The Year of Predicting Dangerously

I think the only sports-related prediction I've gotten right this year was an accident. I was angry with John Cole for some reason, so I predicted his Stillers would win the Super Bowl, figuring that my anti-mojo would cause a painful loss, tears would have been shed, and garments would have been rended. Which is what I call 'fun'.

What better time to turn things around then the NCAA tourney?

But first, as anyone who watched the CBS selection show yesterday must realise, Billy Packer is an ass. And while Dickie V. might be an ass as well, he's at least the kinder, gentler, Shrek-inspired Donkey. Billy is just mean-spirited, ill-tempered, and totally beholden to the "power conferences". In my intial rant, I had forgotten that lovely aspect. Big East/ACC/Big Ten = good, Mountain West/A-10/Missouri Valley = bad. At least in the World According to Billy^tm. Don't bother letting the head of the selection committee congratulate the teams that made it, just jump right down his throat about how your pet leagues didn't get enough bids (equals money = broadcasting revenue = cash for Billy. What a prick.)

That being said...committee...Air Force? Can I say that they don't belong without being accused of hating the troops? Tennessee as a #2 seed? BC a #4 and GW #8??? How come GW gets penalized for an injured star who may or may not be able to play, yet Villanova doesn't. The Allen Ray play was ugly by the way. (In college I poked a teammate in the eye in practice, and they found my thumbprint on the top of his eyeball. Yech.)

The BC-Duke game was one of the better college games I've seen in a while, easily among the top 5 I saw this year (off the top of my head, the Gonzaga-Michigan State game from Maui and the first UCONN-Nova game being another 2). I have a strong visceral dislike of Boston College, and I've decided it's all one players fault. Sean Marshall. (You may remember him as the player who screamed in Redick's face for no reason for about 20 seconds the first time BC played Duke this year) A very low game:noise ratio. Craig Smith is awesome, though unfortunately he's the classic dominant college big man who's 3 inches too small to make it big in the league. I thought everyone handled the little dust-up between Paulus (who else?) and Hinnant. Especially Al Skinner, the BC coach. I'm surprised things like that don't happen more often, where someone gets all excited and makes contact with an opponent - cue donnybrook. Oh yeah. Josh. McRoberts.

Moving on to the tourney itself, some observations in no apparent order

• As I mentioned before, George Washington got screwed. Where the overrated at #6? Probably, but congratulations kids (and Pops) assuming you win a tough first round game, you get the #1 overall seed.

• Has there ever been a team more primed to be upset in the first round than Syracuse? I know a little something about basketball, so I know you can't expect the Cuse-in-the-house-ohmigod-ohmigod to win this game. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost by 15-20.

• Texas is primed for a run at a rematch with the Dukies. Will they make me look good?

• Kansas-Gonzaga in the Oakland regional finals. Memphis and UCLA are overrated it says here. (Sorry X)

• UCONN should beat everyone in their sub-region by 20 at least. Even though I think Washington is a better team, Illinois would give them a tougher time because if Big 10 teams know how to do anything, it's how to ugly up a game vs. a more skilled team.

• Michigan State-UNC will be a phenomenal second round game. A very, very important game for Paul Davis' NBA future as well. I think if he handles Hansbrough decently, his stock will rise plenty. UNC-UCONN would have a higher aggregate skill level than Knicks-Bobcats right now.

• Nevada could not have gotten a worse second round match-up then BC. They're best player is a finesse-oriented big guy, who will get the everloving crap knocked out of him for 40 minutes by Misters Smith, Dudley, Williams, etc... If Ray isn't effective for 'Nova, BC beats them comfortably as well.

• The bottom half of the Minneapolis bracket sucks. Someone will have to make the elite 8 from there, it will probably be from a power conference, and Billy Packer will talk about what an outstanding coaching job whomever has done by taking an bunch of McDonald's All-American's to three wins vs. Davidson, the Washington Generals and the Tennesee women's team.

Pooh's Elite 8 Predictions

Texas over Duke
Kansas over Gonzaga
UCONN over UNC
BC over Florida

UCONN beats Texas in the title game.

Of course, I could be and probably am wrong on about 80% of this.

P.S. for the best pool around, go here

Mop

Asterixation

Greetings, readers of the Carnival of Bad History. Further, unrelated tales of revisionism can be found here and here.

The NCAA is rewriting the record books again:

Ohio State was placed on three years' probation Friday and ordered to erase all references to its 1999 trip to the Final Four and three other [NCAA basketball] tournament appearances under former coach Jim O'Brien. (emphasis added)

Setting aside the completely arbitrary and capricious manner in which the NCAA enforces its byzantine rules, (see the recent Jeremy Bloom and Mike Williams cases for examples) and the fundamental unfairness of schools making millions of dollars off the backs of unpaid athletes, this incident highlights one of the more non-sensical trends in sports these days - the 'asterixation' of history.

As silly as this trend seemed the first time it arose, in 1961 when Maris and Mantle were chasing Ruth's single-season home run record, that incident* seems positively rational by comparison to the movement in recent years to make the history of athletic achievement conform to some notion of 'fair competition.' At least then there was a meanigful difference between 154 and 162 game seasons. Now, people argue that we need some mushy, normative standard of 'fair competition', whatever that means.

Returning to the Ohio State retroactive forfeits, because of actions which took place nowhere near the basketball court, we are supposed to pretend that the gritty, gutty (and monumentally non-aesthetically pleasing, it must be said) OSU teams of Michael Redd and Scoonie Penn didn't lose to eventual champions Connecticut 64-58 in the national semi-final game? My Minnesota Golden Gophers didn't lose to Kentucky in the semis two years previously? The most influential college team of the last twenty years, the Fab 5 Michigain Wolverines, didn't lose consecutive national finals? (Well, I guess Chris Webber is off the hook, as he never called a time out he didn't have in a game that never happened.)

I understand the need to enforce rules (of course, the rules enforced shouldn't suck, but that's a different post), but what possible purpose does 'scrubbing' record books serve? It can't possibly have a deterrent effect can it? It certainly doesn't remove painful memories from the spotless minds of sports fans.

And what's next? Why taking a torch back to the baseball record books. Barry Bonds used steroids(!), so, soon he won't have actually hit home runs by the bucketload if certain chattering heads have their way.

Look, sports is not an arena where objective reality can be doubted. OSU actually won all those games. I watched many of them. Presumably, ESPN Classic still shows a few of them from time to time. We know Barry Bonds hit a lot of homeruns because, in addition to our lying eyes, there have been court cases about the balls he hit. Moralistic judgments cannot and should not be used to change the facts, post hoc. Otherwise, where does it stop? Gaylord Perry threw spitballs his entire career. That was also against the rules. He's in the Hall of Fame now. Should he be removed? Kobe Bryant has turned out to be an complete jackass, do we rescind the three championships he won with the Lakers? How about if a jury in Colorado had convicted him?

If baseball doesn't want it's records 'tainted' by steroid-enhanced performances, then maybe it should not have turned a blind eye to steroid use and abuse a decade ago. If the NCAA doesn't want 'ineligible players' leading teams to championships, then it needs to do a better job preventing abuse in the first place. Returning to the scene, five years after the fact, and pretending to erase the accomplishments of those judged 'unworthy' is notable in that it is in equal parts stupid and ineffective.

It's long been a maxim in sports that "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't trying." That's what the referees are for, to catch rule-breakers. 'Historians' imposing some mythical, ahistorical, notion of 'purity' have no business reinventing achievement after the fact.


* Ironically, the "61*" is something of a myth in itself, as MLB keeps no official record book, so there was never an "official asterix" despite Commisioner Ford Frick's threats.

Pwned

Dennis the Peasant has on ongoing series on how to make money blogging. What to blog about, he asks? Why, politics of course, because:

The key to making money as a blogger is blogging about subjects which your potential audience simultaneously possesses the following:

1. Complete ignorance of the facts.
2. Very strong opinions.

Remember, you are not a United Way agency. Your job is to generate interest, not to educate or inform: Interest means traffic, and traffic means money.

And while you're remembering stuff, always remember these three simple rules:

1. Never blog about subjects that require real expertise.
2. Never blog about subjects that can be fact-checked.
3. Never blog about subjects that you can’t bluff your way through...

If you think about it for a minute, you can readily see the problems blogging about something that requires either formal training, experience and/or expertise. No matter how much you know about anything, there will always be somebody out there on the internet who knows more than you do. And since you’re blogging about that subject, guess where that somebody is going to end up? At your site.

Busted. DTP also has a extended series telling us all (right and left) why we're all idiots on the DPW thing. Tough medicine at times. Doesn't mean he's wrong.

Points of Interest

Interesting items I've come across today:

• Malls suck the life out of you:

I loathe malls. They exhaust me. I'm not a low-energy guy, but an hour or so in my local commercial wonderland and I'm ready to hit up some hibernation.

Me too. When I'm around my mother, museums and art galleries have the same effect on me.

Which is why I was interested to hear a friend tell me that it was all intentional. Apparently, the demon familiars designing these things have laid hands on some data connecting blink rates to shopping behavior: as it turns out, the sleepier you get, the more likely you are to simply spring for some big ticket items and hightail it home to bed. So the lights, the layout, the sounds, the scent -- it's all designed to drain the life force right out of you.

They're probably the same people who figure out how to light casino's just so to keep you disoriented but awake. Bastards.

• Publius examines Work as Religion:

[H]ere’s my point. If you spend your time bouncing from city to city, you become completely rootless. Your family is probably far away, as are your high school friends. The closest thing you have to a family is whatever subset of college or grad school friends happen to be in that city. You don’t go to church, you don’t really participate in your local community. You have no stable micro-social structures of any kind.

In short, there’s a big void there. And so people fill it with work.

For reasons that might trace back to our pre-historic roots, I think there’s some inherent urge in humans to seek order. And so, many yuppie tribesmen fill the void with work. There’s little to come home to, so they don’t come home much. In this sense, work becomes a form of religion in that it provides order and meaning to one’s life.

Read the whole thing, also, check out Publius' post about the background to the Network Network Neutrality issue (which appeared in AHW a few weeks back)

• Next, in the context of the ongoing debate (or perhaps BlogWar to end all BlogWars?) spawned by the SD anti-abortion law Amba illustrates the manner in which the opposing camps are constantly talking past each other. Essentially, each side is speaking to a different moral paradigm, and since morals are self-evident, figure that if the point is made forcefully enough it cannot fail to convince any opponent with morals. Since they are not convinced, they must be immoral and thus arguing in bad faith. Thus the left tells the right that they are only interested in subjugating women and the right tells the left that they are mass murderers. Not so much common ground there. Anyway, read it.

• Bruce Schneier points out why datamining for terror is likely counterproductive. Part of the reason the whole capitulation on the NSA front is galling to me is that FISA may indeed be obsolete. So let's update it to match current needs and available technology while doing our best to prevent future abuse. By holding investigations at least on that front. Makes too much sense to ever happen though.

• Glenn Greenwald has a compelling post on the GOP's "Catholic Strategy", which disturbs me in its possible implications. His conclusion:

It would be preferable if our elections were decided exclusively on the substance of the issues. But they just aren't, and pretending otherwise ensures defeat. The Republican Party is no more the party of Catholicism than it is the party of moral piety or the restoration of honor and integrity in government. Not only does adherence to Catholicism not compel a vote for Republicans; if anything, it can be argued much more persuasively that Catholicism precludes such a vote. Democrats have to aggressively make that case, and related points, no matter how much they would prefer not to have to. If they don't, we will continue to be a country whose elections are decided by filth merchants and rank religious manipulation.

Admittedly, Glenn can be florid with his prose, but I agree insofar that I've always been somewhat confused by the Democrats ceding the 'moral values' debate to the GOP. I don't want to get into a pointless empirical debate about who's better on that score - there's plenty of mud to sling to put it gently. But aside from single issue Abortion voters, why is it that "faith" must implicitly mean "Republican"? That being said, it makes me queesy to think of future elections being dominated by 'religious swift-boating' from all sides.

We'd be much better off if faith was not an issue aside from the manner in which actual (as opposed to professed) faith might guide someone's actions if elected. Show me, don't tell me. At this point, that isn't the world we live in, so it might get uglier. If possible.

• And finally, also via Amba, French Philospher Weighs in on issues of "postmodernism" vs. "Reality-Based":

Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations - so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism ("I am the truth") or they fall into nihilism ("nothing is true, nothing is false"). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions.

A totalitarian way of thinking loathes to be gainsaid. It affirms dogmatically, and waves the little red, or black, or green book. It is obscurantist, blending politics and religion. Anti-totalitarian thinking, by contrast, takes facts for what they are and acknowledges even the most hideous of them, those one would prefer to keep hidden out of fear or for the sake of utility.

Read the whole thing, and especially Amba's post and comments.

March's Maddening Aspect

Overheard:

A friend of mine's dad was on a two-hour flight next to Billy Packer. As people filed on the plane, they kept stopping and complimenting Packer. After a bit of this, as the plane's getting ready for take off, my friend's dad turns to Packer and says: "So, you're Billy Packet?" "Yes," Packer smiled, "yes I am." "Christ," he said back, "you suck as an announcer." And then he turned back to his newspaper and sat in silence for the next two hours.

There are two things I dislike about March Madness (down from three since Cincinatti fired Bobby Huggins. Every year, it seemed that some team with one exciting player would matchup with the Bearcats in an early round. Mass thuggery would ensue, the one skinny kid on Cincy would hit a few threes, and Bobby Brannen would be dancing on the scorer's table, moving on to the next round.)

One is losing, badly, in every pool I enter to people who know much less about basketball than I do. Of course, According to Pooh^tm the set of people who know less about basketball is quite large. As a digression, I'm not the only one. Our freshman year, one of Tall and my roommates was watching the Final Four with us in a student lounge on campus. The game was Syracuse-Mississipi State (with the immortal Dontae' Jones leading the way), another kid walks in and sits down. We're obviously cheering for MSU. We ask the kid who he's pulling for.

"Syracuse"

Our boy: "Well, I know a little something about basketball, so I know you can't root for Syracuse."

The poor kid left at the next TV timeout.

But the second thing that drives me nuts about March Madness is Billy F'in Packer. People who know me, may want to tune out, as they've heard this rant multiple times, pretty much verabitm. But here goes anway.

Say what you want about Dickie V, yes he's loud and obnoxious and likes Duke too much (a feature, not a bug, if you asked me, which you didn't), but he's enthusiastic and earnest and by all accounts a nice guy.

Billy on the other and is a smug, superior, smarmy sonofabitch. No one has done more to propogate the subtle racism in basketball (which gives the fellas at Free Darko plenty of ammo) than Billy. If you turned the picture off, you can always, always tell if he's talking about a white kid or a black kid. If he has "a great basketball IQ" he's a white kid. "Tremendous instict for the game?" Black kid. "Hard-nosed, gritty competitor?" White kid. "Outstanding athlete" well, you get the point.

And of course, he's a complete bobo for the coaches. Anything good, it's great coaching (classic example was the '95 title game when Toby Bailey misses a 16 footer 2 feet left, runs in and tip-dunks it. Packer response: "great coaching by Harrick to let his young freshman play." Because the self-backboard pass is just was Harrick drew up in between having his assitants do the players' classwork.) Anything dumb? Player's fault.

His self-image and ego are so massive that they have their own gravitational field. Its pull is so strong that Jim Nance, who I like during say The Masters, becomes an ass during the tourney through sheer proximity.

But it's the Big Dance, and not even Billy Boy can totally ruin it for me...

Big Music Friday: NSA vs. the Clash

The new craze sweeping the nation...Presidential Punk. We know he's a Rebel, but now DHS meets the Sex Pistols, W meets Iggy Pop, American Idiot meets...

And from his first album, the Clash-inspired hit "I am the Law":

Breakin' laws in the desert sun
I am the law so I won
I am the law so I won
I needed more power, though I had some
I am the law so I won
I am the law so I won

Lost my levee and it feels so bad
But guess what, my war is 'won'
I'm the best Leader you ever had
I am the law so I won
I am the law so I won

Peppered my friend with a shotgun
I am the law so I won
I am the law so I won
I miss my ranch and I miss my fun
I am the law so I won
I am the law so I won

Lost my levee and it feels so bad
But guess what, my war is 'won'
I'm the best Leader you ever had
I am the law so I won
I am the law so I won

Eddie, Guitar----------->

Anyway, on the the (mostly) random ten.

1. "Clampdown" - The Clash. In my top 6 pump up songs of all time. (Alongside "Wu-Tang Clan Ain't Nuthin' ta Fuk Wit", "Killing in the Name", "La Grange", "Thunderstruck" and "To Be With You" by Mr. Big. I wish I was kidding about the last one) 10/10.

2. "Wild Night" - Van Morrison. Sacrilege, but the Mellencamp/'ndege Ocello cover is better. But inside, my jukebox also roars out like thunder. 7/10.

3. "Wish I Was In Heaven Sittin' Down" - R.L. Burnside. Why does all of R.L.'s music make it seem like he might be have been a real jerk in person? Just something angry about his sound. 6/10.

4. "Elevate Me Mama" - Muddy Waters. Every single song from "The Chess Box" kicks everloving ass. No exception here. 9/10.

5. "Dust My Broom" - Elmore James. Speaking of kicking ass. Best. Guitar Lick. Ever. 10/10.

6. "One Way Out" - Sonny Boy Williamson. My Ipod clearly thinks it's Tuesday. Not complaining of course. Allman Bros. made this song famous. 8/10.

7. "Let's Get Retarded" - Black Eyed Peas. I liked the ESPN NBA playoff's version much better. Plus, I'm somewhat done with BEP since "My Humps" 4/10.

8. "Crazy Girl" - Basement Jaxx. How does one tell techno songs apart? 3/10.

9. "Pastures of Plenty" - Alison Krauss & Union Station. Is that George Clooney singing? No. He's just a very good lip syncher. Unlike, say, Ashlee Simpson. 6/10.

10. "Panama" - Van Halen. Obviously, not random. Eddie, when did you become the witch from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves? Beware the painted man...8/10.

Average: 7.1. Helps when the shuffler has the blues, I suppose.

FrenchFreedom Farce

RIA is non-plussed over the collapse of the Dubai-Port fiasco. Can't say that I blame her that much. As Ron says, we look like boobs, "furthering our bumptious, ignoramus image in the world." (As an aside, what have we done recently that doesn't further that image?)

Icepick asks

How bad is it that Bush is the only major politico demonstrating any kind of intelligence whatsoever?

He too handled it poorly. I submit that the instaVeto threat was ill-considered, and did as much to scuttle the deal as anything else as it put anyone who may have felt, upon consideration, that they had overreacted in a position where they would be seen as a toady, and let's be honest, they're skirting the bounds of that perception anyway. (Cue Pooh banging head on table)

Also, just because there was a good deal of xenophobia involved in the initial outcry, that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to be skeptical as to the prudence of the deal. For example:

• Secretary Snow's apparent conflict-of-interest.
• The dismissal of any security-related concerns as to port administration. I've mentioned earlier, those working on the docks themselves have a good deal of influence as to what can come in, which is a bigger concern then the security of the terminals themselves.
• Relatedly, the apparent lack of any real review of these concerns. The committee in charge of handling the intial review seems to be largely a rubber-stamp.
• Foreign governmental ownership of key pieces of infrastructure.
• The simple fact that the UAE is not as strong a partner as is the U.K. No one is. And there are aspects specific to the UAE that might give one pause. Like the Emirate part. Like the fact they we are very unpopular amongst the population over there. Of whom presumably some do or will work for DPW.

Note 'reasons to be skpetical', not neccesarily reasons to oppose. But, as I mentioned above, the same run-it-up-the-gut, My way or the highway, ready-fire-aim play was called. The realities being what they were (in large part due to the administration's at least implicit arab-baiting lo these 5 years), that was counterproductive, and killed any chance of an examination.

Of course, those 'good reasons' are likely to get lost again, and we aren't likely to hear more about actual port security in the near future. On to the next farce, I suppose.

And Again

It being birthday season...Happy B-day, RIA. I have a gift just for you:

@%&!#!&

Jay Rockefeller, Tuesday:

The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House,

Having learned that Chuck Hagel is insulted by being called a boot licker...(here's a hint, STOP LICKING BOOTS), the Rock, Wednesday:

[O]n Wednesday, the Democratic vice chairman of the committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, issued a conciliatory statement, saying that while he favored a full investigation, a committee decision on Tuesday to appoint a seven-member subcommittee to oversee the N.S.A. eavesdropping was "a step in the right direction."

Update: G.G. has the text of Rockefeller's apologetic non-apology. Battlepanda has a cheat sheet in case Rockefeller is confused as between whiffleball at a barbecue and national politics:

At a children's birthday party, it's important not to hurt anybody's feelings, even if they are being big babies. In politics, everybody act[s] like big babies, and people whose feelings can get hurt by political opponents saying mean things about them should get out.

Duh

You Are Snow

Magical yet potentially destructive You are well known as fun to play with People anticipate your arrival but then are quickly sick of you You are best known for: your serenity Your dominant state: reflecting

What Type of Weather Are You?

Via RIA and Ahistoricality

Obligatory Minion Post

Happy-Happy, Joy-Joy.

Not my minion, but A minion.

AssHole of the Week: Brief Hiatus, This One is Too Good

Now for somethig completely different...

Cal Golden Bear hoops fans, well played:

When USC guard Gabe Pruitt took his first trip to the free throw line early in the game, the Cal student section hollered in unison: "VIC-TOR-IA, VIC-TOR-IA," and then yelled out a telephone number. Pruitt glanced back at the crowd in horror and bewilderment before clanking his free throws.

It turns out that a couple of mischeivous little bastards from the Cal student section had been IM'ing with Pruitt all week under the identity of "Victoria," a fictional UCLA hottie, and Pruitt was eagerly anticipating a date with this nubile co-ed back in Westwood after the game. In preparation for the date, Pruitt had handed over his digits, which the Cal student section recited back to him in unison.

He of course clanked them both. There's more. Allegedly,

Transcripts of their conversation were handed out to the [B]ench [Pooh: That's the Cal student section]. My personal favorite quotes by Gabe: "You look like you have a very fit body." and "Now I want to c u so bad."

Awesome. Embarassing? Bet your ass. But for this, you Cal Crazies, you are fitting winners of this weeks reconstituted AHW. My faith in the goodness of humanity is restored.

(links via Deadspin)

Asshole of the Week: On Hiatus in the Spirit of Accomodation

If the Senate doesn't feel like doing it's job, I don't feel like doing mine either. No Assholes named here this week. Like Pat Roberts, I'm trying to bridge the gap, to reach an accomodation to avoid confrontation.

There is at the very least what we might call a prima facae case that the NSA program violates the law, or alternatively that the President feels he is not bound by, well, any law. So instead of investigating, the committee designed to watch the watchers has decided that a new law, which the President can either break or not be bound by (take Yoo'r pick) is the best plan as long as the administration pinky swears not to abuse any "new" powers and give full and forthcoming reports.

I have some trust left in the tank, how about you?

(Image via Paul Wartenberg)

Otto Man pegs it. It's the "Whittington Principle", break the law and the law apologises to you.

"Doping?" Who Cares?

Bill has a fantastic and quite lengthy post about why the uproar over 'performance enhancers' in sports is largely irrational. I'll quote a bit, but Read The Whole Thing.

On testing:

Now, if a sport or organization wants to ban a substance - for example, steroids - that's fine. That's their perogative. My problem is that much of the testing is ineffective in finding cheaters and too prone to labeling innocent athletes. Take Tyler Hamilton. I don't know whether he's guilty, or not. I do know that the test they've used isn't as fool-proof as has been offered. I've read too much from too many independent scientists who have faults with the reliability of the testing - and many of them seem to have a better grasp of the science than the guys that developed the test (NY Times, May 10, 2005).

On the absurd hodgepodge of regulations:

The problem with many banned substances is that many of these are also available as over the counter drugs. An Olympic athlete has to be extremely careful what he takes when he has a cold. The wrong medicine can get him banned for life. Then there's the case of French cyclist, Franck Bouyer. He suffers from narcolepsy and without his medication will fall asleep on the bike. The Anti-Doping Agency has cleared his banned medication (modafinil), but the International Cycling Union has not. Without his drugs he is incapable of competing and a danger to others.

A common asthma medication is a frequently banned substance because it can give you an unnatural advantage in breathing. Banned, unless you get an exemption because you actually have asthma. Did you ever notice the number of world class athletes with asthma?

Then there's Mark McGuire and androstene. At the time, it was a perfectly legal drug (still is), banned on the Olympic level, but not Major League Baseball.

Doesn't it seem silly to ban something that anyone, of any age, can buy at practically any nutritional supplement store?And many of these banned substances and practices have legitimate medical uses.

B-b-but they're dangerous:

Sure, but performing on a world class level is inherently unsafe as it is. Is it safe for men to bulk up to 350-400 pounds to slam into each other? The average NFL career is about 4-5 years long and many live the rest of their lives in pain. Women athletes train so hard they stop menstruating from low body fat. Have you looked at what is done to teenage gymnasts? Pitching a baseball is an unnatural motion that destroys arms and elbows.

Level playing field?

Maybe all this is unfair, but sports are inherently unfair. Some athletes naturally gifted and waste their talent. Some are gym rats that persevere against all odds. Some have intangibles that make them more valuable to a team than as an individual. In the end, it takes a different type of person - both mentally and physically - to become a professional and world class athlete. If we can safely enhance that ability, or be willing to let the athlete assume any risk, I'm ok with that.

Plenty more where that came from. Read the whole thing.

Tinkerbell

I apologize. I haven't been doing my part. But in my defense, until yesterday, I didn't realise that all we needed to do to keep our country safe is pray harder:

Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall establish within the Department of Homeland Security (Department) a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Center).

Look, I'm not a huge fan of the whole "faith-based initiative" thing to begin with, since I think it's largely a renaming of government subsidies to (certain denominations and orientations of) religious groups - not exactly where I think my tax dollars are best spent. That being said, W did run on this to a degree, so you gets what you paid for. But is it too much to ask that Homeland Security be a reality-based department.


I mean we keep doing things like this, and people might speculate that there is a religious war going on, Islam = religion of peace notwithstanding.

But my favorite part of the executive order is this:

Sec. 4. Reporting Requirements.
(a) Report. Not later than 180 days from the date of this order and annually thereafter, the Center shall prepare and submit a report to the WHOFBCI Director.

(b) Contents. The report shall include a description of the Department's efforts in carrying out its responsibilities under this order, including but not limited to:

(i) a comprehensive analysis of the barriers to the full participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the delivery of social and community services identified pursuant to section 3(a) of this order and the proposed strategies to eliminate those barriers; and

(ii) a summary of the technical assistance and other information that will be available to faith-based and other community organizations regarding the program activities of the agency and the preparation of applications or proposals for grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and procurement.

(c) Performance Indicators. The first report shall include annual performance indicators and measurable objectives for Departmental action. Each report filed thereafter shall measure the Department's performance against the objectives set forth in the initial report.

Objective measurement? That sounds disturbingly like...science. Irreducible complexity is the new theory of port security, apparently. It's just as good as any other 'theory.'

At this point today, I feel like I'm on the other side of the looking glass.
(Image via)

Shorter George Will

Paraphrasing today's column:

Law professors are a bunch of liberal-left hippie liberals, and are therefore irrelevant - the Supreme Court said so.

Meanwhile the pundit class would never be guilty of such "institutional vanity and intellectual slovenliness," right, George?

Pooh's All "I Don't Know Why" Team

What I consider to have been my best snark of all-time has probably been lost to antiquity and/or overflowing mailboxes. In about 1997 I sent my anti-All NBA 1st, 2nd and 3rd teams to a group of friends. Mainly it consisted of me ripping on players I didn't like for whatever reason. If I remember correctly, the first team was Alonzo Mourning, Christian Laettner, Mario Elie, Vinny Askew and Greg Anthony. Aside from Zo's rehabilitation, that's still an eminently hatable 5 if you ask me.

Anyway, this all came back to me as I was reading a thread on Free Darko and the name "Oliver Miller" kept coming up repeatedly. I thought of my "anti" team not because the Gargantuan O would have been on it, but rather he is the anchor, almost literally of my Anti-Anti team. Guys I like for no real good reason...

PG - Alvin Williams. If you shrunk Chris Webber by about 20% he would look just like Alvin. Of course, you'd need to shrink Webber's game by about twice that. Though at this stage they have the same (gimpy) knees.

SG - James "Hollywood" Robinson. Anyone who was a T-Wolves fan in the mediocre 'first round and out but we still have Kevin Harlan and T_rentT_ucker as out announcers' days had to love Robinson. No lead, for either team, was ever safe when Hollywood entered the game during garbage time. I can neither confirm nor deny the fact that he was chooing 3.5 packs of Big League Chew at once any time he was on the floor.

SF - Jalen Rose. For one incident. When the Pacers were playing the Lakers in the finals a few years back. Rick Fox (6th man of my Anti-team, to be sure) was trying to get into J-Rose's head to rattle him or whatever, by playing extremely physically and talking a bit of trash. At one point Rose just looked at him, looked away, and started laughing. When interviewed after the game, Rose said something along the lines of "We all know Rick is a pretty boy, but he was trying to get all hard with me. Which I thought was funny. So I laughed." Suck it, perm-boy.

PF - Eduardo Najera. I honestly think he's a player who's talents have been underrated everywhere he has been. I badly wanted the Wolves to sign him. They chose Mark Madsen instead....

C - Big Ollie. Great hands, good passer, did everything well when his weight was under about 320 (remembering he's about 6'7"). When his weight was higher he did dumb things like give Kevin Johnson a hernia when KJ tried to pick him up after Ollie stumbled his way to a big play.

PoohsDay Blues: Jukejoint Jukebox

1. "It's All Over Now" - Bobby Womack. Blues cover of the Stones hit. The thing is, the Stones version still has more soul than an out and out blues cover. 6/10.

2. "Coahoma" - Corey Harris. Harris does an interesting mix of very traditional accoustic blues, and very experimental Afro-Blues fusion. This one is just a nice little blues stomp. 8/10.

3. "Blow Wind Blow" - Muddy & The Wolf. You might think the stage wouldn't be big enough for the two of them, but I sure wish I could have seen it. 8/10

4. "Freight Train" - Taj Mahal. Much like Harris, Taj can be pretty experimental. This track is almost more Carribean rhythm then American Blues. 7/10.

5. "Travellin' Life" - Lil' Ed & The Blues Imperials. Fabulous live band. Lil' Ed is about 5'2" with about 4'6" of that being his enormous eyeballs (he pulls a great blues face...) Really works the crowd well. 7/10.

6. "Trouble in Mind" - Amous Milbourne. Little slow dance number. Never Pooh's favorites (but then Blues clubs have generally been Boy's nights, rather than dates. Worth mentioning). 5/10.

7. "Farther Up the Road" - Bobby "Blue" Bland. Clapton definitely whited this one up a bit in his rendition. Sometimes you just have to get back to the source. 6/10.

8. "Kansas City" - Eddie "The Chief" Clearwater. Another Chicago blues institution. I don't think he does the full feather-headdress schtick anymore, but still good times. 7/10.

9. "Highway Blues" - Savoy Brown. This song sounds almost Zeppelinish. Never a bad thing. 7/10.

10. "Texas Flood (Live at Montreux)" - SRV. Stevie/10, as always.

In A Word,

Yes:

Is it possible that we as a society have hired a class of people at exorbitant sums to do situps and wear dresses and act foolishly for our amusement[?] Are celebrities that don't do outlandish things or look glamorous breaking their contractual obligations and consequently become less famous and command a lower salary?

Something about the opiate of the masses comes to mind...

WATFO? Barry Bonds Juice Edition

Allegedly:

Beginning in 1998 with injections in his buttocks of Winstrol, the same steroid used in the 1988 Olympics by Ben Johnson and last year by Rafael Palmeiro, Barry Bonds allegedly took a wide array of performance-enhancing drugs, including human growth hormone, over at least five seasons in a massive doping regimen that grew more sophisticated as the years went on, according to Game of Shadows, a book to be released later this month written by San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams.

No shit.

Am I the only one who doesn't care? I guess I understand the furor of 'doping' and such in sports, but I don't share in it. Did Ben Johnson not actually run really fast? Does Bonds not hit the ball very very far with a great deal of regularity? And don't feed me the 'bad for their health' line - I don't think it's a big secret that professional athletes tend to end up with permanent impairments. It's part and parcel with pushing for every last ounce of performance.

Update: In the comments, Bill adds

I'll say it: legalize performance enhancing drugs. Most have legitimate real-world applications and under a doctor's supervision aren't that hazardous. With the legitimate drugs and vitamins available, along with training improvements gained from DNA research, the line is becoming extremely fuzzy.

There are ballplayers with 20/20 vision who are having Lasik surgery for that slight improvement to 20/10 or 20/15. Athletes have hyperbolic chambers in their bedrooms to simulate high altitudes.

My thoughts precisely.

Mr. Furious feels, er, differently:

Bonds is going to wish he retired. The treatment he receives at ball parks this year will be merciless. I cannnot imagine that even his hometown fans will restrain themselves after reading this. Good. Bonds is a complete dick, seemingly without any redeeming qualities. Others who have been caught (Giambi) have issued mea culpas, asked for understanding, or at least been stand-up or nice guys in other ways. Not Bonds. He has been a prick his whole career and taken it to new levels since this BALCO thing broke. . . it just cements him as a the asshole and liar we all suspected as well.

Well, there is that as well...

Just to Get it Out of the Way...

So I can move on to more important things...Yay meme?!? (damn you, Sebby)

1. Grab the book nearest to you, turn to page 18 and find line 4
"-came more and more interested". Strunk and White, "The Elements of Style". Quite racy you know.

2. Stretch your left arm out as far as you can, what do you find?
A big long list of things I should be doing instead of this stupid meme.

3. What is the last thing you watched on TV?
Sportscenter. But only because I only did 30 minutes on the machine this morning, and I'd hate to only see half an episode of Charmed. I'd be wondering how it resolved all day at work and that would cut into my productivity...

4. Without looking, guess what time it is.What? Do I look like I work at the county fair?
4:44 PM

5. Now look at the clock, what is the actual time?
4:43 PM

6. With the exception of the computer, what can you hear?
The Man, laying down the law. (Working as I do for a judge, that's almost literally true)

7. When did you last step outside? What were you doing?
About 1:25. Walking to get my ever-healthful Chicken lunch.

8. Before you started this survey, what did you look at?
Darko Milicic's stats don't ask.

9. What are you wearing?
Joseph Aboud. Jerry Garcia tie. Stylin and profilin...

10. Did you dream last night?
Not that I'm willing to share with the likes of you.

11. When did you last laugh?
Explaining to The Man's secretary why TiVo won't let her watch a show that comes on at 9:30PM tonight at 8:00PM tonight.

12. What is on the walls of the room you are in?
A map. Post-its. Paintings that I don't think I've ever noticed before now.

13. Seen anything weird lately?
My dad refusing to bid on Sawx tickets at a charity auction. That was weird. And disappointing.

14. What do you think of this quiz?
Resistance is futile, I will be assimilated

15. What is the last film you saw?
For the first time? Walk the Line. Most recently? Traffic

16. If you turned into a multi-millionaire overnight, what would you buy?
Beer, Red Sox tickets (not giving any to my dad of course), a new computer. And a pony.

17. Tell me something about you that I don’t know.
I'm six-foot-one and I'm tons of fun and I dress to a T.

18. If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt and politics, what would you do?
Damnit, I should have saved the Pony for this one.

19. Do you like to Dance?
My arms have rhythm. My legs have rhythm. They aren't the same rhythm which makes dancing something of a hazzard. Relatedly, one of my co-workers had a birthday recently, and his party was a Dance Dance Revolution tournament.

20. George Bush.
Will Ferrell in Old School.

21. Imagine your first child is a girl, what do you call her?
Punishment for being a man.

22. Imagine your first child is a boy, what would you call him?
My ticket to the big time.

23. Would you ever consider living abroad?
Do they speak English in What?

24. What would you want God to say to you when you reach the pearly gates?
"Dude, bad bet." Relatedly, what does a redneck say before he dies? "Dude, hold my beer. Watch this." What does a redneck hear before he dies? "You're doin' it, dude. You're doin it."

25. 4 people who must also do this theme in their journal. XWL in the spirit of bipartisanship; PJ in revenge for his vicious Pooh-baiting; anybody at LL&PN because their answers will be funny; RIA, because she seems in need of something lighter.

Two Things

First, a pledge to intellectual honesty:

I’ll make the following promises: If a future Democratic administration takes us into a war of volition, and we later learn that its case was bogus, I will denounce it for lying us into war and urge every liberal writer I know to do so. If a future Democratic administration betrays core liberal principles -- by, say, offering a large tax cut without at least working toward universal health care -- I will deplore it and encourage other liberals to do so. . . . And, if a future Democratic administration lets a major American city die out of malign neglect, I shall calumniate it to the heavens -- and insist that every other liberal writer I know to do the same.

(Via) I snipped the one part of the pledge I can't fully sign on for - I can't promise future unequivocal support for Israel (a blank check gives them license to do some pretty heinous stuff if they know that the effective guarantor of their safety isn't going anywhere. Moral Hazzard, anyone?), though I am prepared to give a pretty strong presumption in favor of Israel.

Second, what he said:

So please don’t write a big long post pointing out times in the past when you said torture is bad, because that doesn’t cut it. All it is going to do is make me feel very, very sleepy, and so I’m going to have to have another cup of coffee, and if I have another cup of coffee before I get some food in my stomach … well, it’s not going to be a pretty picture for anyone involved. What is really going to put me in my place is if someone - say, for example, you - actually decides that the Bush policy of extralegal, unaccountable torture is worth getting upset about, perhaps even more deserving of disapprobation than Ward Churchill getting tenure, Al Gore’s views on visa policy, Michael Moore’s waistline, or whatever else the leading lights of today’s denatured conservatism think everyone should be gnashing their teeth about this week. (Or last week.) Because right now, America tortures people. You live in a country where the President has declared an effectively permanent state of war, and can, and does, as a matter of policy, and on a global scale, engage in torture. Morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly: this is wrong. It is worth being upset about. It is worth overlooking the use of literary devices you don’t agree with. It is worth forgiving minor policy disagreements. It is even worth telling people you otherwise agree with that, when they defend, excuse, or minimize the situation, they are wrong - morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly, even - and they, through deed or inaction, disgrace America. Because they do. And if you did it, you’d probably be more polite than me. And they might even listen. And then, eventually, this might change. And then I’d be completely busted, and I’d have to start berating you about, I don’t know, marginal tax rates, and uh, workplace harrassment lawsuits, and all those other things I’m told I care so deeply about, instead of about the corruption of the soul of my country. Please let me live with that shame instead.

Not expecting much, just thought I'd put that out there.

Obligatory Oscars Post

1. John Stewart - teh funny. Very much of a piece with his TDS personna, which probably doesn't resonante with some people. But then, I'm firmly a member of Generation Irony, so his comedy is right in my wheelhouse. Incidentally, a main reason why Kalin's piece on Stewart was that it took a colorable premise, that that very ironicism is deadly to progressive politics, and 'articulated' (used advisedly) that premise in as non-sensical a manner imaginable. I'll also second Dan Drezner on one point:

he entire show had an off-kilter feel to it... in that Stewart gently mocked how out of touch Hollywood might be with the rest of the country, while the rest of the show seemed dedicated to proving that Stewart was understating his case.

"And none of those problems ever ocurred again."

2. This was a crap year for original songs, so of course "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp" won. That being said, the track is kinda tight. But the interpretive dance number, just strange. And what's the deal with the rumors that all the other actor's pressured Howard not to perform the song? Dude learned how to rap for the movie, let him show it off, unless it would just be terrible for the ceremony to be sullied by a nominee uttering the word "Bitch" on stage. [Edit: I realised after I posted this that the link could look like I'm saying something I'm not. Merely pointing to RIA's post on the dirty word kerfluffle, nothing more.]

3. Can we just save everybody some time and not bother with nominations or awards for any 'visual effects' and like categories next time Pete Jackson makes a movie?

4. As to award winners, I'm ok with several of them. I thought that "Crash" winning for original screenplay is fairly scandalous - the movie succeeded (if it did for you) in spite of, rather than because of, the script. Good Night and Good Luck probably should have won, as the film was all about the words, silly.

5. I can see Rachel Weisz winning, though I thought Keener's performance was superior. In fact, I think the two best supporting performances were from Capote (once again, how did Clifton Collins not get nominated? And he's the same dude who played the hitman Frankie Flowers in "Traffic", who knew?)

6. Good for Reese and P.S. Hofmann.

7. Crash? Meh. Capote and Syriana were better movies, if you ask me. Actually, I think the Best Documentary nominees were stronger then those that got the nod for Best Picture. Murderball was better than Crash, damnit. (But of course, look at the cute lil' penguins...bah.)

And The Winner Is....

Welcome Skeptics' Circlers. Thanks to Ahistoricality for the nomination and to Paige for accepting the piece. Also, thanks for the kind words, Ed.

In honor of Jon Stewart's hosting of tonight's academy awards, the votes are in, and the 2006 award for Stupidest Thing Appearing in A Major US Newspaper goes to...Micheal Kalin of the Boston Globe:

THE SELECTION of Jon Stewart as the host for Sunday night's 2006 Oscars undoubtedly marks a career milestone for the aspiring king of late-night comedy. Unfortunately, however,

Unfortunately, however, forthwith, per se, a fortiori, and without a doubt, Kalin enjoys excessive throat-clearing.

the ascension of Stewart and ''The Daily Show" into the public eye is no laughing matter.

Comedian. No Laughing Matter. Oh the sweet and sour irony. It's like rain on your wedding day.

Stewart's ever-increasing popularity among young viewers directly correlates with the declining influence of progressive thought in America. Coincidence? I think not. Let me explain.

Direct correlation you say? Please continue with the wealth of empirical evidence at your disposal.

Meet Joshua Goldberg, a fictional composite of the typical apostle of ''The Daily Show."

Never mind, actually evidence is unneccesary. Just create a character. It's like writing a biography of a dude from The Sims.

Born in Newton, Goldberg attended Newton South High School where he played an integral role in securing the school's debate championship. His 3.8 grade point average and impressive array of extracurricular activities earned him a scholarship to Vassar, where he majored in political science and joined a Jewish fraternity. Throughout his formal education, Goldberg stayed up-to-date on national politics through nightly coverage on ''The Daily Show" and even led a petition to protest the genocide in Darfur.

See, even though Goldberg is jewish, he's an alright guy. Though he is a nerd, and I would never invite him to one of my kewl kid parties.

Many of Stewart's die-hard supporters might use this persona as proof that ''The Daily Show" engages disillusioned viewers who otherwise could not be reached. This argument, however, fails to consider the ultimate career path of Josh Goldberg: Upon graduation in 2004, he accepted a prestigious job as an analyst at Morgan Stanley. Although he no longer follows Washington's daily political squabbles, Goldberg gives a significant annual contribution to the Democratic Party.

He no longer follows much of anything outside of his 100+ hour work weeks. But he's still a dirtie liberal hippie at heart.

The tragedy of this portrait is not that investment banking corrupts young souls (although one could argue otherwise), but rather that the students who abandon politics out of a naive self-consciousness often represent our country's most idealistic minds.

Not only does this not follow from the previous statement, it barely coheres internally. Or, shorter Pooh: Huh?!?

Stewart's daily dose of political parody characterized by asinine alliteration

Asinie Aliteration is opening for Green Day's latest tour, right?

leads to a "holier than art thou" attitude toward our national leaders.

Alternatively, our national leaders' status as morally bankrupt, empty-suited, easily corruptible gasbags serves to inspire said attitude.

People who possess the wit, intelligence, and self-awareness of viewers of "The Daily Show" would never choose to enter the political fray full of "buffoons and idiots." Content to remain perched atop their Olympian ivory towers, these bright leaders head straight for the private sector.

Funny thing about a top-notch education is that it's expensive. Many people go into debt to finance the experience. Debt which they expect to be paid back. Hence the private sector, Morgan Stanley, etc, etc, etc. I'm not going to speculate that Kalin is a trust-fund baby, but yes, yes, I am going to so speculate.

Observers since the days of de Tocqueville have often remarked about America's unique dissociation between politicians and citizens of ''outstanding character." Unfortunately, the rise of mass media and the domination of television news give Stewart's Menckenesque voice a much more powerful influence than critics in previous generations. As a result, a bright leader who may have become the Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson of today instead perceives politics as a supply of sophisticated entertainment, rather than a powerful source of social change.

Next year, Kalin, you're gunna' be in here regurgitatin' Gordon Wood. Talkin' about, you know, the pre-Revolutionary Utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization. . . Is that your thing? You come into an [op-ed column], you read some obscure passage, and then pretend you, you..pawn it off as your own..as your own idea just to impress some girls..? Embarrass my friend? Do You Like Apples?

Most important, this disturbing cultural phenomenon overwhelmingly affects potential leaders of the Democratic Party.

I'm still waiting for the 'direct correlation' announced above.

The type of folksy solemnity brandished by President Bush does not resonate with "The Daily Show" demographic.

. . . (crickets) . . .

According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, only 2 percent of the show's audience identify themselves as conservatives. At a time when the Democrats desperately need inspired leadership, the show's self-conscious aloofness pervades the liberal punditry.

Yes, because the "reality-based community" hates actual evidence, preferring to make inscrutable pronouncements from on high.

Although Stewart's comedic shticks may thus earn him some laughs Sunday at the Oscars,

Wait, I thought it was no laughing matter. My simple brain cannot keep up with this dizzying display of logic.

his routine will certainly not match the impact of his greatest irony: Jon Stewart undermines any remaining earnestness that liberals in America might still possess.

The horror. The Horror.

Michael Kalin is a 2005 graduate of Harvard College.

Ergo, respect his authoritah, you ignorant philistines. Only a graduate of Dartmouth or worse would dare find Jon Stewart funny. Uncultured simpletons.

Upon hearing of his win, Kalin was quoted as saying: "With great power comes great responsibility. Jon Stewart is messing with powers he cannot possibly comprehend."

Suck

Consider this your open, JJ Redick, 5-20, losing on senior day, hateration to the max, thread. Have at me, Fletcher.

Speaking of the First Amendment...(RANT ALERT)

Earlier this week, RIA bemoaned poll results which show vastly more knowledge of the Simpsons and American Idol than of the rights guaranteed in the first ammendment. Just as a as a reminder:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thankfully, this week as given us something of a refresher course of our First Ammendment freedoms in action. (Yes, I know, I'm taking a few liberties here. Deal.)

First: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of relgion, or prohibting the free exercise thereof . . . " Fourteenth Ammendment aside, Missouri sees this as salutory rather than law:

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

. . .

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

Moving along, no ". . . abridging the freedom of speech. . ." Unless you say the one word you just can't say to Bill O'Reilly:

he threatened a caller of his radio show with "a little visit" from "Fox security" for mentioning MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's name on the air

. . .

O'Reilly added that the caller was "going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around." Warning his listeners, O'Reilly continued, "When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security will then contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable."

And allegedly, some one from Fox Security did in fact make contact:

"I got the call on the phone I used to call him from the head of Fox News security. He said that harassing phone calls were coming from my phone. I asked him how many? He did not know. I asked him what was said that was harassing? He said that he did not know but that it did not have to be what was said, but how many calls were being made. He tried to make like I made 20 phone calls instead of one, and that I cursed O'Reilly out. All I said was that I was grateful to O'Reilly for turning me on to Olberman. Then he hung up."

Good times.

". . . Or of the press. . ." Except for when the press prints inconvenient stories. Such as possible presidential law breaking:

The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

. . .

"Almost every administration has kind of come in saying they want an open administration, and then getting bad press and fuming about leaks," said David Greenberg, a Rutgers University journalism professor and author of "Nixon's Shadow." "But it's a pretty fair statement to say you haven't seen this kind of crackdown on leaks since the Nixon administration."

Because it's the leaking, stupid, which is bad, not the torturinghurricane responsewiretapping that the leak concerns.

". . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . .". Unless they are snarkily assembling peaceably in a disaster zone:

George Barisich, president of the United Commercial Fisherman's Association, has been selling anti-FEMA T-shirts since last fall, a reflection of his frustration with the federal government's response to the storm that left him homeless and unemployed.

But on Feb. 1, when he handed a shirt to a fellow Katrina victim as he was picking up canned goods at a charity's relief tent, Barisich found himself in trouble with the government.

He was cited by a group of Homeland Security officials for selling a T-shirt on federal property - in this case, near a FEMA center in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Chalmette, La.

But if all else fails, you can still "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Unless, well, the government says you can't:

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

...

"Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts."

Thomas Wilner, a lawyer representing several detainees at Guantanamo, agreed that the law cannot be enforced. "This is what Guantanamo was about to begin with, a place to keep detainees out of the U.S. precisely so they can say they can't go to court," Wilner said.

Move along, nothing to see here, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

Big Music Friday

The wheels on the busiPod go round and round...

and...ACTION!

1. "Born With a Broken Heart" - Kenny Wayne Shephard. No manner how hard you wish it were so, you are no SRV, KWS. That being said, solid song with a deep, crunchy hook. 7/10.

2. "Let It Go" - Def Leppard. Perhaps the Jekyl and Hyde band of the 80's. From track to track, wild swings between kick-arse butt-rock and just plain ass are the norm. Sadly, this one falls into the second category, with bonus penalty points for trying to sound like AC/DC and failing miserably. 2/10

3. "Reunion in Heaven" Carl Story and the Rambling Mountaineers. It's sad, but it's hard for me to hear early bluegrass without also hearing modern parody of early bluegrass. Damn you, Christopher Guest. 5/10.

4. "Kite (Live Elevation Tour in San Jose)" - U2. Somehow, I have managed to go through life without seeing these guys live. I'm a traveshamockery of a music fan sometimes. Berglefliggle. 9/10.

5. "White House Blues" - Charlie Poole and the North Carolina Ramblers. Heh. Sometimes the shuffle gets good to you. Unlike #3 aboce, I think this might actually be a parody even though it is legit bluegrass. Some mighty fine pickin' and a'singing... 6/10.

6. "Couldn't Get It Right" - Climax Blues Band. If this band was a little bit better known today, there might be a fever for this song, and the only cure might be more cowbell. Just saying. 8/10.
7. "Groove Holmes" - Beastie Boys. Remember when eveyone thought these guys were untalented jackasses (and if you read "Def Jam, Inc." there's more than a grain of truth to that, anyway)? Their anthology of instruments, "In Sound From Way Out" is one of my favorite albums. One way to Carnegie Hall folks, practice, practice, practice. 8/10

8. "At the Zoo" - Simon & Garfunkel. Never the biggest S&G fan, but if the gf was going to spend the night in your dorm room back in the day you needed something to put on repeat, right? And better S&G then the Cranberries or Verve Pipe or some mess like that. 4/10.

9. "Posters" - Jack Johnson. "Brushfire Fairytales" is another of my faves. 7/10.

10. "Darling Be Home Soon" - Joe Cocker. This song is kinda crap, actually, but it's Joe Freakin' Cocker singing, so it could be "The Itsy Bitsy Spider" and it would be compelling. 7/10.

Just Stop It

In Friday's WaPo, Charles Krauthammer's column is a stinging rebuke to the makers of Syriana. His critique is cogent at times (MILD SPOILER ALERT):

The political hero is the Arab prince who wants to end corruption, inequality and oppression in his country. As he tells his tribal elders, he intends to modernize his country by bringing the rule of law, market efficiency, women's rights and democracy.

What do you think happens to him? He, his beautiful wife and beautiful children are murdered, [SNIP)

What is grotesque about this moment of plot clarity is that the overwhelmingly obvious critique of actual U.S. policy in the real Middle East today concerns America's excess of Wilsonian idealism in trying to find and promote -- against a tide of tyranny, intolerance and fanaticism -- local leaders like the Good Prince. Who in the greater Middle East is closest to the modernizing, democratizing paragon of "Syriana"? Without a doubt, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, a man of exemplary -- and quite nonfictional -- personal integrity, physical courage and democratic temperament. Hundreds of brave American (and allied NATO) soldiers have died protecting him and the democratic system they established to allow him to govern. On the very night the Oscars will be honoring "Syriana," American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that "Syriana" shows America slaughtering.

It is certainly worthwhile to point out where the filmmakers may have made inapt analogies, and become overly focused on the negative. (Disclaimer: I'm not knowledgeable enough to say anything about Karzai other than from what little coverage of him I've seen, he seems like a stand-up guy).

And I have to agree with Krauthammer as to what was the most disturbing portion of the film (SPOILER ALERT):

It gets worse. The most pernicious element in the movie is the character at the moral heart of the film: the beautiful, modest, caring, generous Pakistani who becomes a beautiful, modest, caring, generous . . . suicide bomber. In his final act, the Pure One, dressed in the purest white robes, takes his explosives-laden little motorboat headfirst into his target. It is a replay of the real-life boat that plunged into the USS Cole in 2000, killing 17 American sailors, except that in the "Syriana" version, the target is another symbol of American imperialism in the Persian Gulf: a newly opened liquefied natural gas terminal.

The explosion, which would have the force of a nuclear bomb, constitutes the moral high point of the movie, the moment of climactic cleansing, as the Pure One clad in white merges with the great white mass of the huge terminal wall, at which point the screen goes pure white. And reverently silent.

This scene was profoundly disturbing to me as well, though I strongly disagree with the substance of the moral substance Krauthammer sees. It was disturbing to me because the arc of the story puts the viewer in the POV of this man, and you are almost forced to empathize. As I wrote about an hour after seeing the film:

Undoubtedly, the biggest reason the movie affected me was a single scene where the transferrence Hitchcock invented in Psycho (where we, the audience, begin to subtly root for Norman Bates) is taken to its logical conclusion. It worked on me. And that makes me very uncomfortable.

And so the suicide bomber is humanized. He did not begin the film (or presumably life) as inherently evil. He was twisted, misled and exploited, and it seems to me that recognizing that process is a neccesary step in prevention of repetition.

Those disagreements aside, I almost skipped right over the thoughtful and thought-provoking perspectives because Krauthammer, like so many today, isseems more interested in being incendiary than being persuasive. The title of the essay, you see, is "Oscars for Osama", and it concludes with:

Most liberalism is angst- and guilt-ridden, seeing moral equivalence everywhere. "Syriana" is of a different species entirely -- a pathological variety that burns with the certainty of its malign anti-Americanism. Osama bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction.

Malignly anti-American. Patholigcally so, even. Why are we even bothering to have this conversation, if that's the way you feel?

Similarly, the otherwise lucid Charles Bird of Obsidian Wings at times goes out of his way to short-circuit reasonable engagement. The latest case in point is this roundup of reports from inside Iraq (posted before the Samarra bombing, and the ensuing flashpoint). For some reason, presenting evidence that things might be getting better was insufficient, and Charles chose to sign off with a rhetorical raspberry of sorts:

Finally, this article has been around for a few days, but it shows how the U.S. military has been successfully adapting its operations in Iraq. For those who take the loser-defeatist position that U.S. troops have done all they can, well, they're dead wrong. No matter how cutting and running is reframed, the policy still remains defeatist.

Predictably, a bar brawl spread from the comments of that post to the ObWi Meta-blog over the Schmittian "loser-defeatist".

Unsurprisingly, I'm much better at noting such behavior in those I disagree with than in those 'on my side'. (And my relationship with the 'orthodox left is another subject for another post, I feel.)

And not that I'm blameless on this score myself, I was called out the other day for dismissive use of 'Reality-based'. (In my defense, I think I was being indelicate in my brevity rather than out-and-out dismissive, but YMMV) And certainly, when I hang out in what I consider to be the rumpus room of the blogosphere, my snark to substance ration can be quite high.

But when we are trying to actually discuss, (instead of self-indulgently bleat) what's the f'in point if we simply assume bad faith on the part of those who disagree with us from the off?

I Lack Original Thought

Today at least. But I've seen some good stuff around the way to which I thought I might direct attention:

• First, been meaning to direct people to RonB's Blog. He has good perspective on things, and I'd like to encourage him to write more. A sample:

  But the tear I shed watching that quickly turned to anger as I contemplated the state of our media today, or moreso the state of our media consumers.Think you all can get over your fear of bad news and put the so-called mainstream media boogeyman to death? God, I loved Goldberg's Bias but this shit has gone too far. What we seem to have done on the fringes is marginalize the best-it-can-do objective center to the point where the only media that makes any sense to us anymore is the most biased shit we can find.

As I mentioned the other day those in 'the middle' need to speak up more and Ron is doing just that.

• Frankie gives an illustration of why I try to avoid thinking big thoughts:

  I wonder sometimes if we make our own destiny, or if there are an infinite number of choices that we could make that would eventually lead us to the same outcome. Do all paths lead to the same predestined outcome? Or, is life just one, big choose-your-own-adventure book, with endless possibilities? Even as a child, I was uneasy with the idea of not knowing exactly how every choice I had to make would play out in the end. I was the kid who read every page of the choose your own adventure book, so I could make an informed decision about my adventure...but that takes the adventure out of the whole journey, doesn't it?

(Parts 1 and 2, as well). If I start going down that road, well, the expression "paralysis by analysis" comes to mind.

• Robert Kaplan makes what should be an inutitive point:

  Physical security remains the primary human freedom. And so the fact that a state is despotic does not necessarily make it immoral. That is the essential fact of the Middle East that those intent on enforcing democracy abroad forget.
  
  For the average person who just wants to walk the streets without being brutalized or blown up by criminal gangs, a despotic state that can protect him is more moral and far more useful than a democratic one that cannot.

Physical security of the people is so basic to the heart of "The State" that I might go so far as to call it definitional. Any legitimacy a government has flows from it performing the "keep you safe(r)" part of the contract. I give up some of my freedom of action, and so do you, and we are all better off for it. So yes, a orderly dictatorship could well be better for the people then a non-functioning democracy. I'm not going to argue that Saddam was 'good' in any objective way. But choices involve comparison, and if you're just going to make it worse...

Of course, there goes my moral relativism getting the best of me again.

• Speaking of moral relativism and its intersection with my in-remission nerd-dom, via Jazzy (Pastor) Jeff:
  
  
  
  
  You are a four-sided die, a d4. Otherwise known as a tetrahedron, a "Caltrop", or (to a lesser degree) "Ol' Pointy". This crap bores you, so I'll get to the point. Others tend to see you as petty, conniving, manipulative, argumentative, defensive, greedy, and needlessly antagonistic. You see yourself as focused, effective, efficient, influencing, shrewd, tactical, and direct. Both points of view are in fact correct. You always know the best way to get things done, a fact that never wins sympathy with others. Whenever you manage to gain control of a situation, your solutions are swift and brutal. Unfortunately everyone else is convinced that granting you such power is, "a bad thing" and often conspire to keep it out of your hands. Such short-sighted fools!

Or, short version, I am Stewie Griffin...

• Finally, a comment on Arlen Specter's internal (and eternal?) conflict regarding the NSA flap:

  you think Specter really wants straight answers from Gonzales in open hearings? I think he’s having a Colonel Jessup moment, but he’s playing both Jack Nicholas’ and Tom Cruise’s roles.
  
  Nicholson Specter: Do I want answers?
  Cruise Specter: I’m entitled to them.
  Nicholson Specter: Do I really want answers?
  Cruise Specter: I want the truth!
  Nicholson Specter: I can’t handle the truth!

I wish I could take credit for that.

Asshole of the Week: How About an "Earmuffs!" Call?

Kind of a slow week for AHW. A sports-related theme was pretty much assured, between Emperor PalpatineSteinbrenner declaring the upcoming baseball season superflous, Buck O'Neil not getting elected to the HoF and USA Basketball giving Iverson the shaft. (Bruce Bowen, Antawn Jamison and Luke Ridnour instead? I hear Mark Madsen and Brian Scalabrine are available. Paul Shirley could blog the whole thing, too...)

However a quick timeline of my evening will make it all clear:

• 5:30 PM AK time: leave work, walk across the street to the gym, secure in the knowledge that the DVR is recording the Duke-Florida State tilt. I'm worried, it's a classic trap game: late season; on the road; means much more to one team than the other; rematch of a controversial early season game. Oh, and Duke plays Carolina on Saturday.
• 5:30 - 6:30: Gym stuff. Instead of watching the 76ers-Rockets on ESPN out of fear of seeing a score or hearing a report during a 'Gamebreak', I instead subject myself to the other TV viewing option, Fox News. I feel dirty, but knowing that the game will be waiting for me on the DVR when I get home is some consolation.
• 6:30 - 7:00: Shower, shave, sher, sauna etc. Answer phone call from pops by saying "Don't tell me, I have it TiVo'ed" (not really, I have ghetto DVR, but TiVo is easier for the technophobic coot to understand, so why split hairs?) He teases, asks if I want to make a bet on a game. Which is funny because the last time he made a bet with me was about 1993 when I convinced him that a Sonics - Mavericks game in Dallas was live at 10 PM Alaska Time. Dallas was up double-digits to start the 4th, I bet him Seattle would win. He figured it out sometime the next week when I told him I was watching the replay of a Sonics game at 10 PM. Anyway he doesn't actually tell me.
• 7:00 - 7:30: Drive home, stopping at the bank to deposit the paycheck (CHING!) and pick up my usual oh-so-healthy dinner. Instead of listening to the usual ESPNradio for obvious reasons, I listen to the local NPR station interviewing a 2004 High School graduate who is running for mayor. Of Anchorage. His platform seems to be based on winning the 2003 Alaska High School Football Championship. San Dimas High Football Rules! It's an uncomfortable bit of live radio, but I don't want to spoil the game.
• 7:30: Get home, flip on the TV. Realise that I won't be able to watch the whole game now because Lost comes on at 8. It's ok though, I have it DVR'ed. I can watch it whenever.
• 7:32: Start eating, check the email...and find this sitting in there from Gloaty McHaterNation:

I apologize for this not being tied into this post, but

Given the overall content of this blog, what are the chances of me not posting about the Duke game. Especially if it goes poorly? You think I'll miss a chance to rip the increasing suckitude of Greg Paulus, who would be entering WoJo territory save for he's not even that useful, and is plain bad on D, instead of floor-slappy-annoying, overrated and bad on D? (You see what you are missing by jumping the gun? Do You?)

D-U-K-E! Sucks! Sucks! Sucks!

Not as badly as your boy did on the Wonderlic test. BTW, I love the FSU crowd, after almost giving the Devils a shot by incurring a tech with 1.7 left, chanting "Overrated" at a team about to lose for the second time all year, while their squad still might miss the tourney. Reminiscent of the yahoos I went to college with chanting "C-B-A! C-B-A!" at the other team's best player as they were thumping us in a playoff game. A D-III playoff game. Closed circuit to those guys...3 rings, bitches...

In case you are still working in Alaska, Duke just lost to FSU. In an all-time classy move, Coach K had his starters go to the locker room with 1.7 seconds left. Because he was afraid for their safety. What, JJ can't defend himself against a happy crowd?

So you were aware that I might still be working and still! You stay classy, Austin.

Moving on, yes, what wimps they were, espcially after one if the FSU players had to be helped off the court following the first bout of stage diving and crowd surfing. What bad could possibly happen? As much fun as Big Sheldon would likely have moshing with Jenn Sterger and friends, Coach K didn't get where he is today by wearing Bad Idea Jeans. And they shook hands and evertying on the way out, which was a pretty classy way to deal with a ugly spot if you ask me.

So for spoling my dinner, ruining the game and forcing me to write this instead of paying the requsite fanboy attention to Lost, you, Fletcher, are my asshole of the week. Congratulations, you are the envy of at least one regular for achieving the honor. Plus you now have a Duke threa on which to post...



As for basketball analysis: like I said trap game. No excuses, the Dookies didn't play well enough to win, but it wasn't like the letdown was unforeseable. Also the guards look extremely leg weary, neither Paulus nor Dockery could really penetrate, and every seemed just a half beat slow and D, which caused McRoberts and Shelly to get in fould trouble (both fouled out). It also prevented Duke from forcing turnovers and getting fast break looks. All that being said, if you were going to lose a game, this would be it. Good and ornery for UNC on Saturday, maybe a nice bounce heading into the ACC tourney and away we go? Seriously though, if I had to make a bet now, my cash would be on Texas since I think they are probably a much better value than UCONN.

Poohs OscarWatch Blues: Walk the Line

Meh.

No, make that Meh. I suppose if it wasn't the exact same film as Ray, which I liked but thought was overrated (though Jamie Foxx was not), I might be more impressed. Indeed the parts of "Ray" which made that movie for me, the musical numbers, are just not as well done in Walk the Line. Big ups to Commodus and Elle Woods for learning to sing and all, but it's not the same - Foxx is legitimately musically talented, and Hackford made the right choice by using mostly Charles's actual vocals. Plus, I probably could have done with approximately 95% fewer Phoenix nostril-cam close-ups. But that's just me.

QUITE FRANKLY, I'm a little tired of the Behind the Music biopic. Rise, fall, redemption, happily-even-after-postscipt, fade-to-black (with optional performance footage coda).

That being said, Reese is quite good, and I found myself liking her despite the fact that I hate her (Elle Woods did better than I did on the LSATs, which certain people still bring up from time to time despite the fact that she's a fictional character), and her signing was more evocative of June Carter's than Phoenix's was of Cash. And the rest of the musical acts were more distracting than anything else. That was supposed to be Elvis? And I didn't know that Jerry Lee Lewis looked just like Dawson with a bad red perm. (Yeah, I know, different actor, but I was sidetracked by having to ask myself "is that the Beek" every time he was onscreen.)

Pooh's View: Not to beat a dead drum-machine, but even sticking within the genre to a degree, this is a better film than Hustle & Flow? Piffle, I say. That being said, I'm still listening to "Live from Folsom Prison" on the iPod today.

6 Months On

Today is 6 months since Katrina hit New Orleans. I don't have anything to add, other than to say we consistently underestimate the power of natural phenomena to influence and alter our lives. Just thought I'd post some photos from back then by way of reminder.