," even atheists and agnostics, all joined hands in love and friendship at this celebration of the second coming of the Prince of Peace.
The media frenzy was unprecedented.
It was "all Jesus all the time": round-the-clock coverage as priests, rabbis, and even an ayatollah appeared as expert commentators to explain what this all meant and what we should think.
Mel Gibson, who produced the film "The Passion of the Christ," was interviewed on so many television stations the joke was he must have a double. A female CNN reporter facetiously asked if the handsome Gibson’s identical twin was married.
The night before, the new Pope, Benedict XVI, gave a rare interview with Mike Wallace from the CBS News show, "60 Minutes." And for good reason: This was to be "the greatest story ever told."
On vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush read a brief statement, calling the second coming of Christ a "miracle of faith," and formally welcoming him to America. Bush ended his remarks by declaring, "Let freedom reign and God bless America."
Christ had chosen to begin speaking at 8:46 a.m., the precise time when, on September 11, 2001, the first plane smashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
The clock in the corner of the TV screen read "Countdown to Jesus" as the minutes and seconds ticked away. It looked a little like we were about to launch the Space Shuttle, one reporter noted.
At exactly 8:46 a.m., there was a sudden, immediate, "deafening" silence, almost as if the world had ended. Then Jesus Christ appeared alone before a massive bank of microphones, placed just two blocks north of Ground Zero on a little street appropriately named "Trinity Place."
Looking much as he did two thousand years ago, the longhaired, bearded Jesus Christ, shabbily dressed in a robe and sandals, began to speak in a soft voice.
"Shalom, salaam and may peace be with you," he offered.
"I, Jesus of Nazareth, use this sacred ground to symbolize where over four years ago, at this exact moment, man’s inhumanity to man was broadcast live for the entire world to bear witness to.
"Those who committed these barbaric acts thought of themselves as ‘believers,’ but only a believer in Satan could commit such a heinous act," said Christ.
The applause rang out like booming thunder, echoing off the skyscrapers along the narrow streets of lower Manhattan, and down the section of Broadway known as the Canyon of Heroes. Shouts of "hallelujah, hallelujah" sent goose bumps up people’s arms. The faithful were not crying; they were sobbing. Some people fainted.
For the viewers at home, in the corner of TV screens a small woman provided sign language for the hearing impaired.
Christ continued. "But I come before America today, for she is the greatest danger to world peace since Genesis.
"To suggest that God, our father, would ever be on the side of an America—or any country, for that matter—which attacks poor, defenseless, impoverished people out of revenge, fear, ignorance or greed, contradicts everything I stand for today and, more importantly, died for two thousand years ago."
On the streets and watching at home and at work, the American people were in "shock and awe" at this blunt criticism from their lord and savior.
A few cheered, but Christ’s condemnation of America’s response to the evils of 9/11 and of their President, Bush—the born-again man of faith, leader of the greatest country on earth—drew immediate and harsh disapproval.
Christian conservatives went on the attack, charging that Christ was wrong to criticize Bush while he was fighting the evil forces of Satan in his divinely inspired worldwide crusade on the war on terror. Christ, as one remarked, seemed to speak with a French accent, and sounded a lot like a bleeding-heart liberal.
Fearing that Christ’s message might undermine troop morale in Iraq and Afghanistan conservative Republicans launched an urgent campaign to—as they term it—"swift-boat" Christ.
"Swift-boat" is a new verb in the American lexicon, meaning "to smear in the name of truth, justice and freedom."
A Conservative evangelical group from the Bible Belt was quickly formed, named "The Twelve Veteran Disciples for Truth."
Using only their first names, Peter, Paul, James, John, Andy, Phil, Bart, Matthew, Simon, Thad, Tom, along with their spokesman, Judas, appeared together on Fox News to, as they stated, "set the record straight."
They all claimed to have ancestors who served with Jesus back in the Middle East, and stated that his message of "love your enemies" was outdated and dangerous in these troubled times, when terrorists and evildoers lurk around every corner and can strike at any moment.
"George W. Bush is a strong and sincere proponent of Christianity, a strong advocate of using military force to attack—even pre-emptively attack—our enemies. Notice that I say ‘attack,’ not ‘love’," said Judas.
Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing with former Georgia Senator Zell Miller before a uniformed military audience in Texas, suggested that Jesus’ "love your enemy" message was a thinly veiled liberal euphemism that meant Christ wants to cut the defense budget and reduce the federal funding for the body armor badly needed by our brave young men and women in harm’s way.
"Let he without sin cast the first spitball," Cheney mocked, to a standing ovation from the troops.
The American media, which loves simple soundbites to always entertain and sometimes inform, played Cheney's clever spitball line over and over ad nauseum.
One enterprising young Republican trademarked the term "Let he without sin cast the first spitball," embroidered it on t-shirts and is selling them on eBay, along with a scowling "have you hugged a terrorist today" teddy bear wearing a little turban.
On his daily radio program, Rush Limbaugh—the lord of the airwaves, the voice of the people, his excellency in broadcasting, revered by millions of "ditto heads" —asked whether the wounds Jesus suffered during his crucifixion had possibly been exaggerated.
According to Limbaugh: "Thorns can only cause flesh wounds, and nails in your hands and feet are not lethal."
Nails, Limbaugh went on with a chuckle, "should be an occupational hazard for Jesus Christ, the carpenter from Nazareth . "What’s next, Christ building houses for the poor, along with the second most annoying liberal, that other bleeding heart carpenter, Jimmy Carter?" Limbaugh mocked .
Immediately after the show, on sale at www.rushlimbaugh.com were steel-toed workboots adorned with the American flag, a pair of "thorn-resistant" "holy" garden gloves, and a box of Band Aids with tiny red crosses should the gloves ever fail.
On his program, radical preacher and firebrand television evangelist Pat Robertson referred to Christ’s "meek shall inherit the earth" remark as "communist infiltration and extremism."
He suggests, like Limbaugh, that the liberal Christ is soft on the freedom-hating Islamic evildoers who detest our values.
Robertson went so far as to say that Christ was dangerous, and posed the question "perhaps someone needs to take him out before he brings on Armageddon?"
President Bush, speaking to new Marine recruits at Paris Island, praised the Lord Jesus and thanked him for his sacrifices. The President, who speaks to God regularly, insisted, however, that God also put him on this earth during these dangerous times to do his will.
"Christ is my brother," Bush emphasized, "and brothers often have differences of opinion, that’s all. Christ believes in turning the other cheek; I prefer an eye for and eye. Or, as we say in Texas—dead or alive," he said to applause from his troops.
"Semper fi," shouted Bush.
Bush declared, "Jesus has never been elected to any public office. I come to work every day as your Commander–in-Chief with war on my mind. Christ speaks of peace this and love that… all kinds of dangerous messages in the post 9/11 world, when we have been attacked by the evildoers who can’t stand our freedoms," Bush said, to a standing ovation.
Bush ended his speech by reciting his own version of "The Lord’s Prayer":
Our Father, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And never forgive the terrorists,
who trespass against us.
And lead us not into appeasement,
and deliver the U.S. from evil. Amen.
The Democrats, eager to dispel rumors that they will forever be irrelevant, have got into the act." .
Fearing that the compassionate Christ might be pro-life, they have set out to—as they term it—"Bork" Jesus.
Like "swift-boat," "Bork," taken from the name of the rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, has also become a verb meaning "to publicly destroy the character of those opposed to the Democrats’ single issue of abortion."
Teams of lawyers paid for by the Democrats, many of whom, opponents allege, have never read a Bible, sworn on a Bible or seen a Bible except in a motel room, are now scouring the Bible to determine whether Jesus, two thousand years ago, may have had an inappropriate relationship with Mary Magdalene and engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
Former President Bill Clinton advising the Democrats, as an expert in this area, stated emphatically, "Jesus did not have sexual relations with that woman!"
With Clinton's declaration, Democrats ended the investigation and went back to their fund raising.
The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal stepped in and was sharply critical of Christ’s message that "the love of money is the root of all evil and that it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Greed, according to the Wall Street Journal is good; greed works; greed is what made America great.
They added that "to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s" suggests that Christ is in favor of raising taxes to fund liberal social programs and increase handouts to welfare mothers.
Jewish groups, fearing that Christ—who was, after all, born in Bethlehem, Palestine—would be sympathetic to Palestinian suffering and thus would oppose increased military aid for Israel, labeled him anti-Semitic.
When reminded Christ was born Jewish they amended the label to "self-hating Jew."
Catholics, fearing that this time around not only would Christ clear the temples, but the churches too, were quietly distancing themselves from their lord and savior. With sky-rocketing insurance premiums caused by the lawsuits stemming from the church’s sex scandal, Saturday Night Bingo is needed now more than ever and must not be interrupted.
President Bush’s press secretary has denied reports suggesting he was the source of the leak that begs the question "when did Christ stop beating his gay wife."
Sensing blood in the water, the Republican spin machine revved up to full throttle.
Ann Coulter, the "angelic"-looking "Republican Party Doll," appeared on The O'Reilly Factor in a pure white dress with a Victorian collar, her Rapunzel-like blond hair gleaming; under the set lighting. O'Reilly, complimented Coulter saying she reminded him tonight of "Glinda, the good witch of the north in the Wizard of Oz." However, some critics suggested she sounded more like the "wicked witch of the west" when she said: "...with his sandals, long hair and beard, Christ bore an eerie resemblance to Osama bin Laden." O'Reilly said nothing but nodded his approval.
But the coup de grace for Jesus was when Judas, the spokesman for "The Twelve Veteran Disciples for Truth," approached the Justice Department with evidence that the Middle Eastern–born, bearded Christ, who speaks Arabic and is in the US illegally, is a card-carrying member of Al Qaeda.
Judas charged that Christ was not the son of God, but rather the son of Allah.
With silver selling today at about $16.81 an ounce, thirty pieces of silver—about $504—just doesn’t buy what it did two thousand years ago. So Judas opted for his "fifteen minutes of fame" instead.
He is scheduled to appear on "Oprah" tomorrow, "Larry King Live" at night and "Good Morning America" the next day.
President Bush has invited him to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, for some spiritual guidance. Judas, it is expected, will assist the President in "clearing brush" at his sprawling Texas compound this Easter weekend .
All suggestions regarding book deals and movie rights are referred to Judas’s agent at the William Morris Agency in Beverly Hills.
With Christ-approval numbers now in the single digits, and with compelling evidence from the "disciples for truth" that Christ is a member of Al Qaeda, he was arrested under the provisions of the US Patriot Act and whisked off to an undisclosed location.
The indigent, penniless Christ was represented in court by a public defender who appealed Christ’s incarceration all the way up to the US Supreme court.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who is of Italian ancestry tracing back to ancient Rome, when speaking for the court refused to hear the appeal. In a tersely worded opinion for a unanimous court, he stated: "We wash our hands of this case."
The High Court, however, then overturned the twenty-five-year sentence of former WorldCom (MCI) C.E.O. Bernard "Bernie" Ebbers, declaring that his rights under the 8th Amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, were violated.
Ebbers was immediately released back into society and received a hero’s welcome in his hometown. Signs of "Give us Bernard" appeared everywhere.
Outside the court at Christ’s hearing, one lone supporter of Christ held up a sign that read "crucify the sinless, and set the guilty free." He was immediately arrested.
Accompanied by his legal aid lawyer, Christ was returned to the courtroom from his undisclosed location, along with two other prisoners.
Dressed in an orange jumpsuit and shackled at the wrists and ankles, he looked gaunt and sad at his circumstances.
His public defender angrily referred to this proceeding as a "high-tech crucifixion." The public defender was immediately cited for contempt of court.
Christ never spoke during the brief hearing, except when the judge asked him if he had any final words before sentencing.
"Yes, your honor. Father, forgive them, once again, for they know not what they do."
Amen
"For God so loved the world..." he returned his only begotten son to the land where he shed his grace on thee.
Vindication for the faithful, rejoicing for the true believers, it was the second coming of Christ—and he was coming to America. Not to bring Armageddon, but to save mankind from Armageddon.
Jesus will make his first appearance at the intersection of the streets appropriately named "Liberty" and "Church" in New York City, located at what has come to be known as "Ground Zero."
Lower Manhattan was virtually shut down as millions of the faithful and curious flooded the streets to get a glimpse of the second coming of their lord and savior.
Even the New York Stock Exchange suspended trading as the crowds swelled from the Battery to midtown Manhattan. The joy and hope that Christ was bringing was palpable—breathtaking, you might say—in the near carnival-like atmosphere that was created in lower Manhattan.
Songs like "Jesus Is Just All Right With Me," "Amazing Grace" and "Jesus Christ Superstar" played from loudspeakers where the Twin Towers had once stood. American flags and crosses were everywhere.
Martin Luther King’s "dream" was now a reality, as black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, young and old, "red staters" and "blue staters," even atheists and agnostics, all joined hands in love and friendship at this celebration of the second coming of the Prince of Peace.
The media frenzy was unprecedented.
It was "all Jesus all the time": round-the-clock coverage as priests, rabbis, and even an ayatollah appeared as expert commentators to explain what this all meant and what we should think.
Mel Gibson, who produced the film "The Passion of the Christ," was interviewed on so many television stations the joke was he must have a double. A female CNN reporter facetiously asked if the handsome Gibson’s identical twin was married.
The night before, the new Pope, Benedict XVI, gave a rare interview with Mike Wallace from the CBS News show, "60 Minutes." And for good reason: This was to be "the greatest story ever told."
On vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush read a brief statement, calling the second coming of Christ a "miracle of faith," and formally welcoming him to America. Bush ended his remarks by declaring, "Let freedom reign and God bless America."
Christ had chosen to begin speaking at 8:46 a.m., the precise time when, on September 11, 2001, the first plane smashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
The clock in the corner of the TV screen read "Countdown to Jesus" as the minutes and seconds ticked away. It looked a little like we were about to launch the Space Shuttle, one reporter noted.
At exactly 8:46 a.m., there was a sudden, immediate, "deafening" silence, almost as if the world had ended. Then Jesus Christ appeared alone before a massive bank of microphones, placed just two blocks north of Ground Zero on a little street appropriately named "Trinity Place."
Looking much as he did two thousand years ago, the longhaired, bearded Jesus Christ, shabbily dressed in a robe and sandals, began to speak in a soft voice.
"Shalom, salaam and may peace be with you," he offered.
"I, Jesus of Nazareth, use this sacred ground to symbolize where over four years ago, at this exact moment, man’s inhumanity to man was broadcast live for the entire world to bear witness to.
"Those who committed these barbaric acts thought of themselves as ‘believers,’ but only a believer in Satan could commit such a heinous act," said Christ.
The applause rang out like booming thunder, echoing off the skyscrapers along the narrow streets of lower Manhattan, and down the section of Broadway known as the Canyon of Heroes. Shouts of "hallelujah, hallelujah" sent goose bumps up people’s arms. The faithful were not crying; they were sobbing. Some people fainted.
For the viewers at home, in the corner of TV screens a small woman provided sign language for the hearing impaired.
Christ continued. "But I come before America today, for she is the greatest danger to world peace since Genesis.
"To suggest that God, our father, would ever be on the side of an America—or any country, for that matter—which attacks poor, defenseless, impoverished people out of revenge, fear, ignorance or greed, contradicts everything I stand for today and, more importantly, died for two thousand years ago."
On the streets and watching at home and at work, the American people were in "shock and awe" at this blunt criticism from their lord and savior.
A few cheered, but Christ’s condemnation of America’s response to the evils of 9/11 and of their President, Bush—the born-again man of faith, leader of the greatest country on earth—drew immediate and harsh disapproval.
Christian conservatives went on the attack, charging that Christ was wrong to criticize Bush while he was fighting the evil forces of Satan in his divinely inspired worldwide crusade on the war on terror. Christ, as one remarked, seemed to speak with a French accent, and sounded a lot like a bleeding-heart liberal.
Fearing that Christ’s message might undermine troop morale in Iraq and Afghanistan conservative Republicans launched an urgent campaign to—as they term it—"swift-boat" Christ.
"Swift-boat" is a new verb in the American lexicon, meaning "to smear in the name of truth, justice and freedom."
A Conservative evangelical group from the Bible Belt was quickly formed, named "The Twelve Veteran Disciples for Truth."
Using only their first names, Peter, Paul, James, John, Andy, Phil, Bart, Matthew, Simon, Thad, Tom, along with their spokesman, Judas, appeared together on Fox News to, as they stated, "set the record straight."
They all claimed to have ancestors who served with Jesus back in the Middle East, and stated that his message of "love your enemies" was outdated and dangerous in these troubled times, when terrorists and evildoers lurk around every corner and can strike at any moment.
"George W. Bush is a strong and sincere proponent of Christianity, a strong advocate of using military force to attack—even pre-emptively attack—our enemies. Notice that I say ‘attack,’ not ‘love’," said Judas.
Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing with former Georgia Senator Zell Miller before a uniformed military audience in Texas, suggested that Jesus’ "love your enemy" message was a thinly veiled liberal euphemism that meant Christ wants to cut the defense budget and reduce the federal funding for the body armor badly needed by our brave young men and women in harm’s way.
"Let he without sin cast the first spitball," Cheney mocked, to a standing ovation from the troops.
The American media, which loves simple soundbites to always entertain and sometimes inform, played Cheney's clever spitball line over and over ad nauseum.
One enterprising young Republican trademarked the term "Let he without sin cast the first spitball," embroidered it on t-shirts and is selling them on eBay, along with a scowling "have you hugged a terrorist today" teddy bear wearing a little turban.
On his daily radio program, Rush Limbaugh—the lord of the airwaves, the voice of the people, his excellency in broadcasting, revered by millions of "ditto heads" —asked whether the wounds Jesus suffered during his crucifixion had possibly been exaggerated.
According to Limbaugh: "Thorns can only cause flesh wounds, and nails in your hands and feet are not lethal."
Nails, Limbaugh went on with a chuckle, "should be an occupational hazard for Jesus Christ, the carpenter from Nazareth . "What’s next, Christ building houses for the poor, along with the second most annoying liberal, that other bleeding heart carpenter, Jimmy Carter?" Limbaugh mocked .
Immediately after the show, on sale at www.rushlimbaugh.com were steel-toed workboots adorned with the American flag, a pair of "thorn-resistant" "holy" garden gloves, and a box of Band Aids with tiny red crosses should the gloves ever fail.
On his program, radical preacher and firebrand television evangelist Pat Robertson referred to Christ’s "meek shall inherit the earth" remark as "communist infiltration and extremism."
He suggests, like Limbaugh, that the liberal Christ is soft on the freedom-hating Islamic evildoers who detest our values.
Robertson went so far as to say that Christ was dangerous, and posed the question "perhaps someone needs to take him out before he brings on Armageddon?"
President Bush, speaking to new Marine recruits at Paris Island, praised the Lord Jesus and thanked him for his sacrifices. The President, who speaks to God regularly, insisted, however, that God also put him on this earth during these dangerous times to do his will.
"Christ is my brother," Bush emphasized, "and brothers often have differences of opinion, that’s all. Christ believes in turning the other cheek; I prefer an eye for and eye. Or, as we say in Texas—dead or alive," he said to applause from his troops.
"Semper fi," shouted Bush.
Bush declared, "Jesus has never been elected to any public office. I come to work every day as your Commander–in-Chief with war on my mind. Christ speaks of peace this and love that… all kinds of dangerous messages in the post 9/11 world, when we have been attacked by the evildoers who can’t stand our freedoms," Bush said, to a standing ovation.
Bush ended his speech by reciting his own version of "The Lord’s Prayer":
Our Father, Who art in heaven,
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And never forgive the terrorists,
who trespass against us.
And lead us not into appeasement,
and deliver the U.S. from evil. Amen.
The Democrats, eager to dispel rumors that they will forever be irrelevant, have got into the act." .
Fearing that the compassionate Christ might be pro-life, they have set out to—as they term it—"Bork" Jesus.
Like "swift-boat," "Bork," taken from the name of the rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, has also become a verb meaning "to publicly destroy the character of those opposed to the Democrats’ single issue of abortion."
Teams of lawyers paid for by the Democrats, many of whom, opponents allege, have never read a Bible, sworn on a Bible or seen a Bible except in a motel room, are now scouring the Bible to determine whether Jesus, two thousand years ago, may have had an inappropriate relationship with Mary Magdalene and engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
Former President Bill Clinton advising the Democrats, as an expert in this area, stated emphatically, "Jesus did not have sexual relations with that woman!"
With Clinton's declaration, Democrats ended the investigation and went back to their fund raising.
The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal stepped in and was sharply critical of Christ’s message that "the love of money is the root of all evil and that it would be easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Greed, according to the Wall Street Journal is good; greed works; greed is what made America great.
They added that "to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s" suggests that Christ is in favor of raising taxes to fund liberal social programs and increase handouts to welfare mothers.
Jewish groups, fearing that Christ—who was, after all, born in Bethlehem, Palestine—would be sympathetic to Palestinian suffering and thus would oppose increased military aid for Israel, labeled him anti-Semitic.
When reminded Christ was born Jewish they amended the label to "self-hating Jew."
Catholics, fearing that this time around not only would Christ clear the temples, but the churches too, were quietly distancing themselves from their lord and savior. With sky-rocketing insurance premiums caused by the lawsuits stemming from the church’s sex scandal, Saturday Night Bingo is needed now more than ever and must not be interrupted.
President Bush’s press secretary has denied reports suggesting he was the source of the leak that begs the question "when did Christ stop beating his gay wife."
Sensing blood in the water, the Republican spin machine revved up to full throttle.
Ann Coulter, the "angelic"-looking "Republican Party Doll," appeared on The O'Reilly Factor in a pure white dress with a Victorian collar, her Rapunzel-like blond hair gleaming; under the set lighting. O'Reilly, complimented Coulter saying she reminded him tonight of "Glinda, the good witch of the north in the Wizard of Oz." However, some critics suggested she sounded more like the "wicked witch of the west" when she said: "...with his sandals, long hair and beard, Christ bore an eerie resemblance to Osama bin Laden." O'Reilly said nothing but nodded his approval.
But the coup de grace for Jesus was when Judas, the spokesman for "The Twelve Veteran Disciples for Truth," approached the Justice Department with evidence that the Middle Eastern–born, bearded Christ, who speaks Arabic and is in the US illegally, is a card-carrying member of Al Qaeda.
Judas charged that Christ was not the son of God, but rather the son of Allah.
With silver selling today at about $16.81 an ounce, thirty pieces of silver—about $504—just doesn’t buy what it did two thousand years ago. So Judas opted for his "fifteen minutes of fame" instead.
He is scheduled to appear on "Oprah" tomorrow, "Larry King Live" at night and "Good Morning America" the next day.
President Bush has invited him to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, for some spiritual guidance. Judas, it is expected, will assist the President in "clearing brush" at his sprawling Texas compound this Easter weekend .
All suggestions regarding book deals and movie rights are referred to Judas’s agent at the William Morris Agency in Beverly Hills.
With Christ-approval numbers now in the single digits, and with compelling evidence from the "disciples for truth" that Christ is a member of Al Qaeda, he was arrested under the provisions of the US Patriot Act and whisked off to an undisclosed location.
The indigent, penniless Christ was represented in court by a public defender who appealed Christ’s incarceration all the way up to the US Supreme court.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who is of Italian ancestry tracing back to ancient Rome, when speaking for the court refused to hear the appeal. In a tersely worded opinion for a unanimous court, he stated: "We wash our hands of this case."
The High Court, however, then overturned the twenty-five-year sentence of former WorldCom (MCI) C.E.O. Bernard "Bernie" Ebbers, declaring that his rights under the 8th Amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, were violated.
Ebbers was immediately released back into society and received a hero’s welcome in his hometown. Signs of "Give us Bernard" appeared everywhere.
Outside the court at Christ’s hearing, one lone supporter of Christ held up a sign that read "crucify the sinless, and set the guilty free." He was immediately arrested.
Accompanied by his legal aid lawyer, Christ was returned to the courtroom from his undisclosed location, along with two other prisoners.
Dressed in an orange jumpsuit and shackled at the wrists and ankles, he looked gaunt and sad at his circumstances.
His public defender angrily referred to this proceeding as a "high-tech crucifixion." The public defender was immediately cited for contempt of court.
Christ never spoke during the brief hearing, except when the judge asked him if he had any final words before sentencing.
"Yes, your honor. Father, forgive them, once again, for they know not what they do."
Amen
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Stellar Customer Service:
So we've found out that our old ISP is taking as long as they possibly can to release our port so that the new ISP can hook us up.
Twelve days seems a bit excessive to me, but gosh, it must just take longer than I would think.
So, in the interim, we're stuck making multiple trips downtown daily. Neat?
Twelve days seems a bit excessive to me, but gosh, it must just take longer than I would think.
So, in the interim, we're stuck making multiple trips downtown daily. Neat?
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
States May Free Inmates to Save Millions:
It had to happen sooner or later. The unprecedented drive toward "lock everyone up forever" penology, the disproportionate sentences, the idiotic idea that prison work should be privatized, the gutting of local services, such as first response, police (!) and education to pay for incarceration of non-violent offenders, it's all starting to unravel the only way it can right now: erconomically.
The article does an adequate job of presenting the points, but the gist of it is this: prisons are too readily and too easily populated for too long by too many different types of people, and it just costs too damn much. As a result, some prisons are going to have to start letting inmates out in order to be able to afford to keep others in there.
There are several elephants in the room that people are ignoring, but the largest might be capital punishment. Abolition wouldn't help all of the states mentioned in the article (NJ, RI and VT don't have the death penalty), but several of them could save several million badly-needed dollars per year simply by making natural life their paramount sentence and dispensing with the death chamber. Will they? Probably not by legislative fiat, but as the counties continue to be cash-strapped, they may permit the death penalty to die the death of disuse, by simply not bringing capital charges or by not seeking death, thus saving tens or hundreds of thousands per trial, even above and beyond the cost of lifetime incarceration.
It's probably an opportune time to talk wholesale prison reform again, too, where inmates work, and learn marketable skills, and gain some measure of education, and are productive and have reasons to find pride and hope in the desperation of confinement. Many people would read that sentence and say that "they don't deserve to have hope or find pride," and they're entitled to that opinion. It's starting to become clear, however, that we as a society simply cannot afford to maintain a "lock 'em up" policy much longer, and we're going to need to start looking at alternatives. Putting prisoners to work may remind some of slavery, always (and justifiedly) a ready comparison in the U.S., and the comparison cannot be written off out-of-hand. Still, it's an option worth thinking about, particularly if we're to take seriously the "promise of America, where a man can work hard and make the best of a second chance." Practice what we preach? Start with the lowest of the low, assess ourselves through the eyes of Dostoyevsky or Jesus (take your pick)? Think imaginatively, rather than emotionally?
Something.
But, as a parting comment, let's keep the aesthetics of the article in full view: a woman is posited as the face of victimhood, the person who will be endangered by these releases, and keep in mind also that the article states that the person who committed a crime against her is not a part of the group that could be released. A woman is the face of this. A white woman. Visualized in the article to be the recipient of the threat of inmates released early due to budgetary constraints. Need the point be stated explicitly, or is it clear just what the point of that was?
The article does an adequate job of presenting the points, but the gist of it is this: prisons are too readily and too easily populated for too long by too many different types of people, and it just costs too damn much. As a result, some prisons are going to have to start letting inmates out in order to be able to afford to keep others in there.
There are several elephants in the room that people are ignoring, but the largest might be capital punishment. Abolition wouldn't help all of the states mentioned in the article (NJ, RI and VT don't have the death penalty), but several of them could save several million badly-needed dollars per year simply by making natural life their paramount sentence and dispensing with the death chamber. Will they? Probably not by legislative fiat, but as the counties continue to be cash-strapped, they may permit the death penalty to die the death of disuse, by simply not bringing capital charges or by not seeking death, thus saving tens or hundreds of thousands per trial, even above and beyond the cost of lifetime incarceration.
It's probably an opportune time to talk wholesale prison reform again, too, where inmates work, and learn marketable skills, and gain some measure of education, and are productive and have reasons to find pride and hope in the desperation of confinement. Many people would read that sentence and say that "they don't deserve to have hope or find pride," and they're entitled to that opinion. It's starting to become clear, however, that we as a society simply cannot afford to maintain a "lock 'em up" policy much longer, and we're going to need to start looking at alternatives. Putting prisoners to work may remind some of slavery, always (and justifiedly) a ready comparison in the U.S., and the comparison cannot be written off out-of-hand. Still, it's an option worth thinking about, particularly if we're to take seriously the "promise of America, where a man can work hard and make the best of a second chance." Practice what we preach? Start with the lowest of the low, assess ourselves through the eyes of Dostoyevsky or Jesus (take your pick)? Think imaginatively, rather than emotionally?
Something.
But, as a parting comment, let's keep the aesthetics of the article in full view: a woman is posited as the face of victimhood, the person who will be endangered by these releases, and keep in mind also that the article states that the person who committed a crime against her is not a part of the group that could be released. A woman is the face of this. A white woman. Visualized in the article to be the recipient of the threat of inmates released early due to budgetary constraints. Need the point be stated explicitly, or is it clear just what the point of that was?
U.S. Doctors Beginning to Accept the Idea of Single-Payer?
At least one article seems to think so.
Take a look also at the comments. There is the usual mix of one part vitriol, one part that remarkable degree of self-assurance that is a product of being phenomenally ignorant of the issue mixed with the anonymity of the internet, and one part insightful comment; mix to taste, though, since these aren't direct measurements.
What the comments get to, though, is what few people talking about the issue seem to realize: there doesn't seem to be much in the way of consensus as to what, exactly, people are talking about.
Are we talking about health care or are we talking about insurance? There are various other ways to categorize the discussion, but to keep it simple, the binary frames it well enough. It doesn't seem as though we're really talking about either, though we're certainly talking about both.
How do you approach a solution, even to propose it, if you can't even decide on the terms of discussion?
Take a look also at the comments. There is the usual mix of one part vitriol, one part that remarkable degree of self-assurance that is a product of being phenomenally ignorant of the issue mixed with the anonymity of the internet, and one part insightful comment; mix to taste, though, since these aren't direct measurements.
What the comments get to, though, is what few people talking about the issue seem to realize: there doesn't seem to be much in the way of consensus as to what, exactly, people are talking about.
Are we talking about health care or are we talking about insurance? There are various other ways to categorize the discussion, but to keep it simple, the binary frames it well enough. It doesn't seem as though we're really talking about either, though we're certainly talking about both.
How do you approach a solution, even to propose it, if you can't even decide on the terms of discussion?
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Baby Busted Blogging:
I knew going into this that it would only be a matter of time before my baby did two things better than me: speak German and anything involving computers. Fair enough. I did not expect her to surpass me on the latter within six months (though maybe I should have), but here she is a few weeks back, blogging away:
I do love the look on her face. "Oh, crap, he saw me!"
Her explanation, as much as I could understand from the mixture of coos and gurgles and syllabic babbling (that she's started doing more and more of lately -- someone REALLY wants to talk!), was that she thought she looked really cute in this picture, and wanted to put it online:
I agree entirely, so we struck a deal -- I'd help her get the pic online, but I wouldn't tell her my password. She kind of smirked and agreed:
She sort of blew it by doing her "my bitches!" dance, but ok.
I also got one more concession from her -- the right to drop a couple more photos on there. Good thing she's not the least bit shy in front of the camera:
But I'm left with a question:
Is it a sign that you as a parent have taken too many pictures when your baby girl reacts to the sound of the camera being turned on? She hears that little da-ding! and turns, smiling patiently and, now and then, posing (swear to god, she poses already).
I do love the look on her face. "Oh, crap, he saw me!"
Her explanation, as much as I could understand from the mixture of coos and gurgles and syllabic babbling (that she's started doing more and more of lately -- someone REALLY wants to talk!), was that she thought she looked really cute in this picture, and wanted to put it online:
I agree entirely, so we struck a deal -- I'd help her get the pic online, but I wouldn't tell her my password. She kind of smirked and agreed:
She sort of blew it by doing her "my bitches!" dance, but ok.
I also got one more concession from her -- the right to drop a couple more photos on there. Good thing she's not the least bit shy in front of the camera:
But I'm left with a question:
Is it a sign that you as a parent have taken too many pictures when your baby girl reacts to the sound of the camera being turned on? She hears that little da-ding! and turns, smiling patiently and, now and then, posing (swear to god, she poses already).