Now that the NBA trade deadline has come and gone, we can get a pretty good outlook at what teams have coming down the home stretch. All but a few teams have taken the approach of making a run for it or tearing up their teams with a chainsaw to clear cap room for the upcoming off season. The ones in the middle either are improving but too young or injured to seriously compete for a title (OK City, Houston) or just crappy and still trying to figure out how to get their heads above water.
I liken it to the scenario of going out to your car and finding a rabid raccoon tearing up the seats, and your decision is basically decided by what you're driving.
Your options:
1) 2010 Cadillac: You've got to get that damn raccoon out of the back seat before the foam stains the leather. There's the high risk/high reward option of shooting the raccoon inside the car repeatedly (Cleveland trading for a good but aging and expensive Jamison) or the conservative route that might not work, like opening the window and hoping like hell the raccoon just leaves before he finds the stereo (Boston trading for Nate Robinson).
2) 2001 Nissan: You can still get around in this ride OK, but it's fair to say you're not going to turn many heads. The best option now is probably to let the raccoon wear himself out and then try to get the insurance money to seriously upgrade everything when the sale comes this summer (Chicago dumping Thomas for 50 cents on the dollar and the Clips sending Camby to Portland).
3) 1986 Hyundai: This is a complete piece of shit and everyone knows it. The best option is set the car on fire (don't worry about the raccoon, he'll make a run for it) and start from scratch. Just do it. That raccoon's rabid, remember? You had nothing before, and you're walking for awhile, but at least you can put all the insurance money into the new car. Of course, there are only about 3 cars that can drive you anywhere exciting, so nothing's guaranteed. This, my friends, is the NY Knicks and Sacramento.
So who really can contend moving forward?
(Note: I'll do the East in a Separate Post)
Western Conference:
Lakers: 40% Chance of winning West
The Lakers do look tough, but I think they're a step down from last year and the rest of the Western elite have improved. Kobe is banged up but still elite, and Gasol remains a big time threat. But otherwise, it's not the same Lakers. Artest is always up and down, and Bynum goes back and forth between looking like an elite interior presence and a foul-prone journeyman. The key player here is Odom. When he's on, he creates enormous matchup problems and creates for the other guys. If he's ineffective, teams can pack it in low and force Kobe to beat them with jumpers. He'll get a few of them, but not enough to consistently beat elite teams. Derek Fisher is absolutely killing them right now because he's about 120 years old and still 6'1''. And for whatever reason, they suddenly have started clanging free throws like a PAL team. But as always, the Mamba makes you dangerous as all hell in the clutch, an element you can't escape.
Denver: 40% Chance of winning West
These guys look substantially better than last year and appear ready to get it done. They have everything you'd want in a contender, although they might be a little shallow in terms of paint scoring. Fortunately, Carmelo creates enough mismatches that he can get the easy buckets to ensure offensive flow. I love their backcourt depth with Lawson and JR Smith giving them totally different looks from the starters. They're hungry, deep, and talented, and I would take them in a matchup with the Lakers right now, with Billups and Lawson both having big series. I'd be a little nervous about the potential for front court injuries, since their big guys have been a little injury prone over the years, but overall they've held up well so far this season.
Dallas: 15% Chance of winning West
People are sleeping on this team and it's a mistake. I love their starting 5 and they have solid backcourt depth with Terry in the rotation. Nowitzki's playing extremely well and they seem to have solid balance throughout the lineup. The trade with the Wizards was a total steal for this year and the guys they brought in are playing well. My biggest concern is the frontcourt depth. They have Haywood at the 5, but the only other size they have is Nowitzki at the 4 (not exactly on the Barkley/Oakley level of physicality, you could say) and the rickety corpse of Erick Dampier. This could be a major problem against LA, but likely less so against Denver. Matchups are the key here.
The Rest: 5% Chance of Winning the West.
I'm sorry, but Utah, Portland, OK City, and the others aren't going to win the conference. They might challenge in a series and even pull an upset, but they nobody's going to go through all of the first teams listed on the road and do it 3 times. Probably OK City is the most dangerous team, because Durant could go for 45 any night of the series, but it's unlikely he'll do this enough to go further than round 2.
Note: We'll finish this and talk about the East in another post coming soon.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
My Day of Olympic Glory
Sunday marked the peak of my Winter Olympic viewership and interest, a mix of the entertaining, the exciting, and the purely baffling. We were already feeling like world class athletes in our own right. Earlier in the day, the lady and I started our tennis careers a day after getting some sweet new rackets. We've since decided that we were in fact born to be child tennis prodigies and have been working under that presumption. This mainly involves shouting "PHENOM!" every time we hit the ball well (about 5% of the time, overall) and pouting extensively.
Catching the action on a mix of live and delayed-feed, we started out watching some early skiing with Bode Miller and a guy named Axsel. While I thought the "s" in Axsel was pretty unnecessary, he seemed to have a good story about coming back from a face-crushing injury. That being said, I can't tell the difference well at all on most of the skiing and really only get interested when they shout about someone winning or crashing. It's kind of like watching NASCAR, although I don't immediately dislike all of the skiers.
After that we went to the biathlon, which is fast climbing as one of my favorite Olympic sports. Not only do the skiiers have to ski around for awhile and shoot like a squadron of spandexed commandos, they have to do a lap in the loser loop for every miss (note: I don't care what the official name for the penalty area is. I want it to be called the "loser loop" or "chump dump." Those are the only options.). Finally one emerged as the winner, but I couldn't help but wonder if some rogue competitor ever shot a rival on the course either to win or just to screw somebody else. This must have happened at least once, right? Again, this goes back to the skiing issue where I kind of wanted someone to be gunned down at the finish line, WWF style.
We eventually reached the big USA-Canada hockey game, oddly shown on MSNBC. For one thing, if it's on MSNBC they should have had Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow doing the play by play, leading to smarmy comments like "I haven't seen anyone miss on a shot that badly since Dick Cheney!" and "The way they're going, the Canadian defensemen are going to need some enhanced interrogation to figure out those American power plays!"
I realized about halfway through the game that this was the first hockey game I'd watched in about 8 years, and actually contemplated catching more of the games in the tournament. The problem with this game was the extent to which it really highlighted what's gone wrong with the NHL over the last 15 years--a lethal mix of placing teams into puzzling markets like Tampa Bay, Phoenix, and Atlanta, as well as failing to modify rules to allow for the open style of hockey we see in the Olympics. As for the game, it was exciting as all hell and there were enough 1980 team references that we were compelled to shout "Miracle!!" every time they scored. Great game overall, and undoubtedly the highlight of the day. Miracle 5, Canadians 3.
After a brief return to more of the skiing that I really didn't follow very closely (Bode Miller won over some other people who, based on what the announcers said, didn't ski very well), the night took a MAJOR turn towards the bizarre. That of course means only one thing: ice dancing. The instructions for the night appeared to be some theme along the lines of "Dress up like some sort of insanely over the top version of what you think another country might be like, and then skate around in a way that makes no sense except for being potentially offensive." And boy did they ever follow orders. Probably the most common approach was to dress up like gay cowboys and strippers (reflecting America and Canada, obviously) and to skate in circles to Johnny Cash. I'm sure Mr. Cash would be proud. I can't even explain how troubling I found the brother-sister combos that had to grab each other pretty intimately and pretend to be lovers in a deranged Western flick. Maybe I'm a square, but I can't picture myself with a potential sister like this. In case you were wondering, he's driving her as a truck. I think. I hope.
No doubt the most controversial element was the Russian team who opted to represent the Aboriginal tribes of Australia by wearing full-body blackface suits and putting fake leaves on their skates. Also, apparently the Aborigines also have employed the same hair stylist as Pebbles Flintstone. They had modified the suits somewhat to make them allegedly less offensive, although I think it's probably a good rule of thumb for skating or really, life in general, you should probably rethink what you're doing if it results in this or this. Just a good little rule of thumb, you know? Actually, I thought they looked more like a pair from the Jersey Shore crew, like Pauly D and Snookie with more foliage on them. Better get some Ron-Ron Juice, team!
All in all, a pretty solid day for the Olympics. Exciting at points, completely odd at others, and generally interesting for the majority of the day. I suppose that's way it is for most people, and at once both the strength and weakness of the games. They're familiar enough you can follow what's happening, yet uncommon enough that there's a novel feel to everything. That's what makes it work, and why we can get so engrossed every 4 years without really knowing much about what's happening. I say for 2014, count me in.
Catching the action on a mix of live and delayed-feed, we started out watching some early skiing with Bode Miller and a guy named Axsel. While I thought the "s" in Axsel was pretty unnecessary, he seemed to have a good story about coming back from a face-crushing injury. That being said, I can't tell the difference well at all on most of the skiing and really only get interested when they shout about someone winning or crashing. It's kind of like watching NASCAR, although I don't immediately dislike all of the skiers.
After that we went to the biathlon, which is fast climbing as one of my favorite Olympic sports. Not only do the skiiers have to ski around for awhile and shoot like a squadron of spandexed commandos, they have to do a lap in the loser loop for every miss (note: I don't care what the official name for the penalty area is. I want it to be called the "loser loop" or "chump dump." Those are the only options.). Finally one emerged as the winner, but I couldn't help but wonder if some rogue competitor ever shot a rival on the course either to win or just to screw somebody else. This must have happened at least once, right? Again, this goes back to the skiing issue where I kind of wanted someone to be gunned down at the finish line, WWF style.
We eventually reached the big USA-Canada hockey game, oddly shown on MSNBC. For one thing, if it's on MSNBC they should have had Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow doing the play by play, leading to smarmy comments like "I haven't seen anyone miss on a shot that badly since Dick Cheney!" and "The way they're going, the Canadian defensemen are going to need some enhanced interrogation to figure out those American power plays!"
I realized about halfway through the game that this was the first hockey game I'd watched in about 8 years, and actually contemplated catching more of the games in the tournament. The problem with this game was the extent to which it really highlighted what's gone wrong with the NHL over the last 15 years--a lethal mix of placing teams into puzzling markets like Tampa Bay, Phoenix, and Atlanta, as well as failing to modify rules to allow for the open style of hockey we see in the Olympics. As for the game, it was exciting as all hell and there were enough 1980 team references that we were compelled to shout "Miracle!!" every time they scored. Great game overall, and undoubtedly the highlight of the day. Miracle 5, Canadians 3.
After a brief return to more of the skiing that I really didn't follow very closely (Bode Miller won over some other people who, based on what the announcers said, didn't ski very well), the night took a MAJOR turn towards the bizarre. That of course means only one thing: ice dancing. The instructions for the night appeared to be some theme along the lines of "Dress up like some sort of insanely over the top version of what you think another country might be like, and then skate around in a way that makes no sense except for being potentially offensive." And boy did they ever follow orders. Probably the most common approach was to dress up like gay cowboys and strippers (reflecting America and Canada, obviously) and to skate in circles to Johnny Cash. I'm sure Mr. Cash would be proud. I can't even explain how troubling I found the brother-sister combos that had to grab each other pretty intimately and pretend to be lovers in a deranged Western flick. Maybe I'm a square, but I can't picture myself with a potential sister like this. In case you were wondering, he's driving her as a truck. I think. I hope.
No doubt the most controversial element was the Russian team who opted to represent the Aboriginal tribes of Australia by wearing full-body blackface suits and putting fake leaves on their skates. Also, apparently the Aborigines also have employed the same hair stylist as Pebbles Flintstone. They had modified the suits somewhat to make them allegedly less offensive, although I think it's probably a good rule of thumb for skating or really, life in general, you should probably rethink what you're doing if it results in this or this. Just a good little rule of thumb, you know? Actually, I thought they looked more like a pair from the Jersey Shore crew, like Pauly D and Snookie with more foliage on them. Better get some Ron-Ron Juice, team!
All in all, a pretty solid day for the Olympics. Exciting at points, completely odd at others, and generally interesting for the majority of the day. I suppose that's way it is for most people, and at once both the strength and weakness of the games. They're familiar enough you can follow what's happening, yet uncommon enough that there's a novel feel to everything. That's what makes it work, and why we can get so engrossed every 4 years without really knowing much about what's happening. I say for 2014, count me in.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
We Just Need Some Space
In the past few weeks, there has been a growing rumble as to the future of one of the flagship American entities, NASA. In essence, we're seeing a serious reevaluation of the entire structure of NASA and the way we're allocating our energy, funds, and focus on space exploration generally.
The idea here is to shift a lot of the routine (routine being a relative term, of course) operations to private companies for the low Earth orbit stuff and shifting NASA's main focus onto deep space exploration and Mars (I believe Hobbits would still be in charge of Middle Earth transport). The corporate elements would generally entail moving scientists and astronauts back and forth between Earth and the space stations that currently orbit the planet. My guess is that this would also cover the possibility of Russian oil tycoons paying to go into orbit, but we'd have to see.
The argument in favor of this privatization is mainly that it isn't that complicated since it's what we've been doing for years, and requires such a substantial outlay of maintenance and operating costs that it's draining too much money from the major exploration projects like getting to Mars. Obama is actually pushing this pretty hard now, and I can understand his point. Getting to Mars and potentially beyond is clearly the on cutting edge of modern space discovery, and it's something that can only be attained through bold actions designed to make it happen. We're not going to just stumble onto Mars, folks, and we need to start now to get there in the next 20-30 years.
In 2004, President Bush initiated a program called Constellation that was focused on getting us back on the Moon by 2020. It was noble in terms of being a "rah rah! We're the Best!" thing, but it wasn't actually going to be that useful since we don't really need to be on the Moon. We've been there, and there's really not a heck of a lot of reason to go back. It would be like refocusing the Navy for 10 years on checking the Pacific for new islands--even if we find a new small one, so what? There's no substantial belief that there's some magic rock or secret on the Moon that's going to be useful, so why spend 10 years and tens of billions of dollars going back, except for all the back slapping that could result.
Obama's already made it clear that he's scrapping Constellation because it's a waste of time and money. The idea is that by dumping this program and moving NASA out of the ferrying game, NASA can really key on developing technology to put astronauts on Mars and potentially futher (although we're talking at least 20 years). It's going to be a completely different type of technology that gets humans on Mars and beyond. The petroleum combustion operations we've been using to get us to the Moon and into orbit aren't going to be enough, since we need a much larger vehicle capable of greater speeds. By reallocating our focus, we can more effectively get to places like Mars that could be useful down the road, instead of spending 10-15 years trying to get somewhere that we know isn't going to be of use.
Why Mars? Because it's the only planet we could reasonably colonize and make use of down the road, and because there are potentially enormous sources of minerals that we could use both now and in the future. It's the greatest potential source for human expansion into space and it could be the way mankind survives in case of a crazy global disaster in the next century (like an asteroid or nuclear war, not another "Jay Leno Show" or the Detroit Lions). That's why.
So what are the drawbacks? Well clearly, there is a huge potential problem of quality control. This plan looks a hell of a lot worse after a sloppy private company kills 15 scientists because nobody looked into the "check engine soon" light or because Rocketmart duct taped on a discount booster. There is going to need to be some sort of quality control oversight from NASA or another agency to make sure everything is done technically sound and without cutting corners. My guess is that this could be done reasonably effectively, but you get nervous when you see things like this Toyota brake recall. The good thing is that the technology isn't novel and NASA has been contracting out a lot of the work for years, so it's not a secret how to shoot a rocket into space.
The other element is how to control cost and try to maintain actual competition. You can't make the argument right now that it's going to follow a model like commercial air transportation because you don't have the enormous number of consumers who would actually use the services. For awhile, it would really be just the governments of the United States and a few other major nations who would be using this. As a result, we may be looking at a scenario where one private company does almost all of the flights and serves only a handful of consumers at a huge price. Not an ideal situation at first, but in this case I guess we'd have to hope that it becomes more financially efficient down the road.
In total, we're on the verge of a change in the way the US handles space exploration unlike anything since we decided we were going to the Moon in the 1950s. That plan took over a decade to come to fruition in 1969, and this one certainly will as well, if at all. Although I have concerns over the functionality of turning over the low-tech transports to the private sector, it appears to be the best way to reach the larger goal of exploring Mars and deeper into space. The American space program has taken criticism in the past for becoming somewhat complacent, and this may be the best way to ultimately kick-start the entire field into gear as we progress into this century.
The idea here is to shift a lot of the routine (routine being a relative term, of course) operations to private companies for the low Earth orbit stuff and shifting NASA's main focus onto deep space exploration and Mars (I believe Hobbits would still be in charge of Middle Earth transport). The corporate elements would generally entail moving scientists and astronauts back and forth between Earth and the space stations that currently orbit the planet. My guess is that this would also cover the possibility of Russian oil tycoons paying to go into orbit, but we'd have to see.
The argument in favor of this privatization is mainly that it isn't that complicated since it's what we've been doing for years, and requires such a substantial outlay of maintenance and operating costs that it's draining too much money from the major exploration projects like getting to Mars. Obama is actually pushing this pretty hard now, and I can understand his point. Getting to Mars and potentially beyond is clearly the on cutting edge of modern space discovery, and it's something that can only be attained through bold actions designed to make it happen. We're not going to just stumble onto Mars, folks, and we need to start now to get there in the next 20-30 years.
In 2004, President Bush initiated a program called Constellation that was focused on getting us back on the Moon by 2020. It was noble in terms of being a "rah rah! We're the Best!" thing, but it wasn't actually going to be that useful since we don't really need to be on the Moon. We've been there, and there's really not a heck of a lot of reason to go back. It would be like refocusing the Navy for 10 years on checking the Pacific for new islands--even if we find a new small one, so what? There's no substantial belief that there's some magic rock or secret on the Moon that's going to be useful, so why spend 10 years and tens of billions of dollars going back, except for all the back slapping that could result.
Obama's already made it clear that he's scrapping Constellation because it's a waste of time and money. The idea is that by dumping this program and moving NASA out of the ferrying game, NASA can really key on developing technology to put astronauts on Mars and potentially futher (although we're talking at least 20 years). It's going to be a completely different type of technology that gets humans on Mars and beyond. The petroleum combustion operations we've been using to get us to the Moon and into orbit aren't going to be enough, since we need a much larger vehicle capable of greater speeds. By reallocating our focus, we can more effectively get to places like Mars that could be useful down the road, instead of spending 10-15 years trying to get somewhere that we know isn't going to be of use.
Why Mars? Because it's the only planet we could reasonably colonize and make use of down the road, and because there are potentially enormous sources of minerals that we could use both now and in the future. It's the greatest potential source for human expansion into space and it could be the way mankind survives in case of a crazy global disaster in the next century (like an asteroid or nuclear war, not another "Jay Leno Show" or the Detroit Lions). That's why.
So what are the drawbacks? Well clearly, there is a huge potential problem of quality control. This plan looks a hell of a lot worse after a sloppy private company kills 15 scientists because nobody looked into the "check engine soon" light or because Rocketmart duct taped on a discount booster. There is going to need to be some sort of quality control oversight from NASA or another agency to make sure everything is done technically sound and without cutting corners. My guess is that this could be done reasonably effectively, but you get nervous when you see things like this Toyota brake recall. The good thing is that the technology isn't novel and NASA has been contracting out a lot of the work for years, so it's not a secret how to shoot a rocket into space.
The other element is how to control cost and try to maintain actual competition. You can't make the argument right now that it's going to follow a model like commercial air transportation because you don't have the enormous number of consumers who would actually use the services. For awhile, it would really be just the governments of the United States and a few other major nations who would be using this. As a result, we may be looking at a scenario where one private company does almost all of the flights and serves only a handful of consumers at a huge price. Not an ideal situation at first, but in this case I guess we'd have to hope that it becomes more financially efficient down the road.
In total, we're on the verge of a change in the way the US handles space exploration unlike anything since we decided we were going to the Moon in the 1950s. That plan took over a decade to come to fruition in 1969, and this one certainly will as well, if at all. Although I have concerns over the functionality of turning over the low-tech transports to the private sector, it appears to be the best way to reach the larger goal of exploring Mars and deeper into space. The American space program has taken criticism in the past for becoming somewhat complacent, and this may be the best way to ultimately kick-start the entire field into gear as we progress into this century.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Fact: Valentine's Day Requires Red Cake
In honor of this weekend's Valentine's Day festivities, I'm linking the IWICQYTB up to another blog for a fun and info filled primer on making Red Velvet Cupcakes. Dear friend Andrea has a fantastic food blog called "Alphabeet Soup" and recently posted a video we shot discussing how to make Red Velvet Cake, Cupcakes, and Whoopie Pies. We used two pretty normal modern recipes for the first 2 batches and then a third that used beets for its coloring. They all turned out really well, although the one with beets had a flavor like, well, beets, and almost went more of a savory cake direction. Good, but different.
One final note: 2 of the recipes, like almost every recipe you'll see now, did use red coloring to bring out the coloration. Way back when, you might not have needed to because the cocoa didn't undergo a treatment called "Dutch Process" and so it kept more of the natural cocoa coloration, yielding a sort of brick color. For a long time though, cocoa producers have done this Dutch Process which makes the cocoa a little more alkaline (less acidic) and darker brown, but also better tasting. So that's why now we have to add the red coloring. Keep in mind also that the old way of making this in the pre-Dutch Process era didn't have that Canadian Flag red we see now.
The Link:
http://alphabeetsoup.blogspot.com/2010/02/red-velvet-bake-off.html
One final note: 2 of the recipes, like almost every recipe you'll see now, did use red coloring to bring out the coloration. Way back when, you might not have needed to because the cocoa didn't undergo a treatment called "Dutch Process" and so it kept more of the natural cocoa coloration, yielding a sort of brick color. For a long time though, cocoa producers have done this Dutch Process which makes the cocoa a little more alkaline (less acidic) and darker brown, but also better tasting. So that's why now we have to add the red coloring. Keep in mind also that the old way of making this in the pre-Dutch Process era didn't have that Canadian Flag red we see now.
The Link:
http://alphabeetsoup.blogspot.com/2010/02/red-velvet-bake-off.html
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Constitution Just Doesn't Work That Way
Lately we've all heard quite a bit from the GOP on whether Federal authorities were wrong to have given Miranda warnings to Umar Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bombing suspect. As their argument goes, we've made ourselves less safe and given a huge unfair advantage by letting him "lawyer up." Leading the charge has been the insufferable Sarah Palin and her band of error-wielding cohorts, now featuring Maine Senator Susan Collins. While I'm not surprised that Sarah Barracuda she didn't get into the subtleties (or apparently main principles) of Constitutional law at Hawaii Pacific University, North Idaho College, the University of Idaho, Matanuska-Susitna College, or back at the University of Idaho a second time, I at least wished Madam Collins might have suspected something was off. Don't get me wrong though, Susan Collins has always made me wonder if there was a radon leak in her home or something. Damn that woman is dumb.
The problem here is that those two have echoed a sentiment as to the mechanics of the Constitution that is absolutely flat wrong. They've repeatedly made arguments in essence claiming that the Obama administration completely messed up by issuing Miranda warnings to the suspect because only US Citizens possess the right to counsel or to receive Miranda warnings. And as much as they wish it were so, it just plain isn't. This whole "lawyer up" thing they're ripping on and selling as a way for Obama to let terrorists run amok is one of the central tenets of American law, and is basically just an argument to deny all rights to anyone we think is a terrorist. It's the same as arguing that he shouldn't be able to have a trial, refuse to speak, or cross-examine witnesses.
The Constitution has NEVER been limited to just American citizens. It just doesn't work that way. The entire premise of the Constitution is that it's a set of limits on the Federal Government, not a set of specific powers granted to Citizens (or people at all, really). The reason law enforcement officers read you Miranda Rights in the form of "you have the right..." is to make it easier for mainstream civilians to understand what the limits are on the government's authority. It's just easier for people to understand "you have a right to remain silent" when being arrested as opposed to the more complete but confusing, "you cannot be compelled under the Federal Constitution to make statements in a criminal prosecution or investigation under compulsion or non-coercive interrogation which may tend to incriminate you in the absence of emergency situations, imminent public safety threats, immunity brokered through state or Federal prosecutorial agencies, or various other scenarios allowing for governmental agencies to force you to speak under potential for civil or criminal sanctions." Yeah, it gets a little wordy.
It's sometimes easier to think of the whole Constitution/civilian question for other protections like speech limits. For example, when you want to protest something political, you can because the government can't make it illegal to do so. It's more of a limiting rule on the government as opposed to instilling a power in the speaker. The best way to see this is if you tell your boss to go fuck himself. The government can't set any laws against it, but you can be immediately fired by your private employer on the spot, even while you claim your free speech rights protect you They don't, by the way. And this doesn't matter whether you're a full-fledged citizen or a one-day tourist from Madagascar.
In this same context, Miranda warnings and counsel access have never been limited to citizens alone. Do you really believe that we can just deny normal Constitutional rights to aliens, illegal or not? Of course not. And it shouldn't in a society focused on individual liberty instead of creating a caste system of legal protection. Where there are particular provisions that do limit the breadth to Citizens (or other issues like age limits for voting and running for the Presidency), they're specifically listed and explained thoroughly. You better believe the core rights of a defendant aren't falling under those narrow exceptions.
The only context where you could deny the Miranda warnings or counsel is where you weren't going to try to use any of the statements in a criminal prosecution. I understand the argument that they were looking for information to use to intervene in international terror plots, and I think there is some merits there. But this isn't what they're tossing out into the public forum. They're just using it in this xenophobic drum-banging that we can just start interrogating anyone who we think is a terrorist and deny them the Constitutional protections that we don't want them to have.
It's scary as hell especially because it goes back to this whole idea that we ought to be treating any would-be terrorist as some sort of quasi-military setup. Hell, why are we even doing trials, Sarah? Why don't we just shoot everyone we think might make trouble? If he's a non-citizen, he doesn't get the protection from cruel and unusual punishment, right? Let's get out the torture racks!
Trying to just chip away at civil rights on the basis that we have to to protect ourselves is the crazy thinking that takes us places we don't want to go. As a Franklin quote my friend Len had posted summarizes well, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
The problem here is that those two have echoed a sentiment as to the mechanics of the Constitution that is absolutely flat wrong. They've repeatedly made arguments in essence claiming that the Obama administration completely messed up by issuing Miranda warnings to the suspect because only US Citizens possess the right to counsel or to receive Miranda warnings. And as much as they wish it were so, it just plain isn't. This whole "lawyer up" thing they're ripping on and selling as a way for Obama to let terrorists run amok is one of the central tenets of American law, and is basically just an argument to deny all rights to anyone we think is a terrorist. It's the same as arguing that he shouldn't be able to have a trial, refuse to speak, or cross-examine witnesses.
The Constitution has NEVER been limited to just American citizens. It just doesn't work that way. The entire premise of the Constitution is that it's a set of limits on the Federal Government, not a set of specific powers granted to Citizens (or people at all, really). The reason law enforcement officers read you Miranda Rights in the form of "you have the right..." is to make it easier for mainstream civilians to understand what the limits are on the government's authority. It's just easier for people to understand "you have a right to remain silent" when being arrested as opposed to the more complete but confusing, "you cannot be compelled under the Federal Constitution to make statements in a criminal prosecution or investigation under compulsion or non-coercive interrogation which may tend to incriminate you in the absence of emergency situations, imminent public safety threats, immunity brokered through state or Federal prosecutorial agencies, or various other scenarios allowing for governmental agencies to force you to speak under potential for civil or criminal sanctions." Yeah, it gets a little wordy.
It's sometimes easier to think of the whole Constitution/civilian question for other protections like speech limits. For example, when you want to protest something political, you can because the government can't make it illegal to do so. It's more of a limiting rule on the government as opposed to instilling a power in the speaker. The best way to see this is if you tell your boss to go fuck himself. The government can't set any laws against it, but you can be immediately fired by your private employer on the spot, even while you claim your free speech rights protect you They don't, by the way. And this doesn't matter whether you're a full-fledged citizen or a one-day tourist from Madagascar.
In this same context, Miranda warnings and counsel access have never been limited to citizens alone. Do you really believe that we can just deny normal Constitutional rights to aliens, illegal or not? Of course not. And it shouldn't in a society focused on individual liberty instead of creating a caste system of legal protection. Where there are particular provisions that do limit the breadth to Citizens (or other issues like age limits for voting and running for the Presidency), they're specifically listed and explained thoroughly. You better believe the core rights of a defendant aren't falling under those narrow exceptions.
The only context where you could deny the Miranda warnings or counsel is where you weren't going to try to use any of the statements in a criminal prosecution. I understand the argument that they were looking for information to use to intervene in international terror plots, and I think there is some merits there. But this isn't what they're tossing out into the public forum. They're just using it in this xenophobic drum-banging that we can just start interrogating anyone who we think is a terrorist and deny them the Constitutional protections that we don't want them to have.
It's scary as hell especially because it goes back to this whole idea that we ought to be treating any would-be terrorist as some sort of quasi-military setup. Hell, why are we even doing trials, Sarah? Why don't we just shoot everyone we think might make trouble? If he's a non-citizen, he doesn't get the protection from cruel and unusual punishment, right? Let's get out the torture racks!
Trying to just chip away at civil rights on the basis that we have to to protect ourselves is the crazy thinking that takes us places we don't want to go. As a Franklin quote my friend Len had posted summarizes well, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Saturday, February 6, 2010
At Long Last, Super Bowl Sunday
Setting It All Up:
I suppose it really did need to come down to this matchup to resolve the whole season. Indy and New Orleans have been the two best teams over the course of the year, and while I had some pretty serious reservations about the Saints' win over the Vikings, everybody deserves to be here. As of Saturday, Indy is about a 6 point favorite, so the majority viewpoint puts the Colts on top pretty substantially. Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that the oddsmakers believe the Colts will win by 6--it's just that this is the number they give the Saints to get a 50/50 split on the public betting. In don't see it quite like that, and lets take a look at how the Saints might win, and why they will.
Indy Offense vs. New Orleans Defense:
Clearly, Manning is playing at such a high level that he has every ability to win this one almost on his own. The guy is just throwing it all over hell and making it look easy, and it's hard to see them coming up with less than 24-27 points. He's generally been tough against the blitz because he's so good at assessing where the pressure is coming and finding the hot read quickly. That being said, if New Orleans plans on just sitting back and letting him consistently throw against 4 man rushes, they better pack their bags and head on home right now.
Here's the part where I think New Orleans actually is decently well-equipped to handle the Indy passing game: pass defense is what they do well. If Indy is able to consistently run it with Addai and Brown they're going to be extremely tough to beat, but I don't foresee this even being a big part of the game plan--they're going to rely on Manning to make their plays (not a bad plan at all). In essence, the entire game plan for New Orleans all year has been to (1) get points on the board early with the offense; (2) force the other team into throw the ball to catch up; and (3) play aggressive pass defense because they know the other team isn't going to run it at them. The reason Minnesota was so tough for them to handle last week was that Minnesota could pound the hell out of them up front while still posing a deep threat (also, the Vikings were a damn good team). The Colts don't seem to pose that same threat up front, and this should allow the Saints to basically attack them constantly the same way that they did Arizona. Granted, Indy's a better team than Arizona, but the approach for both teams are in essence the same.
Moreover, while New Orleans doesn't have a single corner on par with Revis of the Jets, they have a tough top man in Greer and solid depth. The Jets were able to seriously control Wayne, but Lito Sheppard, Lowery and the other corners were beaten consistently. Now we hear Wayne is banged up, which is obviously a help to New Orleans. Don't get me wrong, Manning and the pass game will generate offense and points. I just don't see them able to control the game like a lot of people are thinking.
New Orleans Offense vs. Indy Defense:
I can't for the life of me understand why people aren't more concerned about the Saint run game. New Orleans has the personnel to consistently spread Indy's corners, which should allow some great fronts for Pierre Thomas and Mr. Kim Kardashian to gain some good chunks. Thomas is a hell of a lot better than people give credit for, and the Colts sure as hell aren't set up like the Vikings up front. I like Thomas to have a pretty big game with a few long runs.
The other element is that the run game is going to set up some really solid play-action. Because they're a smallish defense, the Colts rely on their corners and safeties to help on the run defense. If New Orleans can consistently pose a run threat, this should force more Colt defenders close to the line and allow Brees to toss it down field against single coverage. Sean Payton is so damn good at structuring offensive plays to isolate single defenders against his wideouts, and he's going to get that done tomorrow.
Overall, I like, but don't love, the matchups for the Saints in the pure passing game. The New Orleans Offensive line is good without being great, and the matchup on the ends favors Indy even if Freeney is limited with the ankle injury. Mathis is too good against the right side of the Saint line to handle with a single blocker, so they'll have to chip with tight ends consistently to prevent him from making big plays. The Saint receivers didn't play all that well last week, but my guess is that they'll bounce back a little and make plays.
Summary:
All together, I actually like the Saints to win this, although in a way a little different from most of their wins this year. They aren't going to be able to just spread Indy out and throw it all over the field. Their coaching staff is probably the best in the league right now at creating mismatches and openings, though, and they'll be able to do this enough to get some big plays. And most of all, I like them running the ball. The Jets and Ravens couldn't run very well against Indy because their pass games were shit and Indy could stack everyone up front.
For the Colts, it's a matter of protecting Manning and getting good games out of their young receivers. Wayne more than likely won't have a huge game because of his injury and Greer, so Garcon and Collie take on an extra importance.
To beat the Colts, you have to flat out attack them on offense. If you remember the first 3 quarters of the New England game this year, the Pats were able to gain a big lead being extremely aggressive on offense, much as the Jets were able to in the first half last week. This is what New Orleans must do at all costs, be it with the run game or the pass--attack constantly. And fortunately for them, this is when they're at their best.
The Pick: Saints, 34-31
I suppose it really did need to come down to this matchup to resolve the whole season. Indy and New Orleans have been the two best teams over the course of the year, and while I had some pretty serious reservations about the Saints' win over the Vikings, everybody deserves to be here. As of Saturday, Indy is about a 6 point favorite, so the majority viewpoint puts the Colts on top pretty substantially. Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that the oddsmakers believe the Colts will win by 6--it's just that this is the number they give the Saints to get a 50/50 split on the public betting. In don't see it quite like that, and lets take a look at how the Saints might win, and why they will.
Indy Offense vs. New Orleans Defense:
Clearly, Manning is playing at such a high level that he has every ability to win this one almost on his own. The guy is just throwing it all over hell and making it look easy, and it's hard to see them coming up with less than 24-27 points. He's generally been tough against the blitz because he's so good at assessing where the pressure is coming and finding the hot read quickly. That being said, if New Orleans plans on just sitting back and letting him consistently throw against 4 man rushes, they better pack their bags and head on home right now.
Here's the part where I think New Orleans actually is decently well-equipped to handle the Indy passing game: pass defense is what they do well. If Indy is able to consistently run it with Addai and Brown they're going to be extremely tough to beat, but I don't foresee this even being a big part of the game plan--they're going to rely on Manning to make their plays (not a bad plan at all). In essence, the entire game plan for New Orleans all year has been to (1) get points on the board early with the offense; (2) force the other team into throw the ball to catch up; and (3) play aggressive pass defense because they know the other team isn't going to run it at them. The reason Minnesota was so tough for them to handle last week was that Minnesota could pound the hell out of them up front while still posing a deep threat (also, the Vikings were a damn good team). The Colts don't seem to pose that same threat up front, and this should allow the Saints to basically attack them constantly the same way that they did Arizona. Granted, Indy's a better team than Arizona, but the approach for both teams are in essence the same.
Moreover, while New Orleans doesn't have a single corner on par with Revis of the Jets, they have a tough top man in Greer and solid depth. The Jets were able to seriously control Wayne, but Lito Sheppard, Lowery and the other corners were beaten consistently. Now we hear Wayne is banged up, which is obviously a help to New Orleans. Don't get me wrong, Manning and the pass game will generate offense and points. I just don't see them able to control the game like a lot of people are thinking.
New Orleans Offense vs. Indy Defense:
I can't for the life of me understand why people aren't more concerned about the Saint run game. New Orleans has the personnel to consistently spread Indy's corners, which should allow some great fronts for Pierre Thomas and Mr. Kim Kardashian to gain some good chunks. Thomas is a hell of a lot better than people give credit for, and the Colts sure as hell aren't set up like the Vikings up front. I like Thomas to have a pretty big game with a few long runs.
The other element is that the run game is going to set up some really solid play-action. Because they're a smallish defense, the Colts rely on their corners and safeties to help on the run defense. If New Orleans can consistently pose a run threat, this should force more Colt defenders close to the line and allow Brees to toss it down field against single coverage. Sean Payton is so damn good at structuring offensive plays to isolate single defenders against his wideouts, and he's going to get that done tomorrow.
Overall, I like, but don't love, the matchups for the Saints in the pure passing game. The New Orleans Offensive line is good without being great, and the matchup on the ends favors Indy even if Freeney is limited with the ankle injury. Mathis is too good against the right side of the Saint line to handle with a single blocker, so they'll have to chip with tight ends consistently to prevent him from making big plays. The Saint receivers didn't play all that well last week, but my guess is that they'll bounce back a little and make plays.
Summary:
All together, I actually like the Saints to win this, although in a way a little different from most of their wins this year. They aren't going to be able to just spread Indy out and throw it all over the field. Their coaching staff is probably the best in the league right now at creating mismatches and openings, though, and they'll be able to do this enough to get some big plays. And most of all, I like them running the ball. The Jets and Ravens couldn't run very well against Indy because their pass games were shit and Indy could stack everyone up front.
For the Colts, it's a matter of protecting Manning and getting good games out of their young receivers. Wayne more than likely won't have a huge game because of his injury and Greer, so Garcon and Collie take on an extra importance.
To beat the Colts, you have to flat out attack them on offense. If you remember the first 3 quarters of the New England game this year, the Pats were able to gain a big lead being extremely aggressive on offense, much as the Jets were able to in the first half last week. This is what New Orleans must do at all costs, be it with the run game or the pass--attack constantly. And fortunately for them, this is when they're at their best.
The Pick: Saints, 34-31
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Nothing Says Political Unrest Like Surf &Turf
Today marks the kickoff of what's being called the "National Teaparty Convention," which was the promoters preferred over the other name being tossed around, "Giant Fleecing of Angry Scared Morons." There has already been some dissension among the whole tea party crew as to whether having a big single convention was actually a good idea, but the biggest hubbub has been over the money that's being tossed around, and ultimately kept by a handful of organizers.
Listen, I've got no beef with people getting together to stew angrily over some sort of misguided political disaffection. I get it. The economy is tough, that uppity Obama doesn't seem to care what you think, and there's someone telling you that the only way to fix the universe is to shout louder. It seems so damn easy, and that's the hook. Fine, go with it.
But here, in this Convention stuff, we have potentially the most obvious whoring out of the entire movement (and that's really saying something considering the underlying corporate funding that's been happening throughout this fiasco). Somehow, a for-profit corporation has been able to pass off a money making event with a--no joke--lobster and steak banquet and a $100,000 keynote speaker as the great symbol of everyday Americans taking back power. You also get to hear some of the local leaders tell you their strategies for fomenting your neighborhood government overthrow (you know they're not paying this crew anything--has anyone ever had to try hard to get a no-name conservative to talk about how smart and important they are? I think not.) All this for the low, low, price of $549, plus an additional $9.95. I'm assuming the extra fee is for Bald Eagle chow, but hopefully everyone also gets a flag ShamWow.
How are the angry masses supposed to pay the $549 you ask? To quote the organizers on their website (note: I kept the grammatical errors in there because it makes it funnier):
"Fifty people in a small tea party group for example each investing $10-20 dollars would take care of most of the costs to a delegate. This is not a huge investment money but information wise it will yield huge returns."
Ohhhhhh! Now I get it! Have the other shmucks at your local gun range/anti-government compound/Klan rally pay for you to go! Because that just screams "fiscal self-reliance."
Clearly, the big draw of the event is Sarah Palin, the darling of the allegedly oppressed right and current $100K per appearance speaker. She's taken some heat for all the money getting tossed around, and so now we're hearing she's planning on giving it to some organizations to do more funds. But when you think about it, isn't she just replacing the government if we make this a comparison to taxes? Why doesn't the organization just give the money to the organizations instead of to her, for her to redistribute it to those groups who need it? Consistency was never really her strong point anyways. (Side Note: I can't get over her answer to when she was asked which of the founding fathers she most admired: "You know. Well, all of them." I'm sure that's what Doris Kearns Goodwin said too.)
Moreover, even if Palin says she has problems or even concerns over the huge charges, she's completely exposing that as utter bullshit by still going and getting her big paycheck. Hell, if she just gave back her fee to help cut the costs, that would be a pretty big chunk (for all the non-math majors, if they had 1,000 sign up, it's $100 per person). Other people have actually started to withdraw in light of all the negative elements. That goddamn nut Michelle Bachmann pulled out completely, although we can all be certain that it was because of all the Senate rules on shilling for corporations as opposed to any personal problems with the scam. The only exception, of course, it was the company who makes hoods for waterboarding. She'd stand up for those free-marketers, Senate rules be damned.
Hopefully by Sunday night the Republic will in fact still be intact despite the efforts of those leading the 2nd Revolution. If it is, we can only assume those fine Patriots were too weighed down by the lobsters and drawn butter to take arms against Obama and his Socialist pals. Next week, though, watch out, the Rebellion is On! Oh wait, next weekend is Valentine's Day and there are ex-wives to be stalked. Screw it, let's just go back to the shooting range.
Listen, I've got no beef with people getting together to stew angrily over some sort of misguided political disaffection. I get it. The economy is tough, that uppity Obama doesn't seem to care what you think, and there's someone telling you that the only way to fix the universe is to shout louder. It seems so damn easy, and that's the hook. Fine, go with it.
But here, in this Convention stuff, we have potentially the most obvious whoring out of the entire movement (and that's really saying something considering the underlying corporate funding that's been happening throughout this fiasco). Somehow, a for-profit corporation has been able to pass off a money making event with a--no joke--lobster and steak banquet and a $100,000 keynote speaker as the great symbol of everyday Americans taking back power. You also get to hear some of the local leaders tell you their strategies for fomenting your neighborhood government overthrow (you know they're not paying this crew anything--has anyone ever had to try hard to get a no-name conservative to talk about how smart and important they are? I think not.) All this for the low, low, price of $549, plus an additional $9.95. I'm assuming the extra fee is for Bald Eagle chow, but hopefully everyone also gets a flag ShamWow.
How are the angry masses supposed to pay the $549 you ask? To quote the organizers on their website (note: I kept the grammatical errors in there because it makes it funnier):
"Fifty people in a small tea party group for example each investing $10-20 dollars would take care of most of the costs to a delegate. This is not a huge investment money but information wise it will yield huge returns."
Ohhhhhh! Now I get it! Have the other shmucks at your local gun range/anti-government compound/Klan rally pay for you to go! Because that just screams "fiscal self-reliance."
Clearly, the big draw of the event is Sarah Palin, the darling of the allegedly oppressed right and current $100K per appearance speaker. She's taken some heat for all the money getting tossed around, and so now we're hearing she's planning on giving it to some organizations to do more funds. But when you think about it, isn't she just replacing the government if we make this a comparison to taxes? Why doesn't the organization just give the money to the organizations instead of to her, for her to redistribute it to those groups who need it? Consistency was never really her strong point anyways. (Side Note: I can't get over her answer to when she was asked which of the founding fathers she most admired: "You know. Well, all of them." I'm sure that's what Doris Kearns Goodwin said too.)
Moreover, even if Palin says she has problems or even concerns over the huge charges, she's completely exposing that as utter bullshit by still going and getting her big paycheck. Hell, if she just gave back her fee to help cut the costs, that would be a pretty big chunk (for all the non-math majors, if they had 1,000 sign up, it's $100 per person). Other people have actually started to withdraw in light of all the negative elements. That goddamn nut Michelle Bachmann pulled out completely, although we can all be certain that it was because of all the Senate rules on shilling for corporations as opposed to any personal problems with the scam. The only exception, of course, it was the company who makes hoods for waterboarding. She'd stand up for those free-marketers, Senate rules be damned.
Hopefully by Sunday night the Republic will in fact still be intact despite the efforts of those leading the 2nd Revolution. If it is, we can only assume those fine Patriots were too weighed down by the lobsters and drawn butter to take arms against Obama and his Socialist pals. Next week, though, watch out, the Rebellion is On! Oh wait, next weekend is Valentine's Day and there are ex-wives to be stalked. Screw it, let's just go back to the shooting range.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)