Wholly Unsolicited Thoughts

Obama

2008-11-05T10:59:00.003-05:00

Let there be no doubt -- Barack Obama's victory is a watershed moment in American history. Given the nation's shameful record on race, seeing an African-American ascend to the highest office in the land is striking and deeply moving. This is amplified by the fact that Obama won several states in the old Confederacy, states that even Al Gore (a white Southerner) couldn't win in 2000. Obama's victory speaks volumes about the nation's undeniable progress on racial issues. Hopefully the election, on its own, helps to repair some of the enormous damage and ill-feelings that the past eight years have wrought, at home and abroad.

All of that said, I believe that the pundits and political commentators are being too hasty in declaring that the American political landscape has been altered forever. It's important to remember when analyzing the results that Senator Obama ran during a "perfect storm" for a Democratic candidate: President Bush was deeply unpopular, and the campaign season witnessed one episode of bad news after another, culminating with the worst financial disaster the nation had faced in more than 70 years. I remain curious how Obama would have fared if the political seas had been calm, never mind if he had run during prosperous times. This is not a knock on the candidate at all -- he ran a nearly flawless campaign. I'm just not convinced that the country is now "blue" for the indefinite future. Instead, I think the US remains a moderately conservative nation which, because of the staggeringly awful job done by the GOP over the past 8 years, was starving for something different. If Obama turns out to be a great president, and he's able to solve some of the terrifying problems that the US currently faces, then I can easily see a long-term Democratic majority dominating Washington, much like Roosevelt's New Deal coalition stayed in power from 1932-52. If, however, Obama is ineffectual, and the problems remain or worsen, I see no reason that the Republican party won't be able to return from the political wilderness. A long-term Democratic majority is there for the taking. But it's not there yet.

"Make-Believe Maverick"

2008-10-08T15:33:00.004-04:00

This article in Rolling Stone magazine is mind-blowing and is one of the more fascinating pieces that I've read in a long time. This is mainly because there's tons of new information in there, stuff that the mainstream media just doesn't talk about for whatever reason. I really urge you to read it and guarantee that if you do, you won't look at John McCain in the same way.

All of this raises an interesting question -- why DOESN'T the mainstream media talk about some of the disturbing McCain incidents discussed in the article? Maybe it's my hatred for the GOP talking, but I feel like the media gives free passes on these kinds of things to Republicans much more frequently than it does to Democrats. How often did we hear about Jeremiah Wright's off-the-cuff comments or Obama's friendship 30 years ago with the guy from the Weather Underground? Discussing Bill Clinton's marijuana use was a national event. But we barely heard about George W. Bush's DUI or his failure to show up for National Guard duty, and we've never heard about some of the incidents documented in this Rolling Stone article. And then the things that political junkies do know about (Keating Five comes to mind), go unreported even though they're extremely relevant and totally undercut McCain's campaign arguments (it's painful to hear him talk about cleaning up the corruption in DC when he went to bat for a corrupt banker who had taken him on junkets to the Bahamas. The hypocrisy is through the roof). I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but you have to question why these stories are underreported or unreported altogether. In my opinion, the relentless attacks on the mainstream media as "liberal" over the past 30 years or so has created a weird sort of subliminal bias in favor of Republicans. Some of the traditional media are so mindful of being labeled as Democratic lap-dogs that they, intentionally or not, fail to call out Republicans when it's warranted. I really can't think of another, better explanation, but if one of you has one, I'd love to hear it.

Farewell to Yankee Stadium

2008-09-25T14:39:00.004-04:00

By beating Cleveland on Tuesday night, the Red Sox clinched the American League wild card and, in turn, knocked the Yankees out of the playoff race. Because the Yanks are moving into a new stadium next year, the Sox' victory closed Yankee Stadium to baseball forever.

Hold on a sec. Those two sentences sound so amazing, I have to go back and re-read them a few more times.

Anyway, all season long, commentators have spoken reverentially about Yankee Stadium and its history. This is nothing new -- almost unanimously, "baseball people" speak of The Stadium as an irreplaceable baseball cathedral. Growing up, this bothered me because of petty Yankees-Red Sox jealousies; Red Sox fans think that our "lyric little bandbox of a ballpark" (in the words of John Updike) is baseball's most treasured jewel. Hearing gushing praise for our most hated rival's park rubbed me the wrong way. I'm still irked by such praise for The Stadium, but now it's for two different reasons.

First, the praise fails to recognize that there were two separate Yankee Stadiums. The first one stood from 1923 to 1973 and, I admit, it was awesome. It was architecturally unique (the first three-tiered stadium in the U.S., the frieze running along the facade of the upper deck), and it was formidable and imposing. Most importantly, though, an incredible amount of baseball history happened there. THIS was the park in which Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, and Mantle played. THIS was the site of famous boxing matches and New York Giants games. Even as a Sox fan, I would have loved the opportunity to catch a game at this park. In the mid 70s, however, the "renovation" completely gutted the place, leaving it as a barely recognizable version of the original. Accordingly, it bothers me to hear people say today that this is the place where Mickey Mantle roamed center field or where Ruth hit so many homers. No, it's not. Period. And if you doubt the extent of the renovations that took place, check out the picture (at the top of the page) of Joe DiMaggio visiting the Stadium during the "renovations." Not only can you see the demolition taking place in the background, but the look on his face says, "What the hell are they doing to this place?"

Second, Yankee Stadium II simply was not an enjoyable place to catch a ballgame. The sightlines were terrible, getting to the upper reaches of the 3rd deck was the equivalent of climbing Kilmanjaro, and other than the Stadium's sheer size, there was absolutely nothing unique about it. Admittedly, the place got very loud in big moments, and the fans really know their baseball, but that says less about the park itself than it does the fan base. Maybe I never could overcome my obvious biases, but I never walked into Yankee Stadium and said "wow" like I did at Fenway, Wrigley, AT&T, and even PNC. The place was expensive, cramped, old, and dirty -- all of which would have been totally fine if you were watching a game at Lou Gehrig's old stomping grounds. After all, I'm happy to put up with those inconveniences in Boston, Chicago, and LA. But like I said, the original Stadium was destroyed in 1973. Yankee Stadium II stands there now. Good riddance.

The U.S. Supreme Court abroad

2008-09-17T18:42:00.003-04:00

This article in today's New York Times reports that foreign courts are citing U.S. Supreme Court opinions far less frequently in recent years than they had in the past. The article puts forth several possible reasons for this phenomenon: (1) "the rise of new and sophisticated constitutional courts elsewhere," namely the European Court of Human Rights; (2) the new courts tend to be more "liberal" on issues of human rights than the U.S. Supreme Court; and (3) the diminished reputation of the U.S. in other parts of the world makes foreign courts less apt to cite to an American court.

Of these possibilities, I find the second the most likely and the most objectionable. I really have no empirical basis for saying this, but I imagine that "liberal" foreign courts were happy to use the Supreme Court's precedents under the similarly ultra-"liberal" Warren Court. (Note: I really hate using "liberal" and "conservative" to refer to a judge's or a court's jurisprudential approach because being politically liberal and advocating judicial restraint are not mutually exclusive -- hence the quotation marks -- but I can't think of anything better on the fly). It was only when the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts began rolling back or at least limiting the decisions of their predecessors that American law became undesirable to these other courts.

If this is the case, then these foreign courts are engaging in the same intellectually bankrupt, results-oriented jurisprudence that established many of these "liberal" precedents in the first place. Far too often, courts implicitly but transparently say, "this is or this should be the law if it leads to a result that we like, but this surely can't be the law if it leads to an unwelcome result." This is a nice transition into why I think that U.S. courts shouldn't use foreign law in its decisions: (1) how can a court possibly decide which foreign law to use? and (2) why does a foreign court's interpretation of ITS OWN Constitution or ITS OWN statute have any bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the AMERICAN Constitution or an AMERICAN statute?

(1) Gay rights advocates undoubtedly were thrilled when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the criminalization of homosexual conduct violates one's right to due process. In Lawrence, the Court cited foreign law as support for its decision, mostly from Europe. But why look only to Europe? Once the door to foreign law is open, a court can look to any foreign jurisdiction. I imagine that fans of the Lawrence decision would have a different take on the use of foreign law in domestic judicial opinions if the Lawrence Court had cited the law of Bangladesh (where the punishment for homosexuality ranges from life in prison to death) or of Angola (where convicted homosexuals are sent to forced labor camps). The point is that very, very rarely is there a definitive "answer" from foreign law; instead, the results are all over the map. Accordingly, citations to foreign law are almost self-serving and results-oriented. A judge knows which way he or she wants the case to come out, and, as some weak support for the decision, he or she can throw in a few case citations that say, "See?? Some other people have done it this way too!" This isn't a definitive statement of what the law is. It's cherry picking.

(2) I really mean this in the most respectful, least xenophobic way possible, but why the hell does a Belgian (or Indian or South African....) court's interpretation of its own law have any impact whatsoever on a question of American law? Let's not forget, the U.S. Constitution is a document. With words. Even if one believes that history and the framers' intent should play NO role in the interpretation of the Constitution (a dubious premise, but whatever), the only way that a foreign court's decision could possibly have any relevance for an American court interpreting these words is if that foreign country's constitution or statute was identical to ours. Even in that case, isn't it more helpful to look at how American courts have handled the same issue in the past? Again, I don't mean this as an attack on the competence of foreign judges -- in the reverse situation, I don't see how American law can be helpful to the interpretation of their own laws. It's not a value judgment of whose law is "better" or "more developed," it's merely an acknowledgement that the laws and the cultures are DIFFERENT. Pretending otherwise does everyone a disservice.

Stuff

2008-09-12T16:20:00.003-04:00

I sit here at the computer all day filling out job applications. Needless to say, I'm desperate for a distraction and, because I enjoy posting on this site, I've been trying hard to think of something to write, if only to get me away from cover letters and resumes for half an hour. But I've got nothing. Or rather, I don't have much. Here's what I do have:

This. Is. Awesome. Walter as a neocon! How did I not think of that? This is my favorite article in a long time.

Full disclosure: I didn't watch Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last night. But I've read several articles today that called Gibson's question regarding the Bush Doctrine (which Palin botched horribly) an unfair, "gotcha" kind of question. I couldn't disagree more. For the past 7 years, the Bush administration has endorsed a rather radical foreign policy viewpoint (regardless of whether you agree with the Doctrine, it is a departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy). Initially, the Doctrine meant that the United States would hold nations that gave sanctuary to terrorists as culpable as the terrorists themselves. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Doctrine evolved to mean that the United States was entitled to mount a preventive war to stop a state that had weapons of mass destruction from passing it to terrorists.

"Gotcha" questions include asking who's the prime minister of Uzbekistan or anything else even a well-prepared, knowledgeable candidate shouldn't have to know off the top of her head. I'd also include irrelevant, unfair, personal questions in the category. Asking a candidate for vice president of the United States about a fundamental shift in our nation's foreign policy, however, doesn't qualify. I find it troubling that she didn't seem to know what the hell Gibson was talking about and, after stumbling for a while, talked only about America's ability to pre-empt an imminent threat, a capability that has never been very controversial. The true issue in Iraq and its effect on the Bush Doctrine was that the threat WASN'T imminent. Serious national politicians need to know this kind of stuff, period.

UPDATE: A couple of articles (here and here) in today's Washington Post defend Palin's hesitation on this topic during the interview essentially because there is more than one version of the Bush Doctrine. Accordingly (the argument goes), her response of "In what respect?" to the question of what she thought of the Doctrine makes sense. I'm not buying it for two reasons. First, her actual response was way too vague to be interpreted as a deep understanding of the mutli-layered ideology that is the Bush Doctrine. I'd agree with these articles if she had asked, "Which version of the Doctrine are you referring to?" or "Do you mean the idea that harboring terrorists is the equivalent of commiting terrorism itself or the idea that the U.S. can use preventative military force?" But that's not what she said. Watching the video makes it pretty clear that she was just stalling for time, hoping for a cue from Gibson. In fact, her first answer was some generic, boilerplate answer about ridding the world of Islamic extremism. When Gibson finally filled in Palin that he was asking about the right of the U.S. to take preventative military action, even then she only talked about the country's right to attack when faced with an imminent threat. As I said yesterday, that's never been the subject of serious debate or controversy. Taken together, I don't think that Palin had a deep understanding of the Doctrine, but that she actually had no clue about ANY of the different versions. This might seem like too much analysis on a small topic or that Gibson and other commentators are being "school teacherish" in their critiques, but these times are too important for a candidate for national office to be learning as she goes.

U.S. Open

2008-09-09T18:53:00.002-04:00

Last night, Roger Federer beat Andy Murray in straight sets to capture his fifth consecutive U.S. Open championship and his 13th Grand Slam title overall. Even sports fans in America (to say nothing of the general public) don't really give a damn about professional tennis anymore, and I think that's a shame. Maybe it's just because I played the sport growing up and have an appreciation for how hard it is to hit the shots that these guys make on a consistent basis, but I am blown away at how the elite players make what is near-impossible look routine. Other than basketball, I can't think of a sport that requires strength, agility, hand-eye coordination, quick reflexes, speed, and stamina. Unlike professional basketball, however, singles tennis is a 1-on-1 sport which requires extreme mental toughness because it's all on you, through the good and the bad. There is no teammate to whom you can pass the ball. Of course, there are collapses in team sports too. But choke jobs in tennis (or in golf, for that matter) are more compelling because the nature of the game refutes the old adage that "no man is an island." It's so fascinating to watch a single person either unravel or rise to the occassion while thousands of people watch. It's the dual requirements of elite physical and mental excellence that, to me, make tennis so interesting.

My pro-tennis rant aside, Federer's win last night was historic. Not only did he move within one Grand Slam title of Pete Sampras's all-time record (14), but he also became the first male player to win 5 straight titles in 2 different Grand Slams. He won Wimbledon from 2003-2007, and he's won the U.S. Open every year from 2004 until the present. It's not really necessary for me to point out that this is impressive and a big deal; no player in the history of the game has done it before, so it's self-evident. Instead, I'll just express my disappointment that coverage of this accomplishment from the sports media was sorely lacking. On all of ESPN's programming last night and this morning, the Open final received fifth billing (at best) behind the stories from Week 1 of the NFL. Look, I'm a huge football fan, and I was traumatized by Tom Brady's season-ending knee injury. I also understand that football is about 750 times more popular than men's tennis in this country. But Federer does something that has NEVER been done, and it trails the highlights from a crappy football game like Buffalo-Seattle??? That's crazy to me. Tennis may never return to the level of popularity that it enjoyed in the 1970s and 80s, but it doesn't help the cause when the country's major sports network barely covers a remarkable and once-in-a-lifetime achievement within the sport. In turn, this raises a "chicken and egg" question: does ESPN ignore tennis because the sport is unpopular among its general audience or have the networks denied tennis the opportunity to grow by ignoring its biggest storylines and sending the implicit message that it's an unimportant, fringe sport? Either way, I find it unfortunate that self-proclaimed sports fans aren't interested in watching an exceptional athlete do something that no one has ever done before.

Palin

2008-09-01T19:18:00.002-04:00

John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin (governor of Alaska) as his running mate rightfully drew a lot of skepticism from the mainstream media. The way I see it, there are a few possible explanations for the pick, none of which I find compelling.

1. Cater to women. Considering the bitter Obama-Clinton primary battle which left many Hillary supporters refusing to vote for Obama (I still don't buy this, but that's a story for another day), McCain may believe that having a woman on his ticket could draw in a good number of these disaffected women voters. Call me naive, but I just don't believe that an appreciable number of women will vote for a candidate SOLELY because she's a woman. This is especially true in this specific case because, in terms of positions on policy, Palin and Clinton couldn't be more different. I just can't imagine that someone who supported Hillary Clinton (pro-choice, pro-gay rights etc) would vote for the GOP ticket merely because the VP candidate is a woman.

2. Pre-empt the "lack of experience" argument. According to this strategy, McCain selected Palin in order to bait the Dems into arguing that she lacks experience. This would allow the GOP to blast Obama in return for his own lack of experience. Or, on a similar note, the Dems would avoid all attacks on Palin for fear of having the same arguments applied to Obama in return. This is all well and good, but if this is really the strategy, the Dems can beat it by simply ignoring Palin and continuing their attacks on McCain's record (mainly his support for most of Bush's policies). After all, McCain is the top dog on the ticket, and it's not a huge problem to either ignore the veep entirely or to focus attacks on her very, very conservative policy positions rather than her thin resume.

3. Compelling life story. Palin's path to prominence is really cool and unusual, and she certainly qualifies as an "outside the Beltway" kind of candidate. That said, how many votes will this secure the GOP ticket at the end of the day? I mean, are there people out there saying, "Wow, Sarah Palin is a former beauty pageant winner, I'm voting Republican this year." ?? Good God, I hope not, and I don't think that there are.

4. Break the glass ceiling. This is related to #1, but it's more about refusing to cede the "change/hope/historic candidacy" theme to team Obama. This is a nice idea, but (1) it comes 24 years after the Democrats made the same move by nominating a woman for vice president and so I question how powerful a theme this is in reality, and (2) it's the GOP playing defense rather than exposing a weakness of the Democratic ticket.

My two major criticisms of the Palin pick mirror those that I had of Obama's Biden selection: (1) the choice totally undercuts the campaign's central theme, and (2) the VP candidate offers no electoral advantage. Just as I thought that it was asinine for the "fresh, hope, change" guy to choose a Washington lifer as his running mate, McCain's selection of a completely untested, young VP when he has been (understandably) going on and on for months about Obama's lack of experience and preparation is the height of absurdity. In this sense, I find both picks laughable. Also, Palin comes from a completely safe GOP state, so she doesn't automatically offer any help in a battleground like Pawlenty or Crist would have done.

The major point here is that I think there's only one way for the VP selection to make a really big difference, and that's if the candidate is a popular figure in a swing state in a close election. For this reason, I think Tim Kaine would've been a great choice for the Dems, and I think Tim Pawlenty or Charlie Crist would've been great choices for the GOP. It's nice that Sarah Palin played point guard for her high school basketball team, but really -- who cares?

Biden

2008-08-28T11:55:00.002-04:00

While I was away, Barack Obama selected Joe Biden to be his running mate for the presidency, meaning that my prediction of Tim Kaine was wrong (no surprise there). Despite the generally positive review of Obama's decision from the chattering classes, I still feel like Kaine would have been a better choice.

To me, it seems as if presidential candidates can opt for two different paths when selecting a potential vice president. They can select a running mate who offers some kind of political advantage (hails from a crucial swing state, is popular within a certain constituency, etc) or they can select a running mate who offers some substantive expertise and, therefore, would be an asset in the actual execution of the administration's responsibilities. Ideally, a VP candidate would fit into both categories, but that seems rare.

I suggested Kaine not because I think that a one-term governor from a mid-sized state would bring anything of real value to the table when serving as vice president. Instead, I thought that Kaine could do one thing and one thing only: help Obama take Virginia. In a hotly contested election that likely will come down to one or two states yet again, having a VP that could help deliver a traditionally Republican state to a Democratic ticket might be the dispositive factor in the entire election. Sure, Kaine is "pro-life," but I'm guessing that's merely a function of Virginian politics. Phrased differently, you HAVE to be pro-life to get elected in Virginia, especially as a Democrat. I question how fervent he is on the subject. In any event, how many people would refuse to vote for Obama merely because his vice presidential candidate didn't fit the Democratic mold on a single issue? My guess is very, very few. This is why I felt (and still feel) that Kaine could've provided the most benefit for the ticket. Tilting the balance in a state that's up for grabs is an ENORMOUS asset in contemporary American politics, where the electoral map is essentially split 50-50.

The conventional wisdom on the selection of Biden is that he adds foreign policy expertise to the ticket, the area in which Obama is most sorely lacking in experience. I'm not buying it. First, Biden is the ultimate DC insider. For a campaign that is built on themes of change, hope, youth, and grassroots activity, the selection of someone who has served in the Senate for 35 years and who first ran for president 20 years ago seems oddly out of place. According to Obama rhetoric, Biden represents that which is old, that which hasn't worked. You take a new direction on the issue by turning to a guy who has been part and parcel of US foreign policy since the early 70s? It's counter-intuitive. Second, how outstanding can the guy really be? I mean, if he's such an impressive guy, why was his own presidential campaign such a disastrous joke?

What it comes down to is this: how many voters in swing states now will vote Democratic merely because Joe Biden is on the ticket? I have no empirical basis for saying so, but my guess is not enough to make a difference in any one of those states. Therefore, even assuming that Biden would make a fantastic vice president, the move doesn't make sense from a political point of view. It's nice to make plans about how you will run your White House, but you have to get there first.

Vacation

2008-08-13T10:36:00.001-04:00

Hey everyone, I'm going to be out of the country until August 28th, so there probably won't be any new posts until then. I hope that you'll keep reading after I get back.

Odds and ends

2008-08-07T18:12:00.003-04:00

There isn't a story right now that has me really interested, so here's some discussion on a couple of assorted topics.

V.P. Sweepstakes

My predictions:

For Obama -- Tim Kaine. Virginia's shaping up to be a true battleground and, along with Ohio, Iowa, and a couple of others, represents the Dems' best chance to pick up a state that they lost in '04. Kaine is young and (relative to the rest of the uber-dorky political world) pretty cool. This would fit nicely with Obama's theme of hope/change/new blood etc. The downside is that Kaine, like Obama, hasn't been around for very long. I think, though, that having a geezer from "The Establishment" on the ticket would be a real drag on Obama's message of being the change that we seek, or whatever it is that the Obamapaths chant at their cultish rallies. Instead, stick with a young, charasmatic politician with executive experience in a state ripe for the picking.

For McCain -- this one is tougher. Does McCain balance his own relatively moderate record by going with a dyed-in-the-wool conservative (i.e. Huckabee)? Does he balance his age by choosing a younger, more dynamic running mate (Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin) or would doing so make him look even older and stiffer by comparison ("Vote for McCain and his granddaughter!")? Does he balance his weakness on economic issues, identified in polling as the country's #1 concern, by selecting someone with impressive private sector experience (Romney)? Does he go with someone from a battleground state (Crist)? In the end, I think that this will be a classic "do no harm" selection, and McCain will choose someone likeable and uncontroversial who helps him with as many of the criteria mentioned above as possible. Pawlenty fits the mold -- he's a young, mild-mannered guy with executive experience and who hails from a state (Minnesota) that the GOP has a reasonable chance of picking up this year. Do no harm, indeed.

Therapists and Confidentiality

This article presents an interesting question about which I'm pretty conflicted: when should therapists have to tell police (or potential victims) that the patient plans to do someone harm?

It goes without saying that effective psychotherapy requires an assurance by the therapist that what the patient discloses during clinical sessions will remain confidential. Equally apparent, however, is that the policy rationale for protecting the confidentiality of the therapist-patient relationship sometimes must yield for the protection of outside individuals. Every first year law student reads the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (discussed in the linked article) in which a patient told his therapist that he planned to kill a woman who had spurned his romantic advances and then proceeded to do just that. Even though the therapist had warned the police of the threat, the California Supreme Court ruled that therapists have a "duty to protect" potential victims of crazy patients.

My major problem here is that, by definition, the type of people that would make death threats about others might not be the most reliable sources in the world. Phrased differently, how is a therapist supposed to distinguish between frustrated rantings and real, legitimate threats? What level of specificity is required? The Tarasoff standard, to me, seems a little harsh for two reasons: first, it leads to overreporting of "threats," thereby undermining the confidentiality necessary for effective therapy; and second, it imposes way too high of a burden on therapists. Telling the police that Mr. X plans to harm Mr. Y isn't enough? Really? In almost all other walks of life, telling the police about something puts the onus on the police. If they go on to mess up after that, it's on them. Why should this be any different?

Brett Favre
Seriously, make it stop. Please.

In a general sense, I don't get what this guy is doing. You've accomplished everything there is to do in football (3 MVPs, all-time leader in all of the important categories, Super Bowl champ), you have more money than God, and you want to......... spend another year getting hit by 350 pound dudes and playing for a few months in sub-zero temperatures? Come on dude, zip up your Wranglers, head back to the Gulf Coast, and spend your untold millions of dollars on whatever it is that Mississippians spend money on.

That said, the guy has the right to play football if that's what he wants. It's just the way that he went about it totally screwed the Packers. After he announced his retirement, the Packers (completely reasonably) spent the off-season assuming that Aaron Rogers would be the quarterback. That was their understanding during the draft, that was their understanding during free agency, and so forth. Announcing a comeback at the time that he did was 100% selfish and put the Packers in an untenable situation. Even if they hadn't assembled personnel based upon the assumption that Rogers would be the starter (which they did), Favre represents the past. The Packers have every right to begin the post-Favre era, and how can you fault them for doing so after FAVRE HIMSELF told him that he was gone? He set the train in motion, and he had no right to tell the team to stop that train and back it up.

In any event, after the trade, hopefully now I can put on ESPN without having to watch charter flights land at the airport in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Shameless shout-outs

2008-08-04T14:55:00.001-04:00

Provie!

More NYT love

Ballpark Review -- Comerica Park, Detroit (and updated, re-thought rankings)

2008-08-02T13:36:00.018-04:00

(Side note: whenever I post pictures on one of these entries, everything gets scrunched together. I don't know why it happens, and it doesn't change when I go back and add more spacing after the fact. I know it makes it harder to read, so I'm sorry, but it's not me, it's Blogger!)

Here's the final installment of my sort-of impromptu summer ballpark tour, using the same criteria that I have for the other parks.

GETTING THERE

I might've missed it, but I didn't notice any public transportation taking fans to the park, meaning you pretty much have to drive (we stayed in a hotel downtown only a mile or two from Comerica, but even still we had to drive our rental car to the park). This is common for stadiums in the 'burbs or in cities like LA where "public transportation" is a kind of curse word, but really weird for parks in the middle of a city's core, like Comerica. Then again, this is the home of the car, so maybe the city's trying to encourage driving? Who knows. It wasn't too tough to find parking, and the lots ranged from $8 or $9 further from the park to $15 close by. Remember, though: this is Detroit. Spend the extra $7 for the shorter walk.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD

It's tough to blame Comerica Park for being in Detroit. It's not the fault of the park's architects that their project was located in a dying American city. Nevertheless, Detroit IS a dying American city, and there are slim pickings nearby for fans to get some food or a beer. In fact, within walking distance of the stadium, I noticed only two bars: the Hockeytown Cafe and a place called Cheli's Chili (which I'm guessing is some sort of reference to Chris Chelios -- stupid Red Wings). You COULD walk to the Greektown neighborhood which is Detroit's "going out" area, but it's quite a hike and you'd have to cross a major road in the meantime. It'd be nice to rebut some of the lazy stereotypes that exist about this city, but it's hard to do.

THE DESIGN

Comerica is often overlooked in the discussion of really solid Major League ballparks. While there's nothing particularly notable about the seating bowl itself, almost all of the non-bleacher seats (whether in the lower or upper deck) have great views of Detroit's skyscrapers. Even the seats way up towards the top have excellent, unobstructed sightlines, and those on the first base/right field part of the park have views of massive Ford Field, home of the Lions. The "General Motors Fountain" in center field, which shoots off water after a home run or a Tigers' win, is a little kitchsy, but not so over the top as to detract from the action. I also liked Comerica's take on Yankee Stadium's Monument Park, with statues of their great players accompanying the retired numbers beyond the left field concourse. The enormous scoreboard in left field is way too much, but this is just an unfortunate part of modern baseball. All in all, there's a lot to like about the viewing experience here.

MISCELLANEOUS

The overriding theme here is that Comerica Park takes things that are good ideas in theory and takes them too far. For example, after walking in the main entrance, you're bombarded almost immediately by a tiger-themed amusement park and other attacks on your senses. It's nice that there are things for kids to do at the park, I just feel like other places (AT&T Park in San Fran most notably) have done it more subtly, incorporating it into the park's design so you almost don't notice. Speaking of "tiger-themed," this was really the thing that I found most noticeable. There are tigers EVERYWHERE. Again, I like it when parks are designed with an indication as to who is the primary occupant, but good Lord, there are limits. And the whole row of tigers with baseballs in their mouths (see the picture above), is just weird.

As for food, it was pretty much standard ballpark fare: dogs, sausage, peanuts, beer etc. Some people consider this lame and want more culinary variety at games. Like I said in my Busch Stadium review, though, I don't consider this a negative part of the experience. If you want contemporary East Asian/Indian fusion, make a reservation at a restaurant after the game.

THE VERDICT

If Comerica was in a different city and had toned down the crap like the tiger statues, this might be a top-10 MLB park. But Comerica is in Detroit and they didn't tone down that other stuff, and so, for me, it fell short of the "elite" level of ballparks.

Re-thought and updated ballpark rankings (includes parks no longer in use):

1(a): AT&T Park, San Francisco

1(b): PNC Park, Pittsburgh -- it's too tough to pick between these two. I loved them both and are as close to flawless as I can imagine.

3: Fenway Park, Boston -- as Stephen King has said, "I love it in spite of everything I hate about it."

4: Wrigley Field, Chicago

5: Camden Yards, Baltimore

6: Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles

7: Kaufman Stadium, Kansas City

8: Citizens Bank Park, Philadelphia

9: Comerica Park, Detroit

10: New Busch Stadium, St. Louis

11: Yankee Stadium, New York -- after some thought, I realized that I overcompensated for my"Red Sox bias" by overrating this place last time.

12: Chase Field, Phoenix

13: Turner Field, Atlanta

14: Old Busch Stadium, St. Louis

15: Nationals Park, Washington DC

16: Shea Stadium, New York

17: RFK Stadium, Washington DC

18: Olympic Stadium, Montreal

Very quick Manny talk

2008-08-01T10:46:00.003-04:00

In a three-way trade yesterday, the Red Sox dealt Manny Ramirez to the Dodgers, with the Sox receiving Jason Bay from Pittsburgh as the major piece in return.

Manny is one of the best right-handed hitters in Major League history, and the Red Sox wouldn't have won two world championships without him. That said, (1) his status in Boston had reached a point of no return, and he had to go, and (2) Bay provides very, very similar offensive value and might actually be an overall upgrade.

(1) Some of Manny's antics (taking a leak in the Green Monster, high fiving fans in the bleachers after making a nice catch, establishing a mandatory man-hug policy on the roster) were funny, harmless, and kind of endearing. Refusing to play because of vague and suspect injuries, ripping the front office, and creating an enormous distraction in the clubhouse did not fall within the same category. It became pretty clear that Manny would hold the team hostage either by refusing to play at all or refusing to play hard if they didn't trade him this week. And let's not forget that Theo Epstein was never too enamored with Manny to begin with, even going so far as to place him on waivers during the off-season a few years ago. All of the nonsense over the past two weeks or so finally provided Theo with the necessary support to dump Manny from both the front office and Red Sox Nation at large.

(2) Bay's and Manny's offensive numbers this year are almost identical. Of course, Jason Bay isn't as good a hitter as Manny Ramirez; very, very few players are. But Bay is a legitimately good hitter, who is much younger than Manny, is signed through 2009, and who is an undisputed defensive upgrade in left field. Even outside of the purely statistical realm, it has to be a relief to the rest of the team to have all of this ridiculous drama resovled, and I'd bet that Manny had only a couple of supporters on the team by the end of his tenure (Youkilis and Schilling NOT being two of them). I'm not a big believer in the importance of "chemistry" in baseball, but it certainly can't hurt to have a stressful and distracting situation resolved once and for all. This applies for everyone -- players, the manager, coaches, and the front office. If there's one concern with Bay it's that he won't be able to handle the limelight and itensity that comes with playing in Boston. Only time will tell on that issue. But given the circumstances, I think Theo did an incredible job in getting as much value back as he could. The man-crush remains firmly intact.

Manny, it was a joy to watch you hit, you provided us with hours of goofy entertainment, and I wouldn't own two "World Series champs" t-shirts if it weren't for you. But don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

No posts

2008-07-30T15:16:00.002-04:00

Sorry for the lack of posting, but my home computer has been busted for the past week or so, and I probably shouldn't write while I'm at work. Everything should be on the up-and-up by the end of the week, so please check back then. Thanks.

Links

2008-07-23T18:04:00.003-04:00

I'm feeling way too lazy to write a full entry, so here are a few recent links that I found interesting early in the week:

- The 9th Circuit weighs in on one of the most absurd acts that I've ever heard a school's administration undertake. I'm stunned that the panel was this divided, and my question for the dissenters is: if this wasn't unconstitutional, (given the extent of the intrusion and the potential "harm"), what is??

- David Simon and Ed Burns were known as sticklers for accuracy when writing The Wire. Given that, it's not suprising that their newest project, "Generation Kill," receives praise here (from a former embedded reporter) and here (from a former Marine) for its true-to-life portrayal of the invasion of Iraq.

- One of the funniest Daily Show clips that I've seen in a while (albeit a little bit embarassing).

- A Chinese tennis player expresses his disdain for Michael Chang.

- Are the attacks against Michelle Obama unfair: Round 750. For what it's worth, I think that Ponnuru's rationale is more logical (although describing her as "anti-American" and "hostile to men" is being needlessly provocative).

- It got a little dusty in the office while I was reading this article, if you know what I mean.

- An interesting college experience, to say the least. No debt would be nice, though........

"The Dark Knight"

2008-07-19T11:48:00.003-04:00

In the seven years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, we've heard endless commentary about what motivates terrorists, how to combat them, and what the perpetual threat of attacks means for the survival of a free and open society. Could it be that a blockbuster action movie provides some of the most fascinating analysis of these complex themes?

At the outset of "The Dark Knight," Gotham is on the verge of being cleansed of crime, thanks to the joint efforts of Batman and the idealistic, uncorruptable District Attorney, Harvey Dent (played by the dude from "Thank You for Smoking"). Abruptly, however, the Joker arrives on the scene, causing chaos, assuming control of the city's professional crime circuit, and lashing out with random acts of violence.

The late Heath Ledger has received fawning reviews for his role as the Joker, and these are deserved. If his name did not appear in the final credits, it'd be impossible to know that it was him playing this role; the departure from his previous characters (both physically and otherwise) is astounding. Ledger makes the Joker creepy (with a lip-licking tic and a hunched gait) and sociopathic, but with a frightening sort of wisdom about the efficacy of his methods and an impeccable sense of comedic timing.

Most interesting to me, however, was the Joker's commentary about terrorism. The Joker is not quite comparable to the enemies of the United States. Whereas al Qaeda et. al. have political grievances, the Joker is almost nihilistic. I say "almost" because he does believe in one thing: creating chaos. He doesn't care about money -- going so far as to burn millions upon millions of his own ill-gotten cash -- and he has no political axe to grind. Instead, he takes a sadistic pleasure in showing "the planners" (the police, politicians, even Batman) how stupid and shortsighted their best-laid plans actually are. The Joker particularly enjoys the effects that his random acts of madness have on the city's psyche. When events diverge from the expected course of conduct, he explains, people panic and civilization breaks down. In perhaps the most powerful part of his monlogue, the Joker tells Batman that were he to kill a drug dealer or shoot a soldier on his way to battle, no one would bat an eye; but kill a little old lady, and the city freaks out.

The parallels to the current state of the world are obvious: terrorism is effective because it disrupts our expectations -- certain places and people once considered safe no longer are. Those in charge have fancy, elaborate plans for combatting the problem, but the plans (in hindsight) appear clumsy and terribly ineffective. And finally, athough fear is an understandable and natural reaction, an open society does itself a terrible disservice by panicking and throwing away all of the things that made it worthwhile. That a mid-summer action movie can get across these themes without seeming ham-handed or over the top is extremely impressive.

The Obama New Yorker cartoon

2008-07-15T18:14:00.004-04:00

This is probably one of those topics about which I should avoid writing because, after a couple of days of hysterical commentary, the talking heads have covered this story from every conceivable angle. But I can't help myself.

For those who haven't heard, the most recent issue of the New Yorker had a satirical cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama on its cover. In the cartoon, the Senator (as a turbaned Muslim) gives a "fist bump" to his wife (portrayed as an Afro'd black militant/terrorist) in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, an American flag roasts in the fireplace, located conveniently beneath a portrait of Osama bin Laden.

The obvious point of the cartoon is to point out the ridiculousness of the smears of the Obamas by taking them to their logical extremes. "Yes, Senator Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, and, as a result, he hates America. If he's elected, it's only a matter of time before our national policy changes from fighting al Qaeda to offering it monetary aid."

The only thing more ridiculous than the critiques satirized in the cartoon is the level of indignation that the cartoon has spawned. Clearly, America has no sense of humor or has become too dumb to understand political satire. Most disappointing is that both campaigns felt the need to express their outrage at this "tasteless and offensive" piece of political art. It's an unfortunate reality that taking umbrage and expressing outrage at violations of the unwritten code of political correctness have become mandatory when campaigning for the presidency. Now, Barack Obama and John McCain are way too smart not to understand that this cartoon was, in fact, MAKING FUN of the people that smear the Obamas with these stereotypes. So that means that their campaigns are concerned about (and catering to) the people that either (a) don't understand that this is a joke (b) are offended by the very sight of Michelle with an Afro or Barack with a turban or (c) expect indignation at anything provocative, whether outside the bounds of decency or not. Any of these options is upsetting.

Fannie, Freddie, and a batch of links

2008-07-13T19:40:00.003-04:00

Some time in the near future, the Bush administration will ask Congress to approve of legislation that will allow the federal government to buy billions of dollars worth of stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The legislation also would provide the companies with the resources to meet their short-term funding needs.

The federal government created these companies in 1938, and although they were removed from the federal budget in the 1960s, they thrived because of an assumption in the market that they were backed by taxpayers. This assumption drove the companies' business model -- for example, they kept less cash on hand than other lenders, they paid less to borrow money in the bond market, and so forth. This is not to say that critics throughout the years didn't criticize the plans as short-sighted, risky, and unsustainable. Members of Congress and higher-ups in the Federal Reserve (including Alan Greenspan) warned that because the companies were not subject to the same financial standards and tax burdens as their competitors, taxpayers would be left holding the bag in the event of insolvency.

Now it appears that's exactly what has happened. And instead of facing the consequences for their knowingly risky actions, the companies will receive a massive bail-out at our expense. I'm not going to pretend to know very much about the macroeconomics of mortgage finance, and so I'm guessing that there is some valid, economic rationale for the proposed assistance package. But it is antithetical to all the typical canons of free-market capitalism (not to mention flat-out unfair) to have the government intervene with the taxpayers' money when a company has failed because of its own greed and short-sightedness. Just to show I'm an equal opportunity dispenser of the sentiment of "too bad," I was strongly opposed to the proposed federal bail-out of individuals who had lost all equity in their homes in the subprime mortgage fiasco. Those who knowingly take risks in the marketplace (whether large corporations or more sympathetic, middle-class individuals) must face the consequences of their actions. There's inherent risk in the market; that's the whole point. You don't get do-overs. Well, unless you're a set of corporations that gurantees or owns $5 trillion in home mortgages, that is.

A few recent links that I found interesting:

- Linda Greenhouse (NYT's lead Supreme Court reporter and wife of a former law professor of mine) reflects on her 30 years as a Supreme Court reporter. She's obviously extremely bright and insightful, but was it really a revelation to her that a change in the Court's make-up has an impact on the Court's results? Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out....

- Frank Rich's function at the NYT is to comment on the intersection between culture and news. His background is in theater critiques and so this article, as always, is a little dramatic. But some of the paralells between this summer and the summer of 2001 are disconcerting.

- Terrific analysis about why Roger Federer (probably the greatest tennis player of all time) just cannot beat Rafael Nadal.

Side rant: During the Wimbledon final, I was traveling after having spent a weekend in San Francisco, so I watched the fourth set and the beginning of the fifth in an airport bar. Other than watching Game 4 of the 2004 World Series at a "Red Sox bar" in DC, this was the craziest public crowd watching a sporting event that I've witnesses. Screams of "OHHHH!!" after many of the points; people dropping to their knees after particularly amazing shots; a woman who felt the need to grab my arm and say, "Did you SEE that??" about 8 times in a set and a half; and back and forth shouts of "Let's go Roger!" and "Come on Nadal!" between two overly excited patrons. And this is TENNIS. Crazy stuff.

- For those with HBO, watch "Generation Kill." And after you do, read this review.

Ballpark Review -- AT&T Park, San Francisco

2008-07-09T21:22:00.015-04:00

GETTING THERE

It's a little tough for me to offer my own anecdotal experience on this one because my friend's apartment, where I stayed for the weekend, is only two or three blocks away from the park. From what I could tell, though, there's plenty of public transportation to get you here. Or you could be a quintessential San Franciscan and park your kayak in McCovey Cove. Just a thought.

THE DESIGN

The explosion in the construction of new, retro parks during the 90s made it fashionable to have weird angles and asymmetrical fences in the outfield, mimicking older parks such as Fenway Park, Tiger Stadium, or DC's Griffith Stadium. The thing that makes those older ballparks so interesting though is that they HAD to be designed that way in order to fit into their respective neighborhoods; the nooks and crannies were born out of necessity. For the most part, one can't say the same thing about the newer parks. Minute Maid Park in Houston and Chase Field in Phoenix are gargantuan structures that take up 15 square city blocks -- their asymmetry is contrived and unnecessary. AT&T is an exception among the newer parks, however. The park hugs McCovey Cove from the right field line all the way to straight-away center, and it's the shoreline that dictates the park's outfield dimensions. This is cool for two reasons: first, it's a bit of a shout-out to the older, asymmetrical parks that had to squeeze into their neighborhoods, but, second, it's a fantastic twist on the concept because it was the first park to incorporate a body of water into the design. Other cities (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati) understandably copied this design quality this not long after AT&T opened. As a result of the park's location, any fan sitting in the upper deck has a breathtaking view of the cove, which itself opens up into San Francisco Bay (see the pics above). It's tough to beat sitting out in the sun, taking in a game with a beer, and staring out into the water in between pitches. Gorgeous.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Because I stayed nearby, I think that I was able to get a pretty good idea about the atmosphere in the South Beach neighborhood in which AT&T is located. Basically, there seems to be a big discrepancy between game days and all other times. A few hours before and after games, there's a ton of action at the bars and restaurants that surround the park. While I wouldn't call the neighborhood "dead" at all other times, it's much, much quieter, as it's heavily residential. But for gameday patrons who are looking for a drink and a bite to eat before or after the game, who really cares how lively the area is at all other times anyway? Are there places for these people to grab a beer and some nachos before walking across the street to take in the game? Yes. And that's really all that matters.

CONCESSIONS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS THINGS

San Francisco is an extremely expensive city, only a small step below New York, and, for the most part, the concession prices at the ballpark reflect that reality. That said, AT&T has some great, unique items, most notably the garlic fries. The Polish sausage that I bought for $8 (pictured above) was loaded with so many peppers and onions that I couldn't finish it, a truly unique experience for me. This was easily the best deal at the park. Finally, AT&T has a solid beer selection, featuring some really good, local microbrews. On that note, I'll never understand why anyone would pay $8.25 for a Miller Lite when an Anchor Steam is available for 25 cents more.

The thing that struck me most about this park (other than the view) was the exciting atmosphere and the fiestiness of Giants' fans. I went to the game wearing a Red Sox hat, and I heard AT LEAST ten snide comments about it -- "Let's go Yankees," "Let's go Rays," "Boston sucks," "Wrong league," "The Sox aren't playing here tonight," and so forth. I've never, ever received that much crap for wearing Sox gear at another Major League park, with the obvious exception being Yankee Stadium. In some part, this is attributable to the Sox' recent success -- for the rest of the country, they're easy to hate. But it was more than that. These fans were passionate and bold. This temperament spread to the game itself. On the day that I went to the game, the Giants were playing the Dodgers, their main rivals. To put it bluntly, the Giants suck, but the game was sold out, and the crowd was rowdy, frequently tossing out chants of "Beat L.A!" (I'll consider it flattering that this was a shameless theft of the Garden's chant during Celtics/Lakers games). When the Giants recorded the final out to win the game, the park had a playoff atmosphere surrounding it. That's remarkable enthusiasm for a team that is flat-out bad.

THE VERDICT

Let's keep it simple: what's not to like? Tremendous view, great food, and knowledgeable, passionate fans. This is what going to a baseball game should be all about.

MLB Halfway Mark: A Look Back at my Horrendous Pre-Season Predictions (A.L. version)

2008-06-30T18:38:00.004-04:00

If you thought that following a major league team very closely and maintaining two fantasy baseball rosters would enable me to predict the Major League division races with greater success than a chimpanzee pointing randomly at the teams' logos, you'd be wrong. Here's a look at my pre-season predictions compared with the current state of the division races. Within each division, predictions are on the top, actual standings on the bottom.

A.L. East

Boston 97-65
New York 90-72
Toronto 85-74
Tampa Bay 72-90
Baltimore 61-101

Tampa Bay 49-32
Boston 50-34
New York 44-38
Baltimore 41-39
Toronto 40-43

Of course, the greatest surprise here is the Rays. I said in the pre-season preview, "This is the year! No, not for the Devil Rays....... errr, Rays..... to make the playoffs, but for them to finish somewhere in this division other than dead last." In fact, it very well might be the year for them to make the playoffs. I remain skeptical that they're THIS good, but there's an awful lot to like about Tampa. I remain convinced that, when healthy, the Red Sox are the deepest and most talented team in all of baseball. Once in the playoffs, anything can happen, but I see no reason (barring injury) that they can't win their third world championship in five years this October. In fact, it's pretty damned impressive that they've been so successful given the number of important injuries that they've suffered -- Beckett, Dice-K, Ortiz, Schilling, and so on. Things should only get better. My call on the Yanks looks pretty good also ("this particular mix has guys who are clearly declining (Damon, Giambi, Matsui, Mussina) and promising young guys who are a year away from being able to lead a playoff caliber team at the major league level (Hughes, Kennedy)"). But I was way, way off on the Orioles. I thought this team would be atrocious, hence my prediction that they'd lose 100 games. But they're above the .500 mark! A truly incredible feat for a 90 loss team that lost its best pitcher (by far) and arguably its best hitter during the offseason. How are they doing it? I really have no clue.

A.L. Central

Cleveland 94-68
Detroit 91-71
Chicago 77-85
Minnesota 76-86
Kansas City 70-92

Chicago 46-35
Minnesota 45-37
Detroit 41-40
Cleveland 37-45
Kansas City 37-45

Although I'm proud of myself for seeing the potential in the White Sox when few others could ("Come on, the White Sox aren't THAT bad"), this division has been a nightmare for me. I predicted Cleveland to win the World Series this year, and that looks silly at this point. I'm still not sure exactly why they've been so bad. In some sense, they've been unlucky -- they have a positive run differential and it's better than Minnesota's or Detroit's. So if that keeps up, things should get better for them in the second half. Even still, it might be too little, too late. Detroit has caught fire recently after an atrocious start, and they seem too talented to keep down for the entire season. Minnesota has played above its head, and I expect them to decline a bit in the second half (as a corrolary to the Indians, Minnesota has been a little bit lucky; their run differential is only +9 for the whole season, yet they're 8 games above .500).

A.L. West

Anaheim 91-71
Seattle 90-72
Texas 79-83
Oakland 78-84

Anaheim 49-33
Oakland 44-37
Texas 42-41
Seattle 31-50

This is a case of getting burned for not having any guts. I said straight out, "I kind of like this A's team," and "A's fans have a lot to be excited about." But all the prognosticators had the A's pegged as an awful team, so I wouldn't bump them up in my own preview. Lame. In fact, Oakland has gotten incredibly unlucky (+59 run differential compared to LAA's +12, so hey really should be in first place). I should've gone with my instincts about the A's. As for Seattle, well, that was just a disastrous pick. I knew the offense would be weak, but I figured that the Bedard-Felix combo would steamroll over teams, especially in a notorious pitchers' park like SAFECO. Instead, those guys have been slowed by injuries, the offense has been remarkably bad, and this is the worst team in baseball. To add insult to injury, this isn't even my worst pre-season pick! That award goes to my pick of the Padres winning the National League West when, currently, they sit in last place with the second to worst record in all of baseball. I still don't see the Angels as a championship contender. My criticism of their offense was well founded -- with 340 runs scored, they're 12th out of 14 teams in the American League. Their +12 run differential indicates some luck, and if they and the A's play the same way in the second half, Oakland will overtake the Angels and win the division.

The overall lesson? Don't listen to me.

Kennedy v. Louisiana

2008-06-25T21:31:00.002-04:00

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this afternoon that the death penalty is an unconstitutional penalty for the rape of a child. Justice Kennedy wrote that the Constitution recognizes "a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons,” even such “devastating” crimes as the rape of a child, on the other. My response to this statement is: where?

Surely no one, even in today's majority of 5 justices, feels any sympathy for Patrick Kennedy, the petitioner in the case. Kennedy brutally raped his 8 year old stepdaughter, who was injured so badly that she required emergency surgery to save her life. The question, however, is not whether a scumbag like Kennedy is "deserving" of the death penalty, but instead whether the Constitution forbids states from imposing capital punishment for crimes other than first-degree murder. In answering "yes" to that question, the Court ruled that "evolving standards of decency" made capital punishment for this crime cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment because the vast majority of states have declined to impose capital punishment for crimes other than intentional homicide.

This legal standard drives me crazy for two reasons. First, the premise that societies are in an uninterrupted path of evolution towards "decency" is silly and not borne out by history (Germany in the 1920s? The Roman Empire?). As Justice Scalia likes to say, sometimes societies rot instead of evolve. For instance, what if a majority of states, in a time of great unrest, passed measures that we currently view as totally barbaric and unacceptable. Would that be a step towards greater decency or would be able to call a spade a spade -- that these would be reactionary moves represented a step backwards? In any event, even conceding the validity of the ever improving society, this approach essentially says that the substantive meaning of the Constitution depends on what the states say. This completely reverses the analysis that the Court should employ. The Constitution places limits on state power. It's absurd to look at legislation the states have done in order to interpret one of the Constitution's clauses. That's backwards. It also means that the Constitution is perpetually in a state of flux. If a bunch of states spontaneously decide to reverse course on an issue, then the Constitution means something 100% different today than it did yesterday. That just can't be right. This is even more problematic with an issue such as today's: prior Supreme Court precedent suggested that the death penalty was reserved only for murder; accordingly, states didn't bother passing legislation extending it to other crimes. Then, when it comes down to its bean-count of jurisdictions, the Court says, "Look, not many states impose capital punishment for these crimes." Ridiculous! What it comes down to is that nothing in the Constitution explicitly (or even implicitly) forbids applying the death penalty to cases such as these. Opponents of the death penalty might celebrate the decision, but it's a jurisprudential mess.

Today's ruling also might open a much bigger can of worms than the relatively limited issue decided. Might other members of the majority take up Justice Stevens's request earlier this term to re-examine the death penalty itself? Justice Kennedy's majority opinion today said that death penalty jurisprudence "is still in search of a unifying principle" and that "When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint." That three justices (other than Stevens and Kennedy) signed onto this opinion might signal that the Court is ready to re-examine the constitutionality of capital punishment generally.

Sen. Webb and the drug war

2008-06-20T10:29:00.003-04:00

Congress's Joint Economic Committee recently held a hearing on the economic costs of the United States' drug policy. Most interesting were the comments made by Jim Webb, freshman Democratic Senator from Virginia. While nothing Webb said substantively was ground-breaking (our country's drug policy is dysfunctional?? You don't say!), it's incredibly refreshing to hear honest, thorough debate on an issue that's constantly prone to demagoguery and nonsense. It's even more surprising when a possible vice-presidential candidate boldly questions the status quo. As Sanho Tree says towards the end of the article linked above (which I urge you to read in full), the very fact that Congress is addressing the issue in an open, honest way is a step in the right direction. I agree.

Last Finals thoughts

2008-06-20T09:28:00.006-04:00

This post is a couple of days late, but after the Celtics' performance on Tuesday night, I wanted to reflect a little bit before writing, just to avoid the hyperbole and lack of perspective that comes from writing "in the moment." Am I being overdramatic here? Probably. But my favorite basketball team just won the NBA title for the first time since I was three years old, so give me a break.

This year's Celtics team was far from perfect. For most of the year (like the idiot that I am), I didn't think that they were a championship caliber team. I thought that Rondo was too inexperienced, Garnett got scared instead of emboldened during crunch time, Pierce was too easily thrown off his game (by a bad call or whatever), and the bench guys - at the end of the day - just weren't that good. The first round against the Hawks (and even the second round against Cleveland, to a lesser extent) confirmed all of my worst fears. It's hard to articulate, but the team just seemed to be missing something. You couldn't watch the Cs in the first two rounds and say that they resembled great, championship-level NBA teams of the past (80s Celtics, 90s Bulls, current Spurs, whatever). You just couldn't.

All of that said, the game that the Celtics played on Tuesday night was the most perfect example of all-around basketball that I've ever seen. I don't say this lightly because I hate the culture in modern sports commentary with the constant need to call such-and-such "the greatest ever" or "the worst ever." But the defense played on Tuesday night, particularly on Kobe Bryant but more generally also, was flawless. Perfection. I'm a Cs fan so I admit my biases, but if you love basketball, you HAD to appreciate that performance. It was just gorgeous. They made the league MVP and the #1 seed in the league's stronger conference look like a high school JV team. It really was unbelievable to watch. I've never seen anything like it. It's not like the offense was too shabby either -- scoring 130+ points in an NBA Finals game is unfathomable in this day and age. Ray Allen hit seven three pointers and missed almost a full quarter of action after being poked in the eye! I'm gushing now, and it's a little embarrassing, but for someone who watches a lot of (read: "too much") sports, this was a truly unique performance, and I watched the second half stunned. Happy, but stunned.

On a final, Celtics-related note: Kevin Garnett is crazy. I don't mean a-little-too-competitive-for-his-own-good-crazy. I'm talking should-be-on-meds-immediately-certifiably-insane. For those of you who didn't watch the post-game interviews, I beg you to watch this video (the second one) or, at the very least, read the hilarious transcript and commentary on the web page. If someone acted this way outside of the context of just having won a professional sports championship, wouldn't you want him institutionalized immediately??? "Michelle, you look good tonight, girl!" Amazing.

Boumediene v. Bush

2008-06-17T09:59:00.004-04:00

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay camp have a right to habeas corpus under the U.S. Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act unconstitutionally suspended that right. The majority opinion held that if Congress intends to suspend the right, an adequate substitute must offer the prisoner a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate he/she is held pursuant to an erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law, and the reviewing decision-making must have some ability to correct errors, to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence.

Predictably, the conservative backlash against this decision was immediate and strong. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, called the decision "irresponsible and outrageous," and indicated that he would support a constitutional amendment overturning the decision. I have to say, I don't really understand the outrage. Not to be too legally condescending, but having the right to habeas corpus, of course, doesn't mean that the prisoner is let go. It simply means that the government has to establish legal authority to keep the prisoner in custody. If the guys at Guantanamo are so incredibly dangerous, as Justice Scalia's dissent suggested (he wrote that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed"), then wouldn't it be really easy to demonstrate that a prisoner should remain in custody for whatever reason? Practically speaking, I don't see what the big deal is. Sure, the judiciary doesn't have expertise in national security matters, but I think that federal judges are smart enough to follow the argument, "This is the evidence that we have against this guy, and here's why he has broken a law/is a huge threat." If the government can't make that argument sufficiently, then the person should not be in custody in the first place.

In any event, beyond the merely practical point of view, this opinion needed to be written. I can't say it much better than did a legal commentator at SCOTUSblog.com, so I'm just going to quote what he wrote:

"Time too has exposed the manifest inadequacy of the substitute process the administration and Congress created to replace habeas corpus: the limited appellate review under the Detainee Treatment Act ("DTA") of decisions by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal ("CSRT"). The Court’s critique of this process was piercingly accurate. First, the Court said, DTA review was never meant to provide a substitute for habeas but to do precisely the opposite-to create an inferior process for individuals who had no right to the writ at all. Second, this alternative truly was inferior to habeas corpus, denying detainees a meaningful opportunity to present and confront evidence in challenging their indefinite executive imprisonment, precisely where protections secured must be strongest.

As the Court understood, the administration’s real goal has been to prevent meaningful review in any forum, whether through habeas corpus or the DTA. In Boumediene, the government extolled the virtues of DTA review, and the Solicitor General urged the Court to read the DTA expansively to preserve the statute’s constitutionality. But at the same time in separate litigation under the DTA, the administration fought mightily to overturn the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bismullah v. Gates which attempted to give the DTA some teeth. Guantánamo had become a legal charade, and enough was enough."

Ballpark Review -- New Busch Stadium, St. Louis

2008-06-16T19:40:00.009-04:00

While in St. Louis this past weekend for a friend's wedding, I was able to catch a game at the (New) Busch Stadium downtown. Here are a few of my thoughts, using the same criteria that I used when I reviewed Nationals Park in Washington, DC.

GETTING THERE

Because we were staying at a hotel downtown, we were able to walk from the hotel to the park (probably about 3/4 of a mile). Downtown St. Louis isn't very big, so this is true of pretty much any hotel located directly downtown, especially the ones right on the Mississippi River, located only a matter of blocks from the stadium. For those coming from the suburbs west of the city or from somewhere near the airport, St. Louis's light rail system is a great option. It's only a couple of bucks to ride, and there's a stop directly across the street from the park. If you insist on driving, I saw lots charging $9 or $10 pretty close by which is, by comparison to many other cities, a very good deal. Beware though -- Route 64/40 (the main highway linking downtown with the western 'burbs/the Wash U area) is undergoing a huge renovation and is completely shut down in some areas. Otherwise, the park gets very high marks for accessibility.

THE DESIGN

As you can see from the pictures, there isn't a whole lot that makes Busch structurally distinctive from other parks. In fact, it seems as if the architects wanted to keep the new park similar to the Old Busch Stadium, a nod to history that would be understandable at a revered park like Fenway or Wrigley, but an odd decision when the copied stadium is one from the much reviled "cookie-cutter parks" of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. In the biggest distinction from Old Busch, the new park is open in the outfield, with a great view of St. Louis's most famous (only??) landmark, the Gateway Arch. Not to beat a dead horse, but this is such a simple design feature that goes a long way. There's no better way to have a new park instantly identified with a city than to have a great view of that city's skyline right beyond the outfield fences. Designers in Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and St. Louis learned this lesson well.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Downtown St. Louis has had a well-deserved reputation as a ghost town after the work day ends. Despite a couple of pockets of activity (i.e. Laclede's Landing), people generally come downtown only to work or to catch a ballgame. Thankfully, this is changing ever so slowly with the build up of the Washington Ave loft corridor north of the ballpark. Also, the city has plans for an ambitious "Ballpark Village" on the site of the old stadium (directly next door to the current park), with blocks of restuarants, bars, and condos planned. This would be cool if it ever came to fruition, but right now the site is just a giant pit in the ground which doesn't exactly help the downtown scene. As in DC, the area at the moment is pretty dead, but at least there's some hope for notable future development.

CONCESSIONS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS THINGS

Uh, if you enjoy Coors or Miller products, you're in trouble at Busch. As with most establishments in St. Louis, your choices will be limited to Bud, Bud Light, Busch or Busch Light. Things in the Midwest, though, are cheaper (24 ounce beer for $8 and change at the game), so that's nice. Standard fare here, though -- nothing special, nothing terrible. As a traditionalist, however, I'm fine with this. If you want foie gras at a baseball game, well, you're a terrible person. Cardinals fans, while creepy in their all-red attire, know the game and genuinely love their team. The Cards were losing 20-2 at the game I went to, and the place was still 2/3 or 3/4 filled in the eight inning. That's truly rare, and would happen at only a handful of stadiums in the majors.

OVERALL VERDICT

Other than the view of the St. Louis skyline, there's not a hell of a lot about Busch Stadium that sets it apart from many others in baseball. That said, it's an affordable experience in a nice, clean, accessible park and in a city that is extremely passionate about the sport. You can do worse than that.

Quick Finals thoughts and some links

2008-06-06T09:15:00.007-04:00

Even before watching Game 1 of the NBA Finals last night, this would've been the advice that I'd give Celts' head coach Doc Rivers. Nothing I saw in Game 1 made me change my mind:

- Let Kobe do his thing. The guy's the best player in the league, so he's going to get his. But as long as he's shooting fadeaway jumpers, the Cs will be happy. What really gets the Lakers going offensively is when Kobe: penetrates, drawing help defenders, and finding open guys; when he spots the open man after a double-team; or when Kobe slashes or finds the "roller" after a pick and roll. Accordingly, if your team has a guy that, without any help, can prevent Bryant from getting into the lane or who can stay with him after a pick and roll, you're a long, long way towards slowing down the Lakers' offense. The Celts have two such guys: Pierce and Posey. Resist the urge to bring in another guy in to help out -- that'd be playing right into the Lakers' hands. I thought the Cs did this very well last night. Let Kobe have his 20 foot turnaround jumpers (of which he'll make several because he's so damned good), but shut everything else down.

- Don't ever, ever, ever let Sam Cassell play. Ever. I don't care that last night, by the grace of God, he hit three or four jumpers. He's a me-first player who only looks for his own shot which, in turn, completely takes the Celtics out of their offensive rhythm. Also, when he's in the game and there's an opportunity to fast break, he can't take advantage because he's so damn slow. Finally, he's an enormous liability on defense. The Cassell experiment didn't work, which is fine, not a big deal. But please don't let it go on any longer. On a related note:

- Play Eddie House! Did this guy sleep with Doc's wife right before the playoffs started? What's the deal here?! House played an invaluable role all season long as Rondo's backup, providing an outside shooting threat and excellent defensive energy when Rondo rested. In the playoffs, he's been an absolute ghost. I don't understand this. What did he do wrong? He's the perfect bench guy, he provides tons of energy, and the crowd in Boston loves him. What's the down side?

- Get KG down low. Enough of the cutesy high post stuff. Put Garnett on the block and let him bang with Gasol. This would accomplish so many things: force Gasol to play defense, which would tire him out and get him into foul trouble; draw Laker double teams, allowing KG to find open shooters; and allow Garnett to shoot a higher percentage because [earth-shattering news coming up] layups and five footers are better shots than 20 footers. The most frustrating aspect of KG's game is his willingness to settle for jump shots when, as a strong, fierce, 7-foot dude, he could dominate in the paint. Make Gasol defend down low.

Here are some links from the past couple of days that I found interesting:

- Not only is this story crazy, but there's a personal aspect to it for me as well. And no, not because I'm a statutory rapist.

- This is awesome.

- Does the race of NBA refs affect the outcome of games?

- Here are some great Celtics/Lakers-related You Tube clips. For anyone who, like me, grew up in New England watching Cs games on the (now defunct) SportsChannel, the first one is a must. Man the 80s were goofy.

- Crosses on license plates. Good ol' South Carolina!

- Some say that the BBC is better at covering American politics than US media, and here they give a good run-down of potential Obama VPs. But Chris Cillizza's "The Fix" at the Wash Post does them one better by looking at Democratic and GOP possibilities.

Questions about Hillary

2008-06-05T15:56:00.002-04:00

With the Democratic primary finally over (kind of), now's a good time to address the two biggest questions that I've had about Hillary through the whole process: (1) what was the major problem with her campaign all along, and (2) once it became mathematically impossible for her to win, what the hell was she doing?! I think I have an idea about #1, but I'm still not sure about #2.

In a matter of months, Hillary Clinton went from the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination to a candidate with basically no chance to win. How did this happen? For me, the biggest problem was that Hillary's candidacy, while about her lifelong "experience," exuded a tone in complete contrast to that experience and to what she had fought for all of her life. As but one example, the commencement speech that she gave at Wellesley in 1969 was bold and strident. She spoke about authenticity and genuine social change. She discussed human liberation and how she and her fellow classmates were "searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living." Now, God forbid any of us are the same exact people at age 60 as we were at age 21, but it seems that the tenor of her campaign, with her focus on her experience within the existing power structure and her emphasis on how tough and pragmatic she is, was totally divorced from the hopefulness and idealism on which she made a name for herself in the first place (not just with the graduation speech, but working for a civil rights law firm after law school, helping prosecute the Watergate hearings and so forth). Of course some of this is the natural byproduct of getting older and maturing; I'm not naive enough to think that people don't grow up. But I also think that a lot of it was cold political calculation -- Hillary molded herself into a form that she thought would appear "electable." All politicians in a national campaign have to do this to some extent, but she, in my opinion at least, underwent a larger and more transparent change than most. It's amazing that Obama was able to make the claim that he was more "hopeful" and more for the little guy than Hillary -- that's who she's been her whole professional life! But when you decide to endorse a bland, tired mode of politics, you get what you deserve.

As for my second question, there are a couple of different theories. The first focuses on the Clintons' narcissism -- the couple has a sense of entitlement and can't even imagine the possibility of not getting what they want. Having merely assumed that Hillary would win the nomination, the couple went into a severe state of denial once it became clear that beating Obama was impossible. The second theory is somewhat related and it's that Hillary truly believed she could win, either by getting her way on the Michigan/Florida delegate controversy or by strong-arming enough superdelegates to tilt the scales. I find the third theory most intriguing, and it's this: Hillary knew all along that she couldn't win, but she wanted to drag out the primary season as long as possible to expose Obama's weaknesses. Under this theory, Clinton wanted Obama to lose the general election to McCain so that she could run again in 2012. I'm not really sure which theory I buy, but the question "why did she stay in?" needs to be answered. I'd really like to hear from you all as to what you think. Although I usually don't buy conspiracy theories, possibility #3 makes sense to me here. Would you put it past a politician known for ambition and ruthlessness to do everything in her power to get another chance at the office which she has always coveted most?

Celtics-Lakers Rivalry Renewed

2008-05-31T09:55:00.008-04:00

With the Celtics winning the Eastern Conference Finals last night, the 2008 NBA Finals will feature two long-time rivals, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics. I'd venture to guess that even non-sports fans know that these two teams are rivals, as the match-up is one of the instances that transcends sports and bleeds into mainstream American culture.

As with the other sports rivalries that become a part of American society more generally, there's something greater at work than just outstanding players and exciting games. To be sure, those are prerequisites, but they're not sufficient in themselves. Instead, great rivalries often tap into the character of the regions or cities from which the teams come, inspiring greater love for a fan's own team and greater hatred for the enemy. For example, prior to the Red Sox' world championships in '04 and '07, the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry was a microcosm of the larger New York-Boston psychology. New York, the nation's largest and most cosmopolitan city, couldn't imagine the possibility of playing second fiddle to anyone. The thought of coming up short against the Red Sox wasn't frightening, it was laughable; New York finishes second to no one, whether it's in culture, cuisine, or baseball. Conversely, Boston's inferiority complex about its own status relative to New York intensified the passion about baseball. The cries of "We're a great city too!" in Boston sounded awfully similar in tone to the arguments about why Williams was a better player than DiMaggio. Ninety years of losing and New Yorkers' unshakable arrogance drove Red Sox fans to near-madness. These dynamics made the rivalry even more captivating and intense.

A similar dynamic exists between the Lakers and the Celtics. At least in the 1980s, the two teams were complete contrasts, and both teams served as apt embodiments of their respective cities. The Lakers were known as "Showtime," a run-and-gun, glitzy, fast breaking team. What more appropriate group for the entertainment capital of the world, a city that focuses on image more than any other? Meanwhile, the Celts revolved around The Big Three, three low post players who were outstanding, but who weren't at all flashy. The team was physical, rebounded well, and played excellent defense. What better group for a blue-collar city that distrusts glamour and self-promotion? Larry Bird, a notoriously shy and somewhat surly guy, would've been out of place in Los Angeles. Magic Johnson just fit there, and Bird fit in Boston. The two teams had numerous Hall of Famers between them, but the contrasting styles and inter-city dynamics brought the rivalry to a different level and captivated the country. Some people will say that this entire argument is a subterfuge for an argument about race (Boston played "white basketball," which the notoriously racist city appreciated, and L.A. played "black basketball"). While there's SOME truth to that point, it's overblown. After all, Robert Parish and Dennis Johnson, both African-American, played indispensable roles for the 80s Celts, their style of play fit the above description, and they were beloved in Boston. In fact, the Celtics were led by a black man, K.C. Jones. And who was more "L.A." than Pat Riley, the [white] coach with the slicked-back hair and Armani suits? Riley bore a much closer resemblance to an arrogant Hollywood super-agent than he did a schlumpy basketball coach.

Regardless, the two great franchises are back at it in the Finals, and I couldn't be more excited. Presumably, the NBA feels similarly because ratings are sure to be through the roof. Now, there's only one thing left to do: BEAT L.A.!

Scott McClellan

2008-05-29T15:33:00.003-04:00

Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary for the Bush administration, has come out recently with significant criticisms of his former colleagues, claiming that the administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. McClellan claims that the administration ignored evidence that contradicted its position, that Dick Cheney "has not served the president well," and that Condoleeza Rice was too deferential towards the president, Cheney, and former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

The obvious question raised by McClellan's criticism is: why have you waited more than five years to voice your concerns?

McClellan's response? “I gave them the benefit of the doubt, like a lot of Americans.” McClellan said he later concluded that “things went terribly off course” in Iraq after he left what he termed “the White House bubble,” where outside views often were not considered. However, he decided he had to speak out because of “a loyalty to the truth and the values I was raised on.”

This is the weakest, lamest possible explanation that I could imagine. As a high ranking administration official whose job it was to spin all news in a light most favorable to the administration, McClellan was either complicit in the campaign of disinformation about which he now complains or he was the dumbest, most gullible guy on the planet. Either way, I put very little stock in his critiques. He criticizes Condi Rice for being too willing to go along with the "party line," but his own personal defense for not speaking up is that "he was swayed at the time by his affection for the president and respect for the president’s policy team." (quoted from a New York Times article). What's the difference here?? Couldn't Rice also have gone along with the decisions of her superiors because of personal affection and respect for them? Why don't McClellan's critiques of others also apply to him?

Lots and lots of people had suspicions about the administration's credibility on these matters while McClellan himself was still standing at the podium, feeding the world a line of BS. Now we're supposed to celebrate the guy for admitting he was full of it, at the point when it's safest (and most financially advantageous) for him to do so? No thanks.

Democratic primary

2008-05-23T13:24:00.007-04:00

First of all, I apologize for the really infrequent posting, but this month has been incredibly busy, so I haven't had a chance to write nearly as much as I would have liked.

As for this post itself, I want to say that I'm generally disinclined to write anything about the election. Between the mainstream coverage, the high-pitched shrieks of the punditry, and the opinions in the "blogosphere," there's usually very little left to say that hasn't already been said.......... several thousand times.

Sometimes though, I notice storylines that slip through the cracks a little bit. As I said in a post last month, I can't really believe that no one is doing intensive internal swing state analysis, commenting on which states Bush won in '04 that Obama could/must win in order to reverse Bush's 35 electoral vote margin, what demographic trends within those states will help or hurt, and so forth. I see lots of national "Obama vs. McCain" polls, I see opinions on how issue X will help Obama or help McCain, but, again, that stuff is kind of irrelevant. The main point is this: even assuming that Obama wins every single state that Kerry won in '04 (a leap of faith in and of itself), he must pick up either Ohio, Florida, a combo of Virginia + West Virginia/Iowa/Nevada, and so forth. Otherwise, he loses. Period, end of story. As a result, I'm much more interested in hearing about how a certain segment of Floridians perceive Obama than I am about, say, the Congressional Black Caucus's opinions on Rev. Wright. Stuff like that just is not going to be dispositive of the election.

Anyway, I don't mean to re-post about the same subject. I just mean to point out that important stories occasionally go unreported. In my opinion, one such story is how, at this juncture in the campaign, Hillary is winning by landslide margins in certain states. If this were the beginning of the campaign with a fresh slate, then I could understand this phenomenon -- she's the more popular candidate, her supporters are more active, the party prefers her, whatever. But, look, Obama is going to be the nominee. That's a done deal. So how is Hillary still winning certain states by 20+ points? Keep in mind that this is a primary and, of course, only Dems themselves are voting. Are these votes protest votes against Obama? Are these voters, again, all Dems (or at least independents in open primary states) so opposed to an Obama candidacy that they're turning out in large numbers for a sort-of spite vote? On a related note, are these voters super-energized about a Hillary candidacy either because they think she's been wronged or because they identify with her as a woman (or both, because the two are related)? Personally, I suspect that the answer to all of these questions, in part, is yes, and this does not bode well for Obama's general election hopes. Many of Obama's "own people" (Dems) are so fired up against him or for someone other than him that they're still turning out to vote against him even though he's going to be their nominee. That's troubling, and you didn't see it happen in the GOP after it became clear that McCain was going to win. While I still don't believe the predictions of doom that large chunks of Hillary supporters will either stay at home or switch sides and vote for McCain, the lesson from 2000 and '04 is clear: it only takes a relatively tiny number of voters in a state or two to swing the entire election. A few thousand defections in Ohio or West Virginia could make all the difference. More bad news for Barack.....

"Pro-Israel"

2008-05-07T18:26:00.002-04:00

I really appreciated this article from Slate.com arguing that we need to expand our understanding of what it means to be "pro-Israel" in American politics. As a Jew who supports Israel's right to exist and to defend itself, I've always found it insulting to be told that criticizing Israel's policies amounts to being anti-Israel. Is there really no gray area here? Either you display unqualified, unequivocal support for everything the nation does or you're not a supporter? One can't both believe in Israel's right to exist and feel sympathy for the Palestinian condition?

If anything, my own criticisms of Israel's actions usually arise because I think they're counter-productive and undermine the nation's claim to the moral high ground, not because I think the nation is inherently evil or involved in some giant conspiracy. Instead, it frustrates me that Israel doesn't seem to ask itself, "does launching rockets (even "smart" ones) into areas occupied by both terrorists and civilians REALLY accomplish very much?" In my view, one need only look at the results over the last X number of years for an answer to that question. The conventional approach doesn't reduce terrorism, and while in no way is that entirely Israel's fault, it's fair to suggest that there might be a more effective approach. Doing so is not only not "anti-Israel," it's actually "pro-Israel" in that it wishes for and suggests a healthier, safer, more productive future for the country.

Celtics-Hawks, Game 7

2008-05-04T09:58:00.003-04:00

Would a loss by the Cs in today's Game 7 go down as the most collossal playoff loss in sports history? The mere fact that commentators can raise the question demonstrates how remarkable it is that Atlanta has been able to push the series to the limit. To me, there's an important distinction between the Cs/Hawks series and other recent chokes/upsets. When the Yankees blew a 3-0 lead against the Red Sox in the '04 ALCS, the two teams were evenly matched. In the ALCS the year before, Game 7 went to extra innings, and the fought for the division title in '03 and '04 as well. Each game between them was roughly a toss-up, and it was surprising that the Yanks were up 3-0 in the first place. Similarly, in this year's Super Bowl, the Giants were red hot (having won 3 playoff games on the road leading up to the Super Bowl) and they had given the Pats a battle in the final regular season game at the Meadowlands. This isn't to say that it wasn't a big upset; the Patriots certainly should have won the game. But the disparity between the teams wasn't THAT big.

The disparity between the Hawks and Celts IS that big. The Cs won 66 games, only 6 away from the all-time record set by the legendary 1996 Bulls. The Hawks finished below .500 and were the NBA's 19th best team this year. They were a dreadful 12-32 on the road. These teams are not even. They're not even in the same ballpark as "even." This should've been a massacre, as the first two games in Boston suggested. Even in the land of 1 seed/8 seed upsets (last year's Dallas-Golden State and Seattle-Denver in '94), the regular season disparity between the teams wasn't as large as it is between the Hawks and Celtics this year. That's why I'd have to say that an Atlanta victory today would take the cake on all-time choke jobs.

Maybe the Cs will win by 25 today (as they should) and make this entire post moot. I hope that's what happens. They should too, if they want to avoid the label of legendary losers.

Interesting 4th Amendment case from Alaska (Brown)

2008-04-27T19:58:00.005-04:00

(Thanks to my co-clerk Kate for passing along this interesting case from Alaska's intermediate appellate court)

On November 24, 2004, Alaska State Trooper Maurizio Salinas pulled over motorist Susan Brown, allegedly because the light illuminating her car's rear license plate was dirty. On that night, Salinas never explained to Brown the reason for the stop, nor that he had no intention of issuing a ticket. Instead, Salinas convinced Brown to allow him to search her car and her body, even though Brown had no warrants and showed no signs of illegal conduct. Salinas testified that his policy was to conduct as many random searches as possible during traffic stops. In this case, Salinas discovered a crack pipe hidden in Brown's coat.

The Alaska Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the search of Brown was illegal. Judge David Mannheimer, writing for the court, found that search requests not based upon any reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct abused the rights of motorists. The court cited New Jersey Supreme Court statistics that showed 95 percent of motorists consented to search requests and that 80 percent of those who did so were eventually found to be wholly innocent. The appeals court determined that the most likely explanation was that motorists do not believe that they can answer "no" to the search request without suffering negative consequences. Mannheimer wrote: "Motorists who have been stopped for traffic infractions do not act from a position of psychological independence when they decide how torespond to a police officers request for a search. Because of the psychological pressures inherent in the stop, and often because of the motorists' ignorance of their rights, large numbers of motorists guilty and innocent alike accede to these requests."

The "drug war" has led courts across the country to issue some terrible Fourth Amendment opinions over the past twenty five years or so. Perhaps the most absurd is the line of "seizure" cases finding that a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel free to terminate an encounter with police and leave the scene. While I don't have a problem with the legal standard itself, the courts often totally underestimate the coercive nature of police encounters (I wonder if a reasonable person would EVER feel free to tell a cop to buzz off and just walk away. Under the stats cited above, it certainly doesn't seem so). Finally, a court seems to be living on the same planet as the rest of us and acknowledges the realities of police/civilian encounters. Whether the decision will survive on appeal to the Alaska Suprme Court remains to be seen.

Why do old people hate Obama and what does this mean for the general election?

2008-04-23T21:07:00.007-04:00

Hillary Clinton's victory last night was the worst of all cases for the Dems: she won by enough so that she can make the argument to stay in the race, but she didn't win by enough to change the fact that Obama almost certainly will win the nomination. Now, Hillary can continue to ding Barack while Old Man McCain chills out, watching all of this with glee.

To me, however, the most interesting aspect of Hill's relatively easy win in Pennsylvania is what it portends for the general election. Pennsylvania is old, white, and blue-collar, and Obama hasn't faired well among these demographics throughout the primaries. Let's assume that Hillary doesn't pull off a miracle and Obama goes on to win the nomination. It goes without saying that even if Obama holds every state that Kerry won in 2004, he'll need to win a large enough state to make up the 35 electoral vote difference between the '04 candidates (in other words, just winning Colorado or Virginia and holding the rest wouldn't do it).

In my opinion, there are eight states that Bush won in '04 that Obama has a chance to swing this year. They are:

- Ohio
- West Virginia
- Florida
- Virginia
- Iowa
- Colorado
- New Mexico
- Nevada

Of these, only Ohio and Florida are large enough on their own to swing the election. Both of these seem problematic, however. Ohio is demographically unfavorable for Obama for the reasons mentioned above. And McCain is very popular in Florida where he currently enjoys a double digit lead over Obama in a head-to-head poll. Without either of these states, Obama would need to win several of the others. Picking up both Virginia and New Mexico/Iowa/Nevada seems unlikely to me. Also, this analysis assumes that Obama holds every state that Kerry won in 2004. However, it seems likely that Obama will lose AT LEAST one of the following:

- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Wisconsin
- Minnesota
- Michigan

If he loses either Pennsylvania or Michigan (quite possible because of the demographics in those states combined with the polls of Clinton supporters that they'd rather stay at home or vote GOP than vote for Obama), he has virtually no chance at the White House. McCain is wildly popular in New Hampshire, and Wisconsin and Minnesota are famous for their streaks of independence (Jesse Ventura anyone??) so the "feisty maverick" McCain could make a strong, strong sell there. I'm by no means predicting this, but it would not stun me to see Obama lose all 5 of these states listed above. At the least, I think he'll lose one or two.

Historic candidacy or not, winning the presidency is about getting to 270 electoral votes. It's the internal state-by-state dynamics that really matter rather than any national trends, and I see the electoral map as being unfriendly to Obama come November.

New ballpark review -- Nationals Park

2008-04-11T09:17:00.006-04:00

As a big baseball nerd, it's been a goal of mine to get to every Major League ballpark. With all the new parks opening up, this task gets a little bit harder each year, but last night I was able to catch a game Nationals Park, the Washington Nationals' new stadium in Southeast DC. Here are some thoughts that I had about the new park.

GETTING THERE

Considering that DC traffic is legendarily bad and there is very little parking in the stadium's neighborhood, a huge majority of the fans going to Nats games will take the Metro to the new park (as I did). The Navy Yard stop (Green line) is only 4 stops from Chinatown and only a block away from the stadium. Obviously the crowds in the station at 6:45 were huge, but Metro did a really good job of moving things along, and my claustrophobia only reached Defcon 2. After you reach street level and begin your one block journey to the park, the best design feature of Nationals Park becomes apparent. The major entrance to the stadium is the center field gate, and as you walk towards it, the seating bowl of the park is wide open in front of you. It's a really cool way to approach the park, as it's both aesthetically pleasing and user friendly for the thousands of fans walking from the Metro to the ballpark.

THE DESIGN

Look, there are worse things that you can say about a park than: it's clean, it's new, and all the seats face the action. And Nationals Park can claim all of those things. But DC rolled over for Major League Baseball, and gave the Nats a sweetheart deal for this park: $650 million of public money and a prime piece of real estate. Given the park's location (on the banks of the Anacostia River with the U.S. Capitol only a mile north on South Capitol Street) and the massive investment by the city, this park should be an absolute gem. It's not. As I said, the park is new and clean which is all well and good, but there is simply nothing memorable about its design. It screams "I was planned and constructed in a huge hurry," which it was. The architects had a perfect opportunity to incorporate the Capitol and the Washington Monument as skyline features in the horizon, but instead, all you see is a giant parking garage beyond left field and sterile condos under construction beyond center field. That is an unforgiveable waste of a chance to make the park distinctly Washingtonian. Perhaps the most memorable feature about the park itself is the enormous videoboard in right-center field which, supposedly, is the largest high-def screen in the world. Hey, don't get me wrong, the picture on the screen is gorgeous, but if that's the most memorable aspect of a ballpark......

THE NEIGHBORHOOD

What's a diplomatic way to say that the city and ownership built the ballpark in the ghetto and forced out poor people, with the hope that developers will build condos and shops near the park? Hmm, how about "this is an 'edgy' neighborhood that is on the verge of turning the corner in the next few years." Does that work? Right now, there's very little to do around the park before or after the game, but it's very apparent that that's changing. There's a ton of construction going on all around Nats Park, and, within a few years, expect this to be a U Street-esque neighborhood in DC (see: the "gentrification" entry on Stuff White People Like).

CONCESSIONS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS THINGS

I expect to get screwed over on food when I go to a ballgame, but Nats Park takes it to another level. A chili dog and a (half-foam) light beer cost me $15. Outrageous. Also, even in the club level, I missed a full inning just waiting in line for my dog and beer. I'm not the kind of person to pick on the concession workers, but in this case it was justified. In the park's defense, I will note that they let you bring in your own food and drinks, which is a HUGE plus. I just didn't have the opportunity to take advantage of it because I came straight from work. A buddy of mine, whose firm has a luxury box at the new park, had to pay for the food and booze when using the box. I'm no luxury box expert, but I always thought that purchasing the box meant that everything was free. It seems like this is another example of the Nats' cheapness, but for all I know, it might be proper luxury box etiquette.

In short, Nationals Park is a huge missed opportunity. The owners had more than $600 million in public money to play with (a civic tragedy in and of itself, but I digress) on a prime piece of real estate. The end result? A sterile, unmemorable park that exhibits nothing distinctive or uniquely DC. What a shame.

Now also seems as good a time as any to update my personal ballpark ratings. These include parks that I visited that are no longer in use.

1. PNC Park, Pittsburgh
2. Camden Yards, Baltimore
3. Fenway Park, Boston
4. Wrigley Field, Chicago
5. Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles
6. Kaufmann Stadium, Kansas City
7. Citizens Bank Park, Philadelphia
8. Yankee Stadium, New York - withold the allegations of bias. This place is a dump, which would be fine if it were the original dump (see Fenway and Wrigley, above). But it's not -- it's a sterile, 1970s bastardized version of the original, and it's simply not true to say that it's the park in which Ruth and DiMaggio played. That park was destroyed in the 70s.
9. Old Busch Stadium, St. Louis
10. Chase Field, Phoenix
11. Turner Field, Atlanta
12. Nationals Park, Washington, DC
13. Shea Stadium, New York
14. RFK Stadium, Washington, DC
15. Olympic Stadium, Montreal

Opening Day at Fenway and "forgiveness"

2008-04-10T11:20:00.005-04:00

At opening day in Boston on Tuesday, the Red Sox received their World Series rings and held pre-game ceremonies befitting the world champs (although what in the hell were the 62 international flags for?? If that's some sort of cute "Red Sox Nation" reference, gross). The most talked about moment, however, was when Bill Buckner, the much maligned goat of the 1986 World Series, came back to Fenway to throw out the first pitch. The crowd gave him a two minute long standing ovation, and the conventional wisdom is that New England finally "forgave" Buckner for his costly error in Game 6 of the '86 Series.

I can hardly believe how ridiculous this story is. First, Buckner re-signed with the Sox in 1990 and received a very warm ovation at that time. If there was any "forgiveness," it was accomplished then. Second, even as a die-hard Sox fan, it's tough to explain the absurdity of the FANS forgiving BUCKNER. We ruined his life and turned his last name into a synonym for "choker," and now WE forgive HIM??? Finally, how genuine can forgiveness be when it only comes after the cathartic event (here, actually winning the World Series)? I admit -- the ovation for Buckner in 1990 was a genuinely nice gesture because the Sox still hadn't won a Series, so the fans were saying, "Hey, don't beat yourself up over it. We've moved on." But the 2008 act of forgiveness? It's like a spouse who drags his/her partner through a lengthy, bitter divorce and then, after meeting someone new, says, "you know, I forgive you for all that divorce stuff." Oh wow, how generous!

All of that said, Buckner was visibly emotional, so the acknowledgement clearly meant something to him. I think that's great because he always bore way, way more of the blame than he deserved for his gaffe. Sure, it was a terrible error, but (1) if it weren't for the horrendous relief ptiching of Schiraldi and Stanley, it never would have reached that point, (2) Buckner, an old and injured player, shouldn't have been playing in the first place; and (3) Wilson probably would've beaten Buckner to the base anyway because the pitcher forgot to cover first base (although this only would've kept the inning alive; the winning run wouldn't have scored).

The underlying message here? You've deserved better Billy Buck, and I wouldn't have blamed you if you told all of us narcissistic Red Sox fans to shove it.

(Note: I know this isn't the most newsworthy story of the week, but nothing in the news excited me. Call me shallow, it's fine)

Catching up on some legal and political developments

2008-04-02T17:56:00.006-04:00

In all the time that I spent attending law school, studying for the bar exam, and generally being a legal nerd, I never knew that judges could consider acquitted charges when sentencing a defendant for a convicted charge. If that's poorly worded, put it this way: say a man is charged with possessing both powder cocaine and crack cocaine. The jury finds him guilty of the powder charge, but finds him not guilty of the crack charge. When sentencing the guy for the powder conviction, the judge can say, "Well, regardless of what the jury said, I still kinda think you possessed the crack, so you're getting a harsher sentence." Sound pretty far out there? I thought so too. But, in United States v. Hurn, that's exactly what a U.S. District Court judge in Wisconsin did. The 7th Circuit affirmed, and the US Supreme Court refused to grant cert. For non-dorks out there: the Supreme Court said, "We can't be bothered to hear this case." Either they found it not important enough to merit their time or they agreed with the 7th Circuit's decision. Regardless, the ruling will stand.

Even more egregiously, the Fourth Circuit yesterday issued an opinion in United States v. Ibanga holding that trial judges commit error when they refuse to consider acquitted conduct. So now, in the Fourth Circuit, District Court judges MUST consider the acquitted conduct when issuing sentences.

Now, call me crazy, but I find it unbelievable that, after a jury of your peers finds that the government failed to prove its case against you, a judge can say "too bad" and impose a significantly harsher sentence. Forget about the implications for pleading (now, a defendant should do it every time because losing on even one count totally screws you) or whether these decisions conflict with Booker/Blakely (my co-clerk thinks "absolutely," but I'm not as convinced), how does this not violate the constitutional mandate that one must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt before facing punishment for an alleged crime? These individuals clearly received extra punishment for stuff that the jury said they did not do (at least not BRD). I'm baffled. Any thoughts?

POLITICAL STUFF
Well, I'm only 2 weeks late in offering commentary on Barack Obama's "race speech," and I'm sure I have very little to add that hasn't been said already. But, here was my take on it. I think that the speech was eloquent, beautifully delivered, and even moving at times. The speech also excited me because it broke new rhetorical ground -- instead of re-treading the same tired dialogue on the racial issue, Obama went for nuance and seemed to come closer to the "truth" on this thorny issue than any other politician I've heard in my lifetime. I especially liked his point that each group has both prejudices AND legitimate gripes. I wholeheartedly agree with that. What really hit home for me was his point about middle-class white America ("Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race"). This might be remarkably naive, but as someone who is $150,000 in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, and is unable to find a job for next year, I feel very little racial privilege and I appreciate it when someone says that believing such is not racist. Does this mean that African-Americans or other racial minorities don't have legitimate gripes? Of course not. But Obama is right to point out that claims that whites have what they have solely because of their race serves only to alienate them and postpone true, meaningful racial conciliation.

Also, I really liked how Obama offered reasonable means for accomplishing reconciliation ("For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny . . . In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations). While this stuff is still relatively vague, at least it's honest and probably more specific than the generic political stump speech.

However, did Obama really have to throw his racist grandmother under the bus. Come on, man! Can't you make that point without selling out grandma?? Jeez.

Finally, since I've already babbled on long enough in this post, let me just say this about the Hillary Clinton/Bosnia story fiasco. It's important for two reasons: (1) she'll do ANYTHING to enhance her political viability, and (2) it makes her already weak "35 years of experience" argument even weaker.

MLB Preview Part VI -- A.L. East and playoff predictions

2008-03-26T18:26:00.003-04:00

Alright, for all the non-baseball fans out there, this is the last hardball post that you'll have to endure. Back to politics tomorrow. In the meantime, here's the American League East predictions (2 games into the regular season, with the Red Sox at 1-1).

BOSTON RED SOX
2007 record: 96-66 (1st in division, won World Series 4-0 over Colorado)
2008 projected record: 97-65
Comments: Alright, as a big Sox fan, I know I'm going to get killed for this, but: when healthy, Boston is the best and deepest team in baseball. The big caveat is health. Beckett and Schilling already have injury issues, forcing Dice-K to start opening day in Japan. A starting staff of Beckett, Schilling, Matsuzaka, Wakefield, and Lester/Buchholz is pretty damn nice. A rotation of Dice-K, Wakefield, Lester, Bucholz, and Kyle Snyder is a hell of a lot less impressive. The lineup (again) will give most opposing teams headaches. They're very deep without any glaring weaknesses. And although some commentators are worried about a sophomore slump for Ellsbury, let's not forget that the Sox won the World Series with Coco Crisp and his meager production in center field for 98% of the year. Even in a worst-case scenario, I can't see Ellsbury producing less than Coco did last year. Pedroia is a prime candidate for a let-down year, but by all indication, he's a legitimately good hitter, and I'd be shocked if he had a terrible year (a mild drop off is possible). I expect Drew to rebound which will help Ortiz and Manny tremendously. Speaking of Papi, he played hurt all of last year, and I expect his numbers to improve this year, a scary proposition for the rest of the league. Okajima and Papelbon are arguably the best 8th and 9th inning guys in the league, despite the early struggles in Japan. The bottom line is: at full strength, the Sox could win 100 games, and they are the favorites to repeat. Even with a couple of injuries, they have enough depth to survive until the injured players return to full health. I hate to jinx it, but for now, the Sox have replaced New York as the year-to-year favorite in the AL East.

NEW YORK YANKEES
2007 record: 94-68 (2nd in division, lost in ALDS to Cleveland)
2008 projected record: 90-72
Comments: This year's Yankee team is one in transition. Usually, it's nice to have a mix of veterans and young guys, but this particular mix has guys who are clearly declining (Damon, Giambi, Matsui, Mussina) and promising young guys who are a year away from being able to lead a playoff caliber team at the major league level (Hughes, Kennedy). As a Red Sox fan, a reconstituted Yankee core of Cano, Hughes, Kennedy, Chamberlain, Wang, A-Rod, and Jeter et al scares me in the long-term. But I see this particular season as one in which the two Yankee ships (young and old) pass each other in the night. On a related note, here's a really good article about how the Yanks/Sox rivalry has extended into the realm of farm-system rebuilding.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS
2007 record: 83-79 (3rd in division)
2008 projected record: 85-74
Comments: Some people have penciled in the Jays to finish in second in this division. While I'm not crazy about this year's Yankee team, I think those people are nuts. Toronto has a nice, balanced team that could compete for the playoffs in a craptastic division like the National League Central. An outfield of Rios, Wells, and Stairs is really strong (look it up -- Stairs had a really solid season last year). Zaun and Overbay are underrated, and Frank Thomas can still hit. Halladay, Burnett, and McGowan is a fantastic 1-2-3, but injuries are 100% inevitible for that bunch. There's a lot to like here, and the team has nice balance, but it's not as deep as Boston or New York, and devastating injuries are almost certain to occur (over/under on A.J. Burnett's 1st DL stint is May 23rd).

TAMPA BAY (DEVIL) RAYS
2007 record: 66-96 (5th in division)
2008 projected record: 72-90
Comments: This is it! This is the year! No, not for the Devil Rays....... errr, Rays..... to make the playoffs, but for them to finish somewhere in this division other than dead last. What a potentially exciting team. Crawford is phenomenal, Upton is dynamic, and Pena created a career out of thin air. The rotation has excellent potential. Kazmir (dear Lord, PLEASE stay healthy for the sake of my fantasy teams) could be a top 15 major league pitcher if he could just put it all together and stay off of the DL. Shields and Garza are tantalizing numbers 2 and 3 as well. Don't get me wrong -- this team has a ton of holes, but there's little doubt that they finish ahead of the woefully bad Orioles.

BALTIMORE ORIOLES
2007 record: 69-93 (4th in division)
2008 projected record: 61-101
Comments: What happens when a 90 loss team trades its best pitcher and its best hitter? Ummm, we're about to find out at Camden Yards. Really, all you need to know about the O's is that Jeremy Guthrie is starting on Opening Day. That's right -- Jeremy Guthrie and his 4.22 ERA is the best that the Orioles can do. That's tops. Yikes. Roberts, Markakis, Mora, and Huff are enough to keep the Orioles from being historically bad (the Giants do not have such a buffer), but this team is awful. Baltimore's baseball fans, like those in Kansas City, deserve more. The fans are knowledgeable, the ballpark is gorgeous, and the team has a lot of history. Management for this organization has really let the city down over the past decade.

PLAYOFF PREDICTIONS

AMERICAN LEAGUE DIVISION SERIES

- Detroit over Boston, 3 to 2
- Cleveland over Anaheim, 3 to 1

NATIONAL LEAGUE DIVISION SERIES

- New York over Milwaukee, 3 to 1
- Philadelphia over San Diego, 3 to 2

AMERICAN LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES

- Cleveland over Detroit, 4 to 2

NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES

- New York over Philadelphia, 4 to 2

WORLD SERIES

- Cleveland over New York, 4 to 2

MLB Preview Part V -- A.L. Central

2008-03-25T18:28:00.003-04:00

Well, I failed to finish these previews before the start of the regular season, but I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that Boston beating Oakland in Game 1 of the regular season won't influence my projections a whole lot. I hope you agree. On to the AL Central.

CLEVELAND INDIANS
2007 record: 96-66 (1st in division, lost in ALCS to Boston 4-3)
2008 projected record: 94-68
Comments: After Detroit made the Miggy Cabrera trade with Florida, the Tigers became everyone's trendy pick to win this division. To me (and this is no knock on Miggy -- he's an incredible player), this overlooks a very simple fact: the Indians are a better, deeper team from top to bottom. Cleveland's lineup is extremely deep. The only "easy outs" in the lineup are Gutierrez and Jason Michaels and even they aren't completely atrocious. The lineup has excellent power: Martinez, Hafner, Sizemore, Garko, and Peralta are all good for at least 20 homers. If there's a criticism to make of the offense, it's that there isn't much speed after Sizemore, but steals are overrated anyway. As for the rotation, Sabathia and Carmona form one of the best 1-2 punches in all of baseball. And while Byrd, Westbrook, and Lee aren't studs, they're solid enough to provide the Indians with one of the deeper rotations around. Let's not forget that this team was on the verge of disposing of the Red Sox rather easily in last year's ALCS. They're deep and talented, easily one of the best teams in baseball.

DETROIT TIGERS
2007 record: 88-74 (2nd in division)
2008 projected record: 91-71
Comments: As I alluded to above, I think commentators have overrated the impact that the Cabrera trade will have. Again, this isn't meant as a knock on Cabrera. But how many games better will he make the Tigers on his own? Three? Four? I just don't see him, by himself, making up the 8 game difference that separated the Tigers and the Indians last season. (Note: some readers may say, "Hey, why do you keep talking about Miggy making a difference by himself? Dontrelle Willis was included in that trade, too!" My response: last year, in the NL, Dontrelle had an ERA of 5.17 and a WHIP of 1.60. He projects to be the Tigers' fifth starter. He's a lovely 5th starter and all, but his impact is negligible). All of that said, the Tigers are a very good team, and I expect them to win the wild card. The lineup is extremely deep without any true patsies. A 1-5 of Granderson, Polanco, Sheffield, Ordonez, and Guillen is going to be murder on opposing staffs. Like the Indians, Detroit has a studly top of the rotation with Verlander and Bonderman (although I prefer the CC/Fausto combo). Also like the Indians, the rotation drops off into "not terrible" territory after the first two with Rogers, Robertson, and Willis (although Dontrelle's 2007 qualifies as "terrible"). A key here might be health: can some of these guys who have a history of injury issues, stay healthy all season? There's a lot to like about this Tigers team -- I just think they'll have to settle for second fiddle with an outstanding Cleveland squad in the same division.

CHICAGO WHITE SOX
2007 record: 72-90 (4th in division)
2008 projected record: 77-85
Comments: Come on, the White Sox aren't THAT bad. A mere 2 years after winning the World Series, the White Sox struck disaster last year when everything fell apart at once. Its difficult to say why exactly. While the team is mediocre, it shouldn't have finished 18 games below .500. And now, the additions of Swisher and Cabrera add offense where it was needed desperately (although, admittedly, moving Uribe to second following Iguchi's departure probably makes the gain at shortstop zero-sum). The rest of the lineup is average, if not overwhelming. Thome can still mash, Konerko is an above-average first baseman, and Dye is really solid. Crede and Pierzynski are pretty bad, but, again, this team should be better. There's a difference between "blah" and "God awful."

MINNESOTA TWINS
2007 record: 79-83 (3rd in division)
2008 projected record: 76-86
Comments: Nothing new in this upcoming analysis, BUT: the Johann trade was indefensible. Both the Red Sox and the Yankees' offers would have provided the Twins with more value, but they turned both of those down and then panicked when Boston and New York cooled on the trade. It also goes without saying that losing the best pitcher in baseball is going to hurt your team. However, Liriano is set to come back after missing all of last year, and that should soften the blow of losing Santana. Also, Mauer missed a lot of time last year, and while he's fragile generally, it's a decent bet that he'll play much closer to a full season than he did last year. Acquiring Delmon Young is an interesting move for the Twins. I think he's still a year away from being seriously productive, and I'm concerned that his plate discipline (read: total lack thereof) will prevent him from ever becoming an elite player, but if he put up 20/20 this year, it wouldn't surprise me either. A middle of the lineup of Mauer, Morneau, Young, and Cuddyer is pretty nice, but the rest leaves a lot to be desired. After Liriano, the staff is really weak, unless Bonser can find away to develop....... quickly. With Neshek and Nathan closing things out in the bullpen, the Twins are in good hands if they can get that far.

KANSAS CITY ROYALS
2007 record: 69-93 (5th in division)
2008 projected record: 70-92
Comments: KC fans deserve better. They have an underrated ballpark, and when I attended games there in college, I was pleasantly surprised by the fans' knowledge and passion. But this team just flat-out sucks. I will acknowledge that Meche and Bannister had nice years last year which flew under the radar because this is one of the worst teams in the game, but there's just not enough here to remain competitive. Lord, Kyle Davies and his 6.09 ERA are in the rotation, and he's not even the #5 starter (hello Jorge de la Rosa!). I wish the Royals were better -- cool park, decent uniforms, deserving fans -- but they're not.

MLB Preview Part IV -- A.L. West

2008-03-23T14:56:00.002-04:00

I've been slacking off on the baseball previews, and now I need to hustle to finish the American League before the Boston/Oakland series starts in Japan on Tuesday morning. Expect the AL previews to come quickly over the next 48 hours or so.

On a completely unrelated note, I thought I'd pass along a quote I enjoyed from Sox manager Terry Francona about the team's really long trip from Florida to Japan. When asked the next day how the team dealt with the long trip and the jet-lag that came with it, Tito said, "I feel like shit today, but I feel like shit every day. So I'm fine. We're fine." I got a kick out of that. Anyway, onto the American League West.

LOS ANGELES ANGELS OF ANAHEIM
2007 record: 94-68 (1st in division, lost in ALDS to Boston)
2008 projected record: 91-71
Comments: I know full well that a short series isn't a true indicator of a team's capabilities. Anything can happen over three or four games, luck plays a big role, and so on and so forth. You can get an honest analysis of a team only by looking at the full body of work. But after watching the Red Sox absolutely dismantle the Angels in last year's Division Series, I'm having a hard time saying that LAA will win this division again, especially in light of the Bedard trade. If I had any guts, I'd predict that the Mariners will win the AL West. But I don't, so here we are. Since they became a perennial playoff contender in 2002, the Angels have always relied on pitching, defense, and speed. They've never been a team that will mash you into submission (although, admittedly, they somehow scored the fourth most runs in the AL last year). But the lineup looked truly pathetic in last year's playoffs, and I'm unconvinced that their offseason moves did enough to address this. Torii Hunter is a nice addition in center, but will his production far exceed what Matthews gave them last year? Losing Cabrera at short hurt because Aybar, AT BEST, will match the O.C.'s numbers. More likely is at least a small drop-off. Vlad and Garrett Anderson (vomit) are another year older. Kotchman, Kendrick, and Napoli are nice role players, but you can't rely on them for serious offensive production. That said, Juan Rivera's return from a broken leg will help. When it's all said and done though, I see this team struggling to score runs. When Lackey and Escobar are healthy, the staff is solid, but their injuries really hurt (ummm, is Jon Garland pitching on Opening Day??). I'm a big Santana fan, and Weaver is a very nice young pitcher (although he IS a Weaver, so......). K-Rod obviously has the 9th inning on lockdown once they get him the ball. In short, even though this team is young (Kendrick, Aybar, Kotchman, Weaver), I see them getting worse, not better. Still, in the weak A.L. West, they have enough to win the division again......... barely.

SEATTLE MARINERS
2007 record: 88-74 (2nd in division)
2008 projected record: 90-72
Comments: Although they had to give up a lot to get him, you have to love the Bedard trade for the Mariners. They got one of the top 3 pitchers in baseball in the prime of his career, AND he's moving from a hitter's park to a pitcher's park. Pitching half of his games at SAFECO Field should only help Bedard's already fantastic numbers. Pairing him with King Felix creates a very formidable 1-2 combo at the top of the rotation. That said, both the rest of the rotation and the lineup are mediocre. In consideration of Sexon's truly atrocious 2007 season, the Mariners are lacking a big power bat. Sure, Beltre and Ibanez are both good for between 20-25 homers, but there's no one in the lineup that strikes fear into the opponent. And yes, I include Ichiro in that statement. Teams likely will be willing to let him slap singles all over the park when there isn't a true stud hitting behind him. Silva, Washburn, and Batista are nothing more than filler material for the starting staff. They are truly mediocre. Putz is one of the best in the business in the closer role, so there are no issues if they can reach him. The final verdict? I expect this team to give the Angels a real run for their money for much of the summer, relying on Bedard, Felix, and the fact that they can beat up on the Rangers and A's. But they'll fall just short.

TEXAS RANGERS
2007 record: 75-87 (4th in division)
2008 projected record: 79-83
Comments: Well, the Rangers have given up all pretenses about even pretending to care about pitching. And given their ballpark, I can't say I blame them. With Kinsler, Young, Hamilton (good addition), and Bradley, the team can mash. I expect them to score a ton of runs. The pitching is, uhhhhh, not good. Millwood and his 5+ ERA is the "ace," and behind him wait Vicente Padilla, Jason Jennings, and Luis Mendoza. Fans in Arlington can expect lots of 10-8 ballgames this year, as usual. Hey, at least Texas screwed the Red Sox by getting Kason Gabbard and David Murphy for utterly worthless Eric Gagne.

OAKLAND ATHLETICS
2007 record: 76-86 (3rd in division)
2008 projected record: 78-84
Comments: OK, I'll go on the record and say something that might bite me in the ass by May or June: I kind of like this A's team, and I don't think they're nearly as bad as a lot of other people. I know that sounds strange when I have them in last place, but that was kind of by default; I think A's fans have a lot to be excited about. Jack Cust had a great season last year that completely flew under the radar. He had a .408 OBP, 26 homers, and 82 RBI in only 124 games. I like Daric Barton a lot, and I'm interested to see how he does in an everyday role. I predict well. Also, Suzuki is an underrated prospect (at least I hope he is -- I have him in both of my fantasy leagues). That said, I can't let myself get too carried away here. The team simply has too many holes on offense. Harden, as usual, is the key to the staff. If he can stay healthy, which is doubtful, then he is an excellent first starter. After that, the rotation would fall into line, with Blanton as a 2, and Gaudin as a blah #3. Street is a very good closer, but he has injury issues of his own. The biggest story in the bullpen, though, is that Keith Foulke came out of retirement! Yes! Another season of 83 mph meatballs!

Heller update

2008-03-19T09:43:00.002-04:00

In response to the predictive question posed in yesterday's entry, it looks like Scalia and Roberts aren't such ardent federalists when the local law at issue is one considered to be "liberal." I'm shocked.

Some current events stuff

2008-03-17T20:58:00.007-04:00

DC v. Heller

The US Supreme Court tomorrow will hear a case about whether the Second Amendment prevents the District of Columbia from banning the private possession of handguns. It's the first Second Amendment case the Court has heard in almost 70 years. In this article, Akhil Reed Amar argues that a personal constitutional right to bear arms could exist even under the position put forth by gun-control advocates (i.e. that the amendment focuses only on arms-bearing in military contexts, and it says absolutely nothing about an individual's right to have a gun). Amar claims that the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people") allows judges to consider whether the American people traditionally have recognized certain rights as important. If the right to bear arms is one of those, then state governments can't prohibit citizens from exercising the right.

I have a major problem with this approach. First, it raises the same issues of interpretation that arise with substantive due process. Put another way, judges are going to make stuff up. Who's to say when a right has really, really been considered important by "the people?" What if the right has just kinda-sorta been considered important by the people? What is the standard here? When does a certain right pass that magical threshold? Why would judges, who are merely smart lawyers, be considered experts in jurisprudential history? This potential problem is exacerbated by Amar's argument that "if our nation's capital wants to argue that specially strict gun rules should apply there because the city faces unique risks, no rigid textual language prevents judges from considering such pragmatic claims in the course of interpreting the boundaries of actual American practice." Now Amar's hypothetical is completely untethered-- judges can use "context" and "unique" elements of a certain jurisdiction to justify their constitutional analysis. What exactly do these words mean? No one knows. But they're so mushy that it's not difficult to see how their abuse would be endless.

Second, this approach drastically reduces the scope of legislation that states could pass. Courts could strike down laws not because they violate the text of the Constitution, but because states, up until a certain point in time, hadn't bothered to pass any legislation on the issue in question. Harlan's concurrence in the Griswold case (cited by Amar) is the perfect example of this. Harlan went along with the Court in striking down Connecticut's criminalization of contraception because "Although the Federal Government and many States have at one time or another had on their books statutes forbidding the distribution of contraceptives, none, so far as I can find, has made the use of contraceptives a crime." My response to this is: SO WHAT? So now a State did pass such a law and your constitutional analysis is: well, it hasn't been done before, so it must be unconstitutional. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If the Constitution says nothing about it whatsoever, I have a hard time understanding why it would be unconstitutional. Not to be a smart ass, but that word does mean that the Constitution forbids X. Also, Amar loves the Ninth Amendment, but what about the Tenth? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Doesn't Amar's approach curtail the sovereignty of the states that the Founders found so important?

As for the outcome of the case, one would think that because the current Court is "conservative," DC's law has no chance. But the term "conservative" blurs distinctions. There are social conservatives and then there are federalists. Federalists (or states' rights advocates) are much more hesitant to strike down state legislation. The question is what decision that socially conservative federalists (Scalia, Thomas) will make. It's easy to predict how Scalia will vote in cases like Bowers or Romer when the state law at issue promotes socially conservative values, but it's much more difficult when the law in question is "liberal."

Hitchens on Iraq

With the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq upon us, Slate.com asked a number of writers who originally supported the war to answer the question, "Why did we get it wrong?" Christopher Hitchens' answer: I didn't. Five years later, Hitchens remains one of the war's most unapologetic supporters, along with Bill Kristol and some other "neoconservatives." At the very least, I admire his stubbornness and his principled stance. It's a lot more honorable than hearing hawks who originally beat the drums of war now tell us what an awful idea the war was. I find his argument in this piece engaging: we were already "in" Iraq prior to 2003; we couldn't dare allow Saddam Hussein to flout international law so outrageously; the Kurds and the Shiites have been liberated; wetlands have been restored; new oilfields have been found; and our active intervention had a positive impact in other nations in the region (i.e. Libya and Lebanon).

In a vacuum, I'd be inclined to agree with him. Those things that he cited are positive developments. However, the war hasn't taken place in a vacuum, and it has not been without costs. To the contrary, there have been enormous costs to obtain these relatively modest gains. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed; 4,000 American troops dead; $650 billion spent (with estimates projecting $2 TRILLION if the occupation lasts another 5 years); at least a million Iraqi refugees living in other countries. Do these costs justify the achievements cited above? I say absolutely not, but that's just one man's opinion.

Links

2008-03-13T09:39:00.003-04:00

This week has been crazy so I haven't had the opportunity to post as much as I would like to, but, in the meantime, here are some links that I found interesting this week:

This is a fascinating article by a self-described liberal who woke up one day and smelled the roses. I identify with his experience because I feel similarly, but I'm not buying the Kennedy/Bush analogy (although I do agree that Kennedy's presidency is vastly overrated).

An online "tour" of Washington, DC's sex-scandal locales.

A different take on George W. Bush's faith. My favorite part? "Get loaded on Jesus,/ 24 hours a day,/ you can be naturally stoned/ on Jesus!"

I generally don't like it when the Sports Guy tackles serious issues, but I thought this piece on a murdered L.A. teenager was well-done, and he relates the final episodes of The Wire to the situation as well.

"The Fix" on the Washington Post's website is one of the best political blogs around, and this version of it, documenting which states are most likely to switch sides from where they stood in 2004, is cool.

The Wire - Episode 60 ("30") - SERIES FINALE

2008-03-10T19:05:00.004-04:00

I watched the series finale of The Wire at a buddy's house in Baltimore (yes, how appropos), and on the drive home, "Us and Them" by Pink Floyd came on the radio. One verse of the song contains the lyrics, "Up (up up up) and down (down down down). But in the end, it's only 'round and 'round (and 'round and 'round and 'round)." Now, this might be a cheesy analogy, but it occurred to me that this verse perfectly summed up the theme of The Wire's final episode, and really the series in general: the faces may change, but The Game is The Game. On a fundamental, systemic level, everything is going to remain the same.

In last night's episode, the writers tied up all of the loose ends regarding the major characters, much more so than other series have done in their respective finales. The Wire was in a better position to do this, though, because of the underlying theme mentioned above: individuals really don't matter very much. Accordingly, some may find redemption (Bubbles), and some may descend into personal hell (Dookie). Some may advance professionally (Carcetti, Norese, Pearlman, Rawls), and some may get demoted (McNulty, Lester, Daniels). Some may face the consequences of their past actions (Chris), and some may escape unscathed (Marlo, Levy, Templeton). Some will get what they deserve (Cheese) and some will get a raw deal (Gus, Alma). The point is: everyone is a cog in the machine. The wheel goes round and round without ever really changing.

I think this theme was faithful to the show's character, and I thought the episode was well done. My major criticism is that they bludgeoned the viewer with the concept over and over during the last 15 minutes of the show. Often, it was over the top, too. We didn't need to see Michael in a hoodie, with a shotgun, and shooting someone in the knee during a stickup to get the point that "Michael is the next Omar." Likewise, the parallels between Dookie and Bubbles were way too overt. And then, to really drive home the point in case you didn't get it already, the episode used the Season 1 version of the theme song during the final montage of all the characters. C'mon guys, Wire viewers are intelligent folk! Use a little subtlety! But really, if this is the major criticism of the show, then things are pretty good. And actually I'll admit that using the old theme song was kinda cool.

I think that the writers saved Season 5 from itself over the course of the last three weeks, but it still ended up being significantly weaker than seasons 1, 3, and 4. If I had to offer rankings of the seasons, I'd say:

#1 = Season 1
#2 = Season 4
#3 = Season 3
#4 = Season 5
#5 = Season 2

I stand by my comments in an earlier post that this was the best show in television history. No other show was so ambitious, so willing to change themes and casts (including killing off major characters), so realistic, and so comprehensive. I miss it already.

MLB Preview Part III -- N.L. West

2008-03-08T11:14:00.004-05:00

In my opinion, this is the most wide-open division in baseball. I think every team other than San Francisco has a chance at winning the division, and trying to predict the standings from 1-4 is really hard. These four teams really suffer from the division's depth, consistently beating up on each other and greatly reducing their chances at getting the wild card. Anyway, here's my take:

SAN DIEGO PADRES

2007 record: 89-74 (3rd in division)

2008 projected record: 91-71 (1st in division)

Comments: Peavy and Young is arguably the best 1-2 punch in the big leagues, and playing at such a dramatic pitcher's park only amplifies the effect. The back end of the rotation definitely has some question marks, but until I see that Maddux can't get guys out anymore, I'm happy to call him a solid #3, especially at PETCO. I'm hoping that a change of scenery helps Prior, but my gut instinct is that his arm is mangled and he's never going to be a productive major league pitcher again (thanks Dusty!). The lineup is spotty, but not terrible. You can pencil in Gonzalez for 30+ homers, Kouz should only improve, and Giles has been productive forever. That said, Khalil Green simply HAS to get on base more often. Even with the 27 homers last year (which I'm inclined to think was a bit of a fluke), a .291 OBP is simply unacceptable. Edmonds is done, and I expect his numbers to get even worse now that he's (a) another year older and (b) playing half of his games in PETCO. The key with this team though is the pitching. With depth in the starting rotaion and a very solid bullpen, the Pads will score enough runs to win a lot of games. This is a great example of a team built for its specific ballpark.

COLORADO ROCKIES

2007 record: 90-73 (2nd in division, wild card winner, NL champion)

2008 projected record: 89-73 (2nd in division)

Comments: There's a lot of hype surrounding this year's Rockies team after they won the National League pennant last year, but what everyone seems to forget is that for three-quarters of the season, this was a mediocre team. The Rocks went on a tremendous run to finish the season, but hot streaks like that hae some element of luck and flukiness to them. Don't get me wrong, this team has a lot to like. Helton, Tulo, and Atkins are a fantastic infield, and Holliday might be the best offensive outfielder in the game now. Hawpe is underrated, and, overall, the offense should score a ton of runs playing in Coors. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced about the pitching staff. Jeff Francis is alright, but he's your opening day starter? After Francis, there are a ton of uncertainties. Jimenez showed potential during the postseason, but was that legit or just a flash in the pan? Will Hirsh ever develop into anything more than a crappy, back of the rotation starter? While the bullpen is very solid, this strikes me as another team designed with their ballpark in mind. They'll mash, there's no doubt about that. But the fact that the staff caught fire for 6 weeks shouldn't make you forget that, at the end of the day, it's just not very good.

LOS ANGELES DODGERS

2007 record: 82-80 (4th in division)

2008 projected record: 86-76 (3rd in division)

Comments: Joe Torre in Dodger blue. Weird. Regardless, the role of managers in baseball is overrated, and I don't expect Torre's mere presence to have too much of an impact. To me, the key to this team is the Andruw Jones signing. If the Andruw that the Dodgers signed is the 1997-2006 Andruw, he adds a lot of punch to a lineup that could use it. But if this is the 2007 Jones, things could get ugly at Chavez Ravine. The lineup already lacks punch with Furcal and Pierre at key positions, and another dud in center would really, really hurt. There's a lot to like about the pitching staff. Penny had a career year last year and having D-Lowe and Billingsley behind him adds nice depth. Broxton and Saito should shut the door when L.A. has the lead in the late innings. The main question I have is whether they'll score enough runs to make any legitimate run at the playoffs. My hunch is: no.

ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS
2007 record: 90-72 (1st in division, lost in NLCS)
2008 projected record: 84-78 (4th in division)
Comments: I like this team. I really do. But the 2007 Diamondbacks benefited from one of the all-time statistical flukes: they won the division despite being outscored over the course of the season. It's difficult to emphasize how lucky the D-Backs were last year. Only the Nationals and Giants scored fewer runs in the National League. But like I said, I like this team, and it honestly wouldn't surpise me if they repeated as division champs or at least made a run at the wild card. Conor Jackson is an on-base machine, and those power numbers have to pick up eventually, right? Right?? Drew, Young, and Upton are all extremely exciting young players who should only improve. Webb is an absolute stud at the top of the rotation, and the Haren acquisition gives Arizona a fantastic 1-2 on par with Peavy/Young (or at least close to it) and takes pressure off of Randy Johnson because now all he has to do is be a serviceable #3 or 4. This puts Owings in the #4 slot, and I think any team in baseball would be thrilled with that. The bullpen has holes (is Brandon Lyon really going to close??), but overall the staff is very solid. I just think that the young guys in the lineup are a year or two away from scoring enough runs to compete with the other teams in this division.

SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS
2007 record: 71-91 (5th in division)
2008 projected record: 69-93 (5th in division)
Comments: Congrats, Giants fans -- your team projects as the worst in the National League!! What is there to say about an infield of Ortmeier, Durham, Vizquel, and Aurilia? That is disgusting. The staff has a chance to be OK, with Zito, Cain, and Lincecum, but "OK" will not save a team that simply will not score any runs. The lineup with Bonds was bad enough. With him gone, it is truly awful.

The Wire -- Episode 59 ("Late Editions") and some links

2008-03-05T11:54:00.006-05:00

(Standard spoiler alert -- details are given away in the following post)

I wasn't going to post about Sunday's episode because it seems that by the time I post, everyone has already watched the upcoming week's episode On Demand (I have my HBO through DirecTV, so I don't have the On Demand option). But since I learned that HBO didn't allow the series finale to be "On Demanded," I figured everyone's finally at the same point and can comment accordingly.

Before discussing Sunday's episode, I want to talk about my own interpretation of my favorite Wire-ism: the word "mope." Through my Sitemeter function, I can tell that I've been getting a ton of hits through people Googling the terms "Wire" and "mope," so although it seems like I'm dwelling on this term way too much, the interest seems to be there. In any event, I've always taken the word as a reference to low-level corner boys, the ones without the brains or ambition to become true players in The Game. When the Department wants to ring up stats by going down to a corner, busting heads, and arresting the guys actually slinging drugs, they're going after mopes. Poot was a mope. Bodie was a mope. Wallace was a mope. But when Lester sets up a wiretap as part of an intricate investigation, he's not targeting mopes. Avon was not a mope. Stringer was not a mope. Prop Joe was not a mope. Marlo was not a mope. This is why I was so disappointed when Bunk referred to Omar as a mope two weeks ago. Under my definition, Omar was not a mope. But, hey, that's just my take on it.

Anyway, let me say: WOW. Episode 59 was far and away the best episode of the season so far. There seems to be an inverse correlation between how much time is spent on the Templeton/McNulty/fake murders storyline and the quality of the show. This episode was old-fashioned Wire stuff -- the dynamics of the street, the nitty-gritty investigations behind it, and the politics within the drug crews and the police.

What I can't believe is how I didn't see this: Marlo gets off because the investigation into his crew was based on a phony, illegal wiretap. This also leads to another difficult question that I've been facing: how did the police ever expect to build a case against Marlo etc if the meat of the investigation was the result of illegal police activity? Did they plan on getting him and his boys into custody and then pressuring one to flip (thus enabling them to rely on just the confession in building their case)? I have a vague recollection of Lester explaining a way around this problem earlier this season, but I can't remember what it was. Can anyone help me out here?

The episode also had a couple of great stories of individual redemption, something we don't see very often on this stark, pessimistic show. Namon has done a 180 under the tutilege of the Colvins and now thrives as a champion debater. (Side note: what a great scene when Bunny basically tells Carcetti to go to hell). Also, Bubbles reaches an important milestone in his sobriety: not only does he have a memorable anniversary, but he's finally able to discuss his role in Sherrod's death in an attempt to let go of his grief and guilt. I thought the writers played this perfectly by NOT having Bubs' sister show up, yet another example of the show choosing pessimism and disappointment for the sake of reality. While it would have been more heartwarming had Bubbles' sister shown up at his meeting, I found his glances towards the door waiting for her to arrive even more powerful.

Finally, on the flip side, I thought that Episode 59 had two of the saddest scenes in the 5 year history of the show: Michael having to leave Bug behind at a relative's house and then Michael and Dookie saying goodbye (which, itself had 2 tragic parts: Michael can't/won't remember the more lighthearted days with his friends of years past and Dookie having nowhere else to go besides to hang out with the drug-addicted junk peddlers).

Anyway, on a non-Wire related note, here are a couple of links from the past couple of days that I enjoyed:

Christopher Hitchens on the boring, cliche discourse in American politics. His thesis isn't exactly earth-shattering, but I always enjoy his subtle British outrage.

A fascinating (but long) article on Hillary Clinton's connections with the religious crazies. This is an angle about her that you don't often hear about, so I found it very interesting.

For those of you who grew up in New England watching Sunday afternoon Sox games on Channel 38 with Sean McDonough and Bob Montgomery (like me), this will be a nice piece of nostalgia.

Here's a straight-forward explanation of the math dictating that while last night's primaries may have kept Hillary's campaign alive for now, her path to the nomination is unlikely at best.

So a well-reasoned, moderate list of suggestions in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is possible??

MLB Preview Part II -- N.L. Central

2008-03-02T11:02:00.005-05:00

Here is the second entry in the lead-up to the start of the regular season.

MILWAUKEE BREWERS
2007 record: 83-79 (2nd in division)
2008 projected record: 88-74 (1st in division)
Comments: The Brewers surprised everyone last year by making a legitimate run at the division crown, but towards the end of the season, they either couldn't handle the bright lights or ran out of gas (or both). This is an exciting young team with a couple of legitimate superstars. I don't expect Hardy or Braun to produce at quite the same level that they did last year (when calculating his numbers based on a 162 game schedule, Braun projected to hit 49 HRs), but they're very good players. That's to say nothing of Prince Fielder, who is an absolute beast and who you can count on to hit at least 45 bombs every single year. The obvious question mark on this team is pitching. Sheets is fantastic when healthy......... which is never. Dave Bush is a weak #2 (#1 when Sheets goes down with elbow trouble in, let's say, mid-June), and Capuano hasn't been able to capitalize on his potential. As for the bullpen, let me just say to Brewers' fans out there: good luck having Eric Gagne as your closer. Watching Gagne's performance in a Sox uniform last year shaved a good 4-5 years off of my life. Because of the pitching issues, it wouldn't surprise me to see this prediction come back and bite me in the ass, but I like this offense too much, and I think that the rest of the NL Central is overrated (more on this below).

CHICAGO CUBS
2007 record: 85-77 (1st in division)
2008 projected record: 86-76 (2nd in division)
Comments: Conventional wisdom has the Cubs repeating as NL Central champs this year, but I just don't see it. They have a couple of very nice pieces with Soriano and Aramis, but there are a ton of uncertainties on this team. D-Lee is another year older and, while still productive, his power numbers have been declining since his monstrous '05 season (yes, he only played in 50 games in '06, but he hit only 8 homers and slugged only .474 in those games -- multiplied out for a full season, those 25 or so homers are still evidence of declining power). Soto, Theriot, Fukudome, and Pie are all unproven and could go either way. I say it every year, but don't all those innings have to come back and affect Zambrano at some point? I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop with that guy, and if it does, the Cubs are in big trouble. Their depth is OK with Lilly, Lieber, Hill, and Marquis, but none of those guys can step into the void that a Zambrano injury would create. They're all complementary guys in a rotation. I like Marmol a lot in the closer role, and I hope that they stick with him if he struggles (a Kerry Wood experiment in the closer spot would be ugly). All in all, this is a fine team, but there are too many holes in the lineup for them to make the playoffs. On a side note, God help ownership if they sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field. Utter blasphemy.

ST. LOUIS CARDINALS
2007 record: 78-84 (3rd in division)
2008 projected record: 75-87 (3rd in division)
Comments: The Cardinals made some major changes in the offseason. Eckstein and Rolen were sent to Toronto, and Troy Glaus came to the Midwest in return. It will be interesting to see the effect that the the changing lineup will have on Pujols. In his and the Cards' heyday when they were scoring a ton of runs, it was tough to pitch around Albert when Edmonds, Rolen, Renteria etc. were all in the lineup together. Now, who in that lineup other than Pujols really scares you? Glaus? Duncan? Ankiel? Eh. I think many teams will take their chances with those guys rather than mess with Albie. How about a middle infield of Adam Kennedy and Cesar Izturis??!! (Shudder) As for the pitching, let's be honest: this staff sucks. Wainwright is the ace? Gross. He had an ok ERA last year, but a 1.40 WHIP is living dangerously and if he does that again, expect the ERA to increase. A 2-5 of Looper, Clement, Reyes, and Pineiro (not necessarily in that order) is underwhelming at best. Izzy is perpetually solid in the closer spot, but I think they might have trouble getting to him this year. This team is entrenched in mediocre mode until Rasmus and some of the younger guys develop, which is a shame because Pujols could go down as an all-time great.

CINCINNATTI REDS
2007 record: 72-90 (5th in division)
2008 projected record: 74-88 (4th in division)
Comments: I feel like this team should be better than "abysmal." At the very least, they should be more fun to watch. Their offense has some really nice pieces with Phillips, Dunn, Griffey, and Encarnacion. Sure, they're not a playoff team, but 18 games under .500? I don't know, I just don't see it. So, call me delusional, but if Gonzalez hadn't gotten hurt, I saw this team as the 3rd best in the division. As mentioned, the offense has some great pieces (if everyone stays healthy), and Harang and Arroyo are a solid 1-2 in the rotation. Homer Bailey COULD provide a dynamic #3, although no one really knows what to expect from him at first. The bullpen is fine (Gary Majewski!), and Cordero was a really nice pickup. Why is this team as bad as it is?

HOUSTON ASTROS
2007 record: 73-89 (4th in division)
2008 projected record: 71-91 (5th in division)
Comments: I admit, they're probably better than the Reds. But I'm trying to mix things up a little bit here! Berkman and Lee are studs, Tejada is still very productive, and Matsui/Wigginton/Bourn/Pence are nice complementary guys. Oswalt is always very good, but the rotation gets thin after that. Rodriguez and Williams are terrible, and Backe "is what he is" -- a mediocre #3 or 4 guy. I expect this team to score a lot of runs and give up a lot of runs which is living dangerously in that ballpark, although perhaps the only way to go.

PITTSBURGH PIRATES
2007 record: 68-94 (6th in division)
2008 projected record: 70-92 (6th in division)
Comments: Poor Pirates fans. Their ballpark is incredible, but this team is really bad. At least there are a few chips to be proud of: Bay and Sanchez are exciting young players, LaRoche has some pop in his bat, and Gorzelanny/Snell is a legitimate 1-2 punch at the top of the rotation. But it'd be silly to think that this team will do any better than last place....... again.

Moussaoui Appeal in the 4th Circuit

2008-02-26T21:10:00.007-05:00

Zacarias Moussaoui has argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that his guilty plea should be invalidated because he did not have the opportunity to see all of the government's evidence against him (the government argued that some of the evidence was highly classified information related to national security).

This case fascinates me on two levels. First, as someone with legal training, I find Moussaoui's legal argument compelling (more on this below). Second, on a personal level, I was interning with a judge at the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia during Moussaoui's trial, and the judge for whom I interned encouraged us to go watch the trial as often as we could. I got to see a good chunk of the trial, and often sat about 5 feet from Moussaoui, so I feel a small personal attachment to the case.

Anyway, my personal anecdotes aside, Moussaoui's lawyers are arguing that he did not have the same type of access to the prosecution's evidence that an "ordinary" criminal defendant would have and, without this evidence, his guilty plea was invalid. The argument of the United States throughout the process has been that terrorism cases are different than, say, fraud cases because the evidence in a terrorism prosecution almost by definition will include sensitive intelligence, perhaps even including names of spies etc. Moussaoui's second argument is that Judge Brinkema violated his 6th amendment right to counsel when she limited his potential attorneys to those who had security clearance.

There's no doubt that this case raises numerous fundamental questions about the intersection of the legal process and the "war on terrorism." (1) Are the federal civilian courts proper places to prosecute terrorism cases? (2) If so, what rules apply? Do accused terrorists have the same rights as other criminal defendants in federal court? (3) If civilian cours are improper fora for these kinds of cases, does Congress need to create an entirely new set of courts to try international terrorists (a "national security court")?

I'm not entirely convinced what the answers are to questions (1) and (3) above, but I think that if the government makes the decision to bring one of these cases in civilian courts, a defendant HAS TO have the same rights that a defendant accused of bank fraud would have. If the court were to hold otherwise, it would open a Pandora's Box as to when the government can ignore longstanding, fundamental constitutional rights. What kind of showing would the government have to make before being allowed to withhold its evidence from a defendant? Does the judge, without any expertise on "national security" make the eventual decision as to whether information is sufficiently sensitive to warrant exclusion? That road seems very dangerous to me. As to Moussaoui's second argument, it also seems problematic to me for the court to limit the pool of attorneys to those who have proper security clearance. Think of it this way: who grants or denies security clearance? The federal government. Who is the party prosecuting these cases in federal court? The federal government. That's an enormous conflict of interest, and in a way it allows the government to have a hand in deciding which attorneys these defendants will have.

So, I suppose I'm recommending that the 4th Circuit overturn Moussaoui's conviction and remand the case to the Eastern District of Virginia for a new trial. Again, as someone who was front and center for trial #1, let me assure you what a monumental waste of taxpayer money this would be. First of all, the government spared no expense in trying Moussaoui the first time. I remember reading somewhere that the trial cost upward of $5 million. Obviously, a reversal would mean that was for no reason at all, and a new trial likely would not cost any less. Second, and more importantly, Moussaoui was a bit player AT BEST in al-Qaeda. He was a wannabe with delusions of grandeur about how important he was. Instead, the true bad guys in the organization often passed him around for him to perform odd jobs because no one could stand him. This case was all about getting a conviction from someone connected to 9/11 to save face. The government didn't care how attenuated the link actually was. To put it simply: he's not worth the effort. After listening to the testimony in his prosecution, I'm sure of this.

However, the 4th Circuit has a reputation for being the most conservative federal circuit in the country, and they love bending over backward to accommodate the Bush administration (the Padilla case being an inexplicable anomaly). So, I predict that they'll find some creative way to say that it's OK for the government to withhold evidence from terrorism defendants in civil courts, which will only create uncertainty in the legal community (to say nothing of the damage done to fundamental legal principles in place for centuries).

Zacarias Moussaoui deserves no sympathy whatsoever. But, the law's the law.

The Wire - Episode 58 ("Clarifications")

2008-02-25T20:49:00.003-05:00

(Standard warning: spoilers abound, so stay away if you're not caught up)

I don't think a TV show has ever impacted me the way The Wire did last night when Omar got "got." Because of my belief that Marlo will come out on top, I knew Omar had to go at some point. But when he got blasted, I had a pit in my stomach and a palpable sense of disappointment.

It was only after the show was over, though, that I got to thinking: why did we root so strongly for Omar? Granted, he's charasmatic, entertaining (my favorite scene in the 5 seasons of this show is when he testifies at Wee-Bey's murder trial. Classic stuff), and his enemies are the undisputed bad guys of the show. But does that justify his lifestyle? He steals and murders for a living. Again, on the spectrum of terrible things, maybe stealing from and killing drug dealers isn't as bad as stealing from and killing civilians, but was Omar a hero? I guess Omar had a lot of the traits that Americans tend to admire: stength, independence, self-sufficiency. He also seemed to have a loose set of rules, kind of a thief's code of ethics (the Robin Hood theme). But I've really been struggling to understand the degree to which I and my fellow Wire fans embraced Omar. I'd love to hear some theories from you guys.

If Omar had to go, however, the way in which he went down was perfect. His last words? "Gimme a pack of Newpo'." His place of death? The dingy floor of a West Baltimore Korean grocery store. His murderer? The little punk corner boy who, just a scene or two before, was trying to light an alley cat on fire. The amount of space his death garnered in the Baltimore Sun? Zero. This was the second time that David Simon stuck it to the Sun as hopelessly out of touch in regard to Baltimore street life. When Marlo had Prop Joe killed, the Metro desk had no idea that "Joseph Stewart" was the kingpin of the entire Baltimore drug distribution empire. How could a city's newspaper be so out of the loop? Likewise, the paper had no idea the effect that Omar had on the street, and Gus didn't even run the story of Omar's murder because there was no remaining space. The lesson in all of this? Even if you're a legend of the streets, you're still from the streets, and you mean jack shit.

As an aside, though, I have to call out my man Bunk. When he arrived at the scene of Omar's murder, he refered to Omar as a "poor mope." Now, Bunk is my favorite character and "mope" is my favorite Wire word, but Omar wasn't a mope! Poot (Foot Locker! Hahaha!) is a mope. Kenard is a mope. Bodie was a mope. Omar most certainly was not a mope. Omar was a renegade, a vigilante. He was not your average corner boy. If Omar was a mope, then you can use the word to describe anyone involved in crime. Is Marlo a mope? Was Stringer a mope? If that's the case, the word loses a lot of its effectiveness (and, therefore, humor) for me.

I thought the non-Omar storylines were the best of the season so far (the standard being: I didn't cringe when watching them). Templeton finally gets called on his nonsense; the FBI profiles the fake serial killer as a McNulty clone; Bunk learns that it's Chris' DNA at the scene of Michael's stepfather's murder; Carcetti reaches new levels of cynicism; Clay Davis isn't out of the woods yet; Kima refuses to go along with McNulty and Lester on the homeless killer case; and Bea cuts off Jimmy. I found all of this stuff really entertaining, although it feels like they took too much time getting these things going and now there's too much to cover in the time that's left.

Only two episodes remaining. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

"Got any ideas? 'Cause we sure as hell don't."

2008-02-21T20:02:00.000-05:00

For those of you who disagreed with me last week that the Clinton campaign seemed desperate, I submit to you this absurd story:

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-camp-looks-to-supporters-for-advice-2008-02-20.html

For those of you too lazy to click on the link and read it (and don't feel bad -- if I were reading instead of writing, I'd be one of those people), the Clinton campaign is allowing supporters to call in and give advice to top campaign officials, including campaign chairman and former head of the DNC, Terry McAuliffe.

Now there are going to be those people who try to spin this as the ultimate experiment in grassroots politics, a way for the campaign apparatus to stay in touch with the people, but let's call a spade a spade. This is a collective shrug of the shoulders by a campaign in free fall. They are clueless about how to stop the bleeding, and they are desperate. Again, I ask: don't actions like this merely perpetuate the downward spiral by signaling to the nation that the campaign is in crisis? What is the strategy here?

More than anything, however, what struck me about this article is what a big joke the Democratic party's revolving door of insider political operatives really is. Why does Terry McAuliffe still have a high ranking job in American politics? Under his watch as DNC chairman, the Democratic party suffered one embarassing defeat after another. Think about it: what did the Democrats accomplish between 2001 and 2005 except to get pummeled time and again? Now, his big strategic move as chairman of Hillary '08 is to say "I give up. Help me." Brilliant stuff. And although I don't believe he's working for Clinton, the case of Bob Shrum is similar. For those who aren't familiar with Shrum, he has worked for eight presidential candidates. Guess how many of those candidates have won the general election............ Zero! And presidential candidates keep hiring him! Why?! Wouldn't I be just as qualified as Bob Shrum to give advice on how to WIN a presidential campaign? I'm 0 for 0, he's 0 for 8! These are prime examples of what I mean when I say the same, tired people and ideas keep getting play in mainstream politics, seemingly without any analysis behind it. Jesus, if I were running for president and Bob Shrum offered his services, I would avoid him like the plague. But he keeps getting jobs. So does Terry McAuliffe. Why doesn't anyone ever stop and ask a very simple question: why?

MLB Preview Part I -- N.L. East

2008-02-19T21:11:00.000-05:00

Pitchers and catchers have reported for duty, fantasy drafts all over the country are about to get underway, and Orestes Destrade is hard at work coming up with a bunch of utterly useless analysis. That's right -- it's almost baseball season. With roughly 6 weeks to go before the start of the regular season, I'm going to preview one of MLB's divisions per week until the season begins. Each preview will have the teams' '07 records, a prediction about the '08 records, and some comments about the teams' off-season changes. First up is the National League East.

NEW YORK METS
2007 record: 88-74
2008 projected record: 94-68 (1st in division)
Comment: it took a historic choke for the Mets not to win the division last year and then this winter, they added the best pitcher in baseball. Their lineup is excellent for a National League team, and Johan at the top of the rotation looks pretty damn nice. That said, the rest of the staff has serious question marks. Oliver Perez has loads of potential, but can he deliver consistently? John Maine had a very solid 2007 season, but can he repeat that performance this year? Does Pedro have anything left in the tank? If the answer to 2 out of those 3 questions is "yes," the Mets should run away with this division. Either way, it's hard to imagine this team not winning the NL East given the addition of Santana to a playoff-caliber club.

PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES
2007 record: 89-73
2008 projected record: 91-71 (2nd in division, Wild Card winner)
Comment: give the Phils credit -- they took advantage of the Mets' gag job in late September and won the division. But, let's be honest: that team had no right making the playoffs and only did so because of a once-in-a-lifetime collapse by the team 2 hours to the north. Even still, this team has a lot of talent, and, unfortunately for them, they have to play in the same division as the National League's best team. The Phillies probably have the best infield in baseball with Howard, Utley, and Rollins. And Hamels is one of the most exciting young pitchers in the game (plus a cornerstone of my Rhody fantasy team). The Lidge trade makes Myers a starter again (where he should've been all along), but after those two guys, the rotation is suspect (I remember Jamie Moyer pitching for the Red Sox when I was about 7 years old). I could see the bullpen being spectacular or a major liability. Some major pitching questions: is Lidge irreversably messed up after his various meltdowns in Houston? Will Gordon's arm fall off after he throws one more curveball? Did the Phillies really pay Adam Eaton $7,208,333 last year to have a 6.29 ERA and a 1.63 WHIP??? Jesus H. Christ, I am in the wrong profession. Regardless, I see this team winning a tight battle for the wild card spot and making the postseason.

ATLANTA BRAVES
2007 record: 84-78
2008 projected record: 82-80 (3rd in division)
Comments: Woohoo! Tom Glavine is back in Atlanta where he belongs! All is right with the world. Excuse me, what I meant to say is: who gives a shit? Glavine has had a phenomenal career, but he's washed up (see: Mets' season finale, October of 2007), and this signing means very little. Even though Andruw Jones was a disaster last year, losing him still hurts, especially when the replacement is Mark Kotsay. It should be interesting to see Teixeira play a full year in the National League, where I expect him to thrive. At the end of the day though, this is a very "blah" team that inspires few passionate feeling in either direction. At least the good fans of Atlanta will sell out every home game. Oh wait........

FLORIDA MARLINS
2007 record: 71-91
2008 projected record: 74-88 (4th in division)
Comments: There's just not much more to say than: this team has too much talent to be worse than the Nats. Hanley, Uggla, Willingham, Hermida, Maybin, Treanor, Sanchez, Cody Ross. That's my in-depth analysis -- how could that team POSSIBLY be worse than the Nationals??

WASHINGTON NATIONALS
2007 record: 73-89
2008 projected record 72-86 (5th in division)
Comments: Having Elijah Dukes and Lastings Millege in the same outfield should be.... ummmm.... interesting. Wow could that be explosive or what? Talk about high risk/high reward moves. Good for Jim Bowden for having some balls though. This team was obviously on the fast track to nowhere, and making moves for young talented players could pay dividends (or could result in horrific violence). I like the LoDuca signing, and I like the trade for Clippard too. What I don't like is everything I'm seeing about the new ballpark. The pics I've seen show a boring, uninspired park. The only redeeming thing is the view of the Capitol beyond the left-center field fence. Everything else screams "we came up with the plan for this park in 15 minutes."

On a completely un-related note, I've been re-watching all of the Sopranos episodes on DVD, and I just have to say that AJ Soprano is the most hateable character in TV history. Good Lord, that kid doesn't have a single redeeming quality at all. There's not a single scene where I say to myself, "Oh, he's not so bad." Not one. Just miserable.

There Will be Blood

2008-02-18T19:08:00.000-05:00

Whether you enjoy it or not, you will have a movie experience unlike any other you've had during the first 15 minutes of "There Will be Blood." The movie opens with haunting music -- simple but discordant notes that linger in the desolate New Mexican desert that serves as the scene for the opening act. The first 15 minutes also contain absolutely no speaking -- only shots of Daniel Plainview (the movie's anti-hero) digging for silver in dangerous mine shafts.

"There Will be Blood" is the story of Plainview's rise to prominence as a ruthless, manipulative oil tycoon. A large chunk of the story focuses on his efforts to buy land in an oil-rich portion of southern California and build a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean to eliminate the shipping costs inherent in getting the oil from the middle of nowhere to the marketplace. The word that kept coming to mind while watching the movie was "sprawling." The word applies both literally and figuratively -- the heart of the movie takes place in an arid, sparsely populated desert town and focuses on Plainview's mission to buy massive amounts of land. But the story also covers a lot of ground and often jumps around without clear transitions. Usually this drives me crazy, but for some reason, it just worked here for me.

Every review of this movie has raved about Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Plainview (with Rolling Stone saying that Day-Lewis "no ifs, ands or buts, gives one of the great elemental performances in modern cinema"), so there's no need to re-hash how great he is in this movie. He is, and the movie depends on him 100%. Period. But what interested me the most about Plainview wasn't his avarice or cruelty, which he displays in spades, but his rare moments of humanity. Despite the fact that he exploits his young son, H.W., to advance his business interests, he undoubtedly loves H.W. When an explosion on an oil rig threatens H.W.'s safety, Plainview freaks out, runs to the damaged rig about to explode, and carries his son back away from harm. Now, is his concern for H.W.'s well-being strong enough to overpower his need to know the extent of the damage done to his equipment? Of course not, and he leaves a terrified H.W. behind with an associate. But there was a moment where the audience sees in Plainview nothing but concern for his imperiled son. Similarly, when the movie flashes forward several years to a scene where H.W. announces his intention to enter the oil business as his father's competitor, Plainview is legitimately hurt. Again, his response is barbaric, but the news cuts him deeply.

I was extremely impressed with both the cinematography and the soundtrack in the film. As mentioned before, the music is haunting and very unusual in its simplicity. I can't quite articulate what it was about the soundtrack, just that it sounded unlike anything I've heard. Oftentimes in movies, the music is background noise that goes unnoticed, but this movie's track demanded attention and filled the theater with a sense of foreboding. The film is also replete with stunning visual imagery -- a flaming oil rig whose similarities to a burning cross did not go unnoticed; the barren landscape of the southern Californian desert; a shot of an unmolested Pacific coastline. While Day-Lewis is the heart and soul of the film, these other elements provide striking accentuation.

If I had one complaint about the movie, it would be the ending. As my buddy Adam aptly pointed out in his review of the movie on his own blog (http://whatilove.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/there-will-be-blood/), the movie would have ended perfectly at the second to last scene. Instead, the final scene wants to force down our throats the idea that Plainview is a really, really bad guy. Well, we already knew that, and the previous scene had much more emotional force because the victim of Plainview's hatred is much more sympathetic. Nevertheless, I recommend the movie highly, and I expect it to bring home several Oscars next week.

The Wire - Episode 57 ("Took")

2008-02-18T10:49:00.000-05:00

(Again, spoilers abound in the post. Don't read this if you aren't caught up)

Uggggh. At the risk of offering a 100% repeat of last week's review, let's just leave it at this: the fake serial killer storyline is (1) absurd (McNulty using a voice modulator while Freamon hooks up a fake wiretap? Just stop!) and (2) sucking the life out of the show.

The real shame in all of this is that the other story lines in Season 5 are great, traditional Wire-type story lines. How can you not spend more time on Omar's obsession with singlehandedly taking down Marlo and avenging Butchie's death? That took up, what, 8 minutes of last night's episode? Same thing with The Bunk's dogged pursuit of last year's row house murders, specifically the vicious beating of Michael's stepfather. Bunk's instincts are right (Michael solicited Marlo's crew to take care of his stepfather because the guy was a scumbag and a cancer in the family home), but can Bunk crack the case by himself? Will someone sell out Michael (how much does Dookie know?) and, if so, will Michael sell out Marlo/Chris/Snoop? This is all good stuff, and these other stories are being treated as third-tier concerns.

Although it killed me to watch, I think the writers had no choice but to let Clay Davis off the hook. The single thesis behind The Wire is: the institutions in modern American cities are f'd up and ineffectual. To let Davis -- corruption and greed in government incarnate -- go down would send the message that the good guys can get the bad guys, that noble individuals can take down thieves. I don't think David Simon WANTS to send that message. I think his outlook is so grim that he wants the bad guys to get away because that's his take on contemporary American life. The fact that "the people," in this case, a jury of Clay's peers, cooperated in their own fleecing makes the message that more powerful. (By the way, how painful was it to watch Clay's little courtroom speech, at the end of which he got a standing O from the gallery? Brutal).

It's on this note that I'll offer my one major prediction for the remaining couple of episodes: Marlo gets off scot free with no dire consequences to him personally. Simon has said that Marlo embodies pure, unadulterated capitalism, and, like I said above, Simon is so cynical about modern day America that Marlo has to succeed. In Simon's mind, the forces opposing "capitalism" are either too weak, too corrupt, too stupid, or too lazy to make any meaningful changes. Capitalism and its single-mindedness will always succeed. Now, capitalists may have to betray those most loyal to them in order to survive, so it would not surprise me to see Snoop and Chris go down, but Marlo will remain unscathed.

NYT op-ed

2008-02-15T09:31:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp

I liked this article, if only because it endorses ideas that make some logical sense, but are often taboo in mainstream political culture (i.e. promoting two family homes and addressing the poisonous culture of lower class neighborhoods). I think a major problem in contemporary American politics is intellectual laziness. "The economy is slow? Eh, just mail everyone a check for $500." It seems like there are no fresh ideas out there and that no one in a position of authority is sitting down to perform meaningful analysis on the root causes of the nation's major problems. I suppose that's why an article like this one gets me excited. At least someone out there is thinking of a new way. Intellectual effort goes a long way.

I have to say I'm skeptical of this argument though: Democrats like to talk about college affordability, but that’s the least important explanation for why so many students don’t complete college. The real reasons are that students are academically unprepared and emotionally disengaged.

Cost is the least important reason? Hey, maybe it's not the most important, but I think it's a hell of a lot higher on the list than "emotional disengagement."

HR-57

2008-02-14T20:52:00.000-05:00

I have a policy of refusing to pay cover charges of more than a couple of bucks to get into bars or clubs. The idea of charging customers just for the right to walk through the door strikes me as pretentious, and very rarely do these places live up to their billing. Instead, you usually get to hang out with a bunch of people who are self-impressed (rather than embarassed) that they just paid $20 to get into place X. As a general rule, this isn't the crowd that I enjoy hanging out with.

Nevertheless, last Saturday, I paid a $12 cover charge to get into HR-57, located in DC's Logan Circle neighborhood. The charge seemed more palatable than usual for a few reasons. First, there's live music all night (see below). Second, the charge goes to a decent cause -- to support the preservation of jazz and the arts more generally. And third, the bar is BYOB, so if you bring along a few bottles of 2 buck chuck like we did, the night is still cheaper overall than if you go to a generic bar somewhere else in the city.

HR-57 is a jazz club without many frills. Named after a House Resolution designating jazz as "a rare and valuable national American treasure," the joint doesn't have a whole lot in the way of decor other than a stage and tables with wooden chairs. Not to sound like an obnoxious beatnik, but if you're gonna go to HR-57, you're going for the music.......... maaaaan. Or, at the very least, to do something different than the same old Adams Morgan/Dupont crap. And the music is good. Really good. The one regret I have is that we didn't get there early enough to grab one of the tables in front, so we had to sit near the back of the place. It was still cool, but I'd recommend getting there on the early side to snag something close to the stage. The sound quality in the back just isn't the same.

Finally, as a conoisseur of cheap, greasy food, I was a HUGE fan of HR-57's "southern cooking" plate. For $6, they serve you 2 fried chicken wings, a bunch of red beans + rice, and collard greens. All of it is good, too. Just don't whine about having to eat off of a paper plate. It adds to the ambiance. They also serve half-smokes, which I think were $3 each, but I'd rather go up the street to Ben's Chili Bowl if I'm going to go the hot dog route.

For people in the DC area looking to do something a little bit out of the ordinary, HR-57 is a great choice. The jazz is outstanding, and, despite the cover charge, you'll end up spending less than $20 because of the "bring your own" policy.

HR-57
1610 14th Street NW, Washington, DC
http://www.hr57.org/home.html

Clemens on the Hill II

2008-02-14T09:21:00.000-05:00

Well, Larry's comment on the first post covered the opening I was planning on doing for this post, but screw it, I'm going forward with it anyway.

Before even getting to the substantive parts of yesterday's testimony, I have to say that this whole charade is a monumental waste of Congress' time, money, and resources. Even in a time of peace, stability, and fiscal balance (none of which we have now), I can't see a justification for using taxpayer funds to investigate Major League Baseball's drug policy. I would love for someone reading this blog to offer a good reason for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to stick its nose into the self-governance of what is, at the end of the day, an entertainment industry. And spare me the nonsense that "steroids are illegal. The government has the right to look into things that are illegal." Lots of things with way greater social impact are illegal, and Congress doesn't preen in front of the cameras investigating them. It's pure, unadulterated grandstanding, and it's nauseating. Back for one second to the actual committe doing this work. Isn't that the best part here? This committee's work is supposed to focus on GOVERNMENT REFORM, and they look into juicing in baseball. Unreal.

Anyway, whether justified or not, the Committee did perform investigations and Clemens and McNamee testified in Washington yesterday. In the words of my good friend Dan, "A known lying scumbag versus a suspected lying scumbag. What a case!" Full disclosure: as a Red Sox fan, I'm an outright Clemens hater. But putting that aside and looking at this as objectively as possible, the piece of evidence that I have a hard time explaining in favor of Clemens is Pettite's affidavits. The affidavits, from one of Clemens' best friends, claim that Clemens talked to Pettite about Clemens' HGH use on several different occassions. So Roger, how do you explain this? Why would your best friend and workout partner lie? The Rocket's response? Pettite "misremembered" those conversations. Weak. Additionally, McNamee's allegations about Pettite and Knoblauch were confirmed; Clemens' body totally changed as he got older; his performance actually improved from his final years in Boston to his time in Toronto, NY, and Houston; and he has an enormous incentive to lie right now. Put it all together, and I think that's a pretty strong case that the Rocket was a juicer. The follow up question: who the hell cares?

One more interesting observation from yesterday's hearings. The Committee seemed to break roughly along partisan lines with the Dems crediting McNamee's testimony and the GOP siding with Clemens. I can't really think of a good explanation for this other than the generic response that the two parties refuse to agree on anything at all. Anyone have any theories?

Clemens on The Hill

2008-02-13T12:14:00.001-05:00

I plan on doing a full post on this either later today or tomorrow morning after all the Hill testimony is over, but for now, I leave you with this thought: how hard hitting do you expect the questioning to be when committee members were ASKING FOR HIS AUTOGRAPH?! What a bunch of clowns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/sports/baseball/13autographs.html?ref=baseball

The Potomac primaries

2008-02-13T09:14:00.001-05:00

Well, as predicted, both McCain and Obama swept the primaries last night in Maryland, DC, and Virginia. Obama finally overtook Clinton in overall delegates (1,223 to 1,198), and it seems safe to say that McCain will win the GOP nomination. Clinton's strategy now seems to be: win Ohio and Texas, and figure it out from there, which seems extremely dangerous to me. I have a few questions about the whole process from here, and I'm not sure how I feel about any of them, so I'm interested to hear what you all have to say:

(1) In the last two weeks or so, the Clinton campaign has acted in complete desperation. Campaign manager fired, loaning $5 million of her own money to the campaign (side note: wouldn't it be nice to be able to say, "Hey, my campaign needs 5 mil -- let's swing by Bank of America on the way home from the fundraiser." ??). Will this affect her campaign at all? To me, there are really 2 sub-issues here: (a) Will the extra money and the new campaign manager have any impact in reviving the Clinton campaign? Or, (b) Do these moves reek so heavily of desperation that it tags the campaign as a sure-fire loser?

(2) Assume for a second that Obama has the lead in delegates at the end of the process, even when accounting for the superdelegates that have committed to Hillary already. Is there ANY chance that some of those uncommitted superdelegates support Hillary anyway, either out of personal loyalty, political calculations, or whatever? To me, this would be catastrophic because it is absurdly undemocratic. I really, really hope that doesn't happen, and not just because I'm an Obama guy, but because it completely undermines the entire process leading up to the convention. I think this is unlikely to happen, but it remains possible.

(3) How great is it when the punditry's conventional wisdom fails? Six months ago (maybe less?), Hillary Clinton was an absolute lock for the Democratic nomination, and John McCain was a disaster. Oops. (And if any of you try to make a sports analogy by saying it was fantastic when the conventional wisdom failed in predicting Super Bowl XLII, well, you can kiss my ass).

The Wire - Episode 56 ("The Dickensian Aspect")

2008-02-11T20:57:00.000-05:00

(Don't read if you care about The Wire and aren't caught up)

My co-worker Matt and I have spent our Monday lunch breaks analyzing the previous night's episode of The Wire since Season 5 began in early January. To Matt's credit, from the start of the season, he's been making comments like "I don't see where they're going with this storyline" or "this is just ridiculous." While I've always understood where he's coming from, I've given the writers the benefit of the doubt and defended the season's trajectory. Not anymore. Sunday's episode was the one where several of the season's storylines became so absurd and so far removed from what made The Wire such a great show in the first place that I had to waive my hand in disgust like an angry Providence College basketball fan at The Dunk.

I need to rewind for a second. For the last year or so, all I heard from friends and TV critics was how The Wire was the best show on TV. I really wanted to watch it, but I wouldn't unless I could start watching from Episode 1. Between school and studying for the bar, I never had a chance, but finally, in December, I made up my mind to get the DVDs and catch up on seasons 1-4 before season 5 started on January 5th. I was hooked from the beginning. I'm not adding any new analysis here, but what makes the show so great is that it's three dimensional and complex. Unlike the other lame cop shows on TV, not every cop in The Wire is a hero, and not every street thug is evil. Most of life is gray rather than black or white, and The Wire captured this beautifully. In addition, the show's portrayal of Baltimore's institutions, whether the police, the docks, City Hall, or the public schools, felt so authentic. The stories were completely believable, and that made the characters' triumphs and failures all the more compelling. Again, I can't take credit for this line, but I thought the most apt description that I've heard about the show is this: "What Dickens did for 19th century London, The Wire does for 21st century Baltimore." The show was tough, honest, and realistic in its comprehensive look at a modern American city.

Fast forward back to season 5. The Baltimore Sun subplot is completely, 100% 2 dimensional (or is it 1 dimensional?). Gus is the ethical, hard-working, old-school journalist, Templeton is the talentless douchebag who has to invent stories to get ahead, and the ed board is the soul-less corporate entity that will squash good journalism in the name of making an extra buck. So long shades of gray. To add insult to injury, the intersection of the Templeton/McNulty frauds is so absurdly unbelievable as to insult the viewers' intelligence. Reporter gets fake call from fake serial killer and no one's put 2 and 2 together? Cop kidnaps disabled homeless man, intending to use him as a pawn in a game with the City, places him in a shelter, and expects that no one will figure it out? How about the workers AT THE SHELTER?! Omar jumps from a 6th story window, and the end result is that he kind of hurts his one of his legs? Really? Please.

I'm looking forward to the final 4 episodes in the show, and hopefully it gets back on track. I want to believe that David Simon's hatred for The Sun and overall pessimistic view of American life doesn't keep him from telling a layered But for now, I'm worried that season 5 has put a small stain on what otherwise has been the best show in the history of television.

Mission Statement

2008-02-11T20:16:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that the blog phenomenon jumped the shark a year or two ago and reached a point of oversaturation where every other person had a site telling the world about a killer recipe for tiramisu. So, why would I pile on and start one of my own? Honestly, it has nothing to do with the fact that tons of people have blogs. If anything, that made me less inclined to start one. I guess the best way to describe it is this: there are certain things for which I have great passion and about which I could discuss to no end. I also love to write. But on a daily basis, I usually don't have an outlet for doing these things. Sure, I technically write for a living, but I'd hardly consider intrepreting real estate contracts one of my areas of great interest. If I could choose a realistic dream job (playing second base for the Red Sox doesn't count), it would be to write in the field of one of these areas of interest. Since that doesn't seem likely in the near future, I figured that getting some thoughts down on "paper" would be the next best thing.

What I'd love to see happen on this site is to have some lively debate about the posted topic on a given day. I plan on writing about sports, politics, current events, certain TV shows, and movies. I know not everyone shares my enthusiasm for all of those topics, but I think that most people have interest in at least one of them. I'll do my best to keep the topics diverse and also to stay away from "what I did this weekend" type posts which can't inspire a whole lot of discussion. The one exception to this rule is if I find a cool new bar or restaurant (or something along those lines) that I think the people who read the blog might want to check out. But really, I encourage you to rip my opinions apart and post some of your own in the comments section. I think we could have a good time with this if we're going back and forth about whether the Marion/Shaq trade made ANY sense for Phoenix or why the superdelegate system in the presidential primaries needs to go. Anyway, thanks for giving the site a chance, and I hope you'll keep coming back.