What's in a Name?

Once again, Within Reason figured it was time to check in with fellow blogger Smack to get his thoughts on the NHL playoffs, MLB All-Star voting, and to make sure he celebrated his April birthday in true Massachusetts style: getting rained on at Fenway Park.

As is usually the case with our conversations, the main points are quickly abandoned in favor of more eclectic discourse. In this instance, we touched upon a topic (in Smack's case, this was a revisiting of a past topic on his site) that, while comical, brings to mind the fact that our rapidly expanding technological capabilities are not only an engine to improve the standard quality of our lives, but also a catalyst in changing our very standards.

I invite readers to join in the discussion by posting a comment below. Enjoy.

Within Reason: Baseball All-Star voting begins today - thoughts on that?

Smack: No thoughts on all star voting. Haven't been following baseball much. Or do you mean thoughts on starting it so early?

WR: Yes - the timing of the voting...

S: Too early. But I guess if the votes come in all season then it makes sense. If Youk takes a dive then people would stop voting for him.

WR: I say that All Star voting should start September 1st, and run through the offseason - and up until July 1st. It would take into account the period between games. A 2009 All Star would be someone who has played well since the 2008 All Star game. At least that would be the idea.

S: The only reason I would even care would be because the ASG now determines home field advantage in the World Series. Otherwise I don't care enough to have an opinion on it.

Sweeping the Habs: Helps the Bruins or hurts the Bruins? They won't play again until the end of next week.

WR: First point: See, that's where I think they could actually trump up this whole "now it counts" thing with the ASG. If you refocus on the period between the games, you can try to shift people's attention to who actually deserves to be on the team - as opposed to the whole thing being a popularity contest. For example, I would almost guarantee that Alex Rodriguez will be the AL's leading vote-getter at 3B, even though he hasn't played at all this year. It might make it more interesting if fans had been voting since late 2008, and were now faced with the possibility that A-Rod may not suit up. Maybe Brandon Inge could slide in, or Longoria...Another interesting position is 1B in the NL. Pujols will probably run away with the votes, but I'll bet Joey Votto's stats measure up against Pujols' pretty well since the '08 ASG. It would direct fans to pay more attention to up and comers, therefore developing more "stars"...at least it could...there will always be the 300,000 automatic votes for Ichiro, and the casual "popularity contest" fans.

Second point: I think it definitely helps. Rest is huge in the playoffs. The play gets much more physical, and players get more banged up. The more time to heal, the better. I think the Bruins are strong enough to handle a break. The only possible catch - and this is specifically for the B's (although you could apply to any team in a similar situation) is that the Rangers are very hot right now. I could see the Rangers (and this is assuming they take care of Washington, which looks likely) coming in and giving the Bruins a hard time. You don't want to be down 0-1 to a team that's over-achieving and hot. That said, I'm not sure which scenario they'd like to see play out - the WASH/NYR series stretch to 7, and a tired, beat up team come in (either one), or the Rangers wrap it up in 5 and come in sooner, but hotter. I still lean towards rest being beneficial.

S: Stop forcing this ASG "debate" on me.

I agree - rest is good and I don't think they'll have a problem keeping the intensity rolling.

WR: Not looking to debate. I was listening to ESPN this morning and they were talking about it. Just think it's interesting.

I also think the Bruins are the better team (vs. both WSH and NYR), so that helps, too.

Any opinion on the whole "game one (of the Red Sox /Twins doubleheader called after 7 innings, yet they played another game that night" debate?

S: Well to be fair it was raining and they had played enough of the game to legally call it off. I might feel differently if it was a closer game. Is there a debate about this too?

WR: It depends. See, I'm not going overboard like some people, but there are a few ways to look at this. First - you are right, they could legally call it off. That, and it was the last time the Twins are in town all season. However, I do see the two counter arguments that I've heard as valid: First, it saves the Twins bullpen. That's where the "it wasn't a close game" thing gets sticky. I'm sure the Yankees would have loved to have forfeited their blowout loss last week when they were down by only 7, or 15 for that matter. It sure would have spared their bullpen. The other point is the business side of it. I'm sure the Red Sox are happy that they got to get both sets of fans through the gate yesterday. If they had held off and said, "We're going to finish the first game when it clears up" - they most likely would not have not gotten the second game in. I realize that all the seats are bought and paid for before hand, but concessions, etc are a cash cow.
Here's the real rub - both teams are off today.

S: If I hadn't left a tip for my friend at the beer stand I would have walked out with more money than I arrived with.

WR: I'm assuming there were tens of thousands of folks in attendance who did not experience your birthday luck.

S: Yeah but who cares about them? Have you heard about La-a?

WR: Spoken like a true Sox fan. Not sure if I know what La-a is. Los Angeles of Anaheim?

S: Not what, but who. (Link is to a story on writer Clay Travis' site, which highlights the following)

"My friend's wife is a kindergarten teacher in Baton Rouge. She has a student whose name is "La-a"- pronounced "Ladasha."She also has a student with two apostrophes in their first name. I give you, Mi'Ra'Ja. (prounounced 'mirage-a')

WR: I am floored by that. I honestly need a moment.

Remember that children's birthday/college drinking activity where you spin around with your forehead pivoting on an upright baseball bat, then try to run in a straight line? My description of said activity proves that it's the perfect analogy for my brain's current ability to maintain any sort of linear thought.

S: When someone told me that story I never saw that punch line coming. It goes something like, "the teacher reads off roll call on the first day of class and says `La ah' and the little girl responds, `it's Ladasha. the dash isn't silent.'" I thought it was awesome and it was at that moment that I decided to name my first born girl Lapostrophetisha.

WR: My son's name is yet to be decided, and this opens up so many possibilities. -er (Dasher), for one. :dre (Colondre) is another. Maybe La ia (Laspaceia) will catch on once it's my next cat's name. You know, I know it's different with animals, but I'll bet veterinarians see some pretty interesting names.

S: I like where this is going. Even traditional names could go this route, such as M@ (Matt) or S&y (Sandy or even Sampersandy). Then you have to decide where, if anywhere, does it end? How long before we see a Paπa (Papaya)?

P.S. I enjoyed Laspaceia a lot.

WR: I think the world is ready for this. Look at Prince got away (albeit briefly) with naming himself a symbol (right) for a while. If he had chosen a symbol that was on everyone's keyboard, and done this after the advent of the internet - and txting - it may have stuck. I guess the trick, in his case, is not getting called "Asterisk" or "Percent Sign." In our scenario, however, that's the intended result.

I don't think this needs to stop at names, either. You could visit your physician for a :oscopy. Generals could give the order to @ack. /er flicks, it goes on.

Try this one on: M&d.

S: What if the @ack order could also come from a Lieu10ant?

WR: Wow. I wonder if we could get the Star Wars fan lobby behind us. Here's the pitch: "Just promote this with us for a while. Endorse names like 4est and N8 and La ia. Then, once this is an accepted norm, you will be free to name your children C3PO and R2D2 without fear of them being ostracized.

S: How about itha?

WR: Not getting that one- Spaceitha? Blankitha?

S: Tabitha!

WR: We're approaching the fringe here. Hopefully we don't IZE.

S: Capsize or capitalize? Why not just IIIIII? (Capital I's? oh boy)

WR: The former. This is getting out of h&.

A Machiavellian Slip

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

- Kevin Bankston, Electronic Frontier Foundation

While the nation has been transfixed by high seas rescues and swashbuckling Navy SEALS, a far more ominous story has been flying under the nation's radar. Earlier this month, in it's first opportunity to make good on campaign promises of - as quoted above - "transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties" - the Obama administration filed a motion to dismiss a landmark lawsuit against the National Security Agency and several individuals within the administration (including Obama himself). The lawsuit in question is being brought by five U.S. citizens who claim their civil liberties were violated when the United States government, in partnership with telecommunications corporations (most notably AT&T), engaged in domestic, warrantless wiretapping.

Last July, amid the normal partisan campaign attacks and counter punches, came news that then Senator Obama was reversing his decision to hold these telecommunications companies partially accountable for their role in the warrantless searches. In an effort to subdue backlash from Obama supporters critical of this move, Congressional Democrats were quick to point out that only private companies were being granted this retroactive immunity, and that taking legal action against the government, and it's officials, were any wrong-doing to be uncovered, would be perfectly legal. As West Virginia senator Jay Rockefeller wrote in a Washington Post Op-ed:

"Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials."

In October, a suit was brought against the Bush administration for it's role in the scandal. Shortly thereafter, the suit was pushed to this month. The Bush administration was happy to see it go, and the plaintiffs were pleased by the prospect of bringing this case before the Obama administration. It turns out that the plaintiff's optimism was sorely misplaced. On April 3rd, attorneys for the government defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case due to, among other things, the tried and true Bush-isms of "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity." As if this were not disappointing enough, the filing goes further to undo any promise of government accountability - past and future - by citing provisions of 2001's USA Patriot Act. The provision cited expressly forbids citizens from bringing "suits against the United States for damages and equitable relief based on alleged violations of the Wiretap Act and ECPA, in both cases by permitting relief against only a 'person or entity other than the United States.' Congress enacted these express reservations of sovereign immunity in Section 223 of the Patriot Act of 2001." What this means for Americans is best summed up by Glenn Greenwald in his report for Salon.com:

"In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned."

This is a devastating blow to our civil liberties. In essence, this filing asserts that President Obama and his administration are not only free to continue to violate our basic rights and freedoms, but also hold themselves above any sort of accountability for these acts. This is a stance that hearkens back to the darkest times in our nation's history; not only the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, but to other infamous executives, as well.

"If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law...what I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, 'Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation.'"

-Richard M. Nixon

The problem with the collective rationales of Nixon, Bush, and now Obama, is that when these measures are implemented, they essentially dissolve the core of the nation they are designed to protect. Sadly, it seems that this newest administration will once again manipulate our system of government to expand it's power, instead of recognizing the core values of our society, wherein the Constitution is not designed to grant unto the government absolute power, it is in place to protect the inherent freedoms of the people, and to shield the people from the government itself if the government should so threaten them.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

Grand Old Party Time

In case you are one of the millions who, like me, tends not to tune into Fox News on a regular basis, I thought it might be important to make you aware of the events planned for this coming Wednesday, April 15th. Apparently, there are untold dozens around us who have the keen insight necessary to point out to the rest of us the obvious correlation between "taxation without representation" and "paying your taxes." Of course, since these denizens of freedom from "Obamapression" are predominantly conservative Republicans, they are rolling out their message of protest in accordance with their usual impeccable morality and tact.



Now, to be - ahem - fair to Fox News, none of their actual anchors use any questionable terminology themselves. However, this does nothing to take away from the sheer absurdity of this protest, it's message, and it's extensive coverage by "The Most Powerful Name in News."

On a related topic, details surrounding Ohio conservative's "green" transportation initiative, which calls for a return to steam based locomotion, remain sketchy. With the American auto industry on the brink of collapse, some Ohioans are hopeful that steam engine powered cars will provide a greener and more economic solution than socialist bailouts. Unnamed sources within the conservative movement are hopeful that The Cleveland Steamer will return America to automotive dominance by the end of the decade. Stay tuned.

Blog Rally to Help the Boston Globe

We have all read recently about the threat of possible closure faced by the Boston Globe. A number of Boston-based bloggers who care about the continued existence of the Globe have banded together in conducting a blog rally. We are simultaneously posting this paragraph to solicit your ideas of steps the Globe could take to improve its financial picture:

We view the Globe as an important community resource, and we think that lots of people in the region agree and might have creative ideas that might help in this situation. So, here's your chance. Please don't write with nasty comments and sarcasm: Use this forum for thoughtful and interesting steps you would recommend to the management that would improve readership, enhance the Globe's community presence, and make money. Who knows, someone here might come up with an idea that will work, or at least help. Thank you.

P.S. - To those of you who publish your own blog, please feel free to cut and paste this post for inclusion on your site.

Hockey Night in the NFL

Sport was the first topic of conversation on this site, so to mark the recent relaunch of Within Reason, I figured I would again turn to sports for what I hope will be an interesting topic.

The other day, I called into the local ESPN radio affiliate to lend my opinion to the discussion the hosts were having about fighting in the NHL. As is the norm on sports talk radio, there was a split in opinions between the hosts, one pro-fighting, and one against it. Personally, I am a staunch defender of this element of the game, and stated so - with marginal results - to the radio hosts. I shared my thoughts with fellow blogger Smack on a phone call later that day. This call spilled over into a series of emails over the course of two days. What follows is a transcript of those emails, which I think frame a great debate about not only the unique merits of an individual sport, but the merits of sport itself. Enjoy - and feel free to join the debate by posting a comment.

Smack: On my ride home yesterday I was thinking about your argument for fighting in hockey. I agree that tolerating fights serves a legitimate purpose. It gives the opposition something to think about before they knock out your star player or get too aggressive in the crease. It’s almost counter intuitive to think that fighting keeps the game clean, but it really does. Look at other sports that have similar elements which serve the same purpose. The NLL (box lacrosse) also tolerates fighting; it’s exactly like hockey. In baseball you’ve got a few options. There’s the popular high inside fastball, which sends a clear message. Still not getting it? How about a fastball to the kidney? If the officiating is a problem, the manager flips out and gets booted. Other options include sliding with the spikes up, charging the mound, or clearing the whole bench for a brawl. Ejections are dished out, but these are all ways of letting your opponent know about your zero tolerance policy.When it comes to basketball and football, though, I don’t see the equivalents. In football, quarterbacks are protected by yellow flags, not uniformed enforcers. Same with basketball: foul shots and ejections.What’s more effective? Or is the better question, what’s more entertaining? Could hockey ban fighting and serve the same purpose with bigger creases and more unnecessary roughness penalties?

Within Reason: Good points. This was one of the main aspects of the conversation I got in on with ESPN. See, I'm of the mind that there does not need to be a sport to sport equivalent for every element of a particular sport. What is basketball's version of the designated hitter, and in an argument about the DH, what other sports equivalents could you bring up (I know there are some, but none are really perfect)? Fighting is just a part of the NHL, just like pass interference - or better yet - illegal procedure (as opposed to the CFL) is part of the NFL. The point you bring up about QB protection, though, is a very good point. Special rules protect the QB in the NFL. Why? He's likely to be wearing more pads than anyone on the field - why can't you clean his clock like you would a WR coming across the middle on a slant? Even when trying to defend after throwing an INT, the QB is 'protected' - to a degree. It's just an accepted part of the game, and the reason is very similar. No one (save maybe Scott Pioli and the sad, sad residents of KC - and sick, twisted Patriot-haters) will agree that watching Matt Cassell last season was as entertaining as watching Tom Brady would have been. Same could be said for The Washington Capitols without Ovechkin, The Penguins without Crosby, or, going back, the Oilers without Gretzky. There is a specific function of the game, built into the rules of play (as opposed to outlawed) that regulates this.
Another main point gets at the second part of your statement. See, fighting is not "allowed" in many other sports (have to admit, not familiar with Lacrosse, so where you say "exactly" - I'll assume you get a major for instigation, or a game misconduct for a "brawl" situation, etc...) because you are ejected. It's not a penalty, or foul, to fight in other sports, it's the equivalent of bringing a foreign object on the field, or cheating - you're ejected.
As for the last point about entertainment - I absolutely agree. This again was a topic brought up in the ESPN conversation. When a marginal fan rails against an element of a sport, what does a league have to gain by appeasing to that fan? What major rule changes have ever broadened a sports base (again, I'm sure there are a few - but nothing Earth shattering comes to mind)? Marketing and on-field product - in that order - directly affect the size and scope of a fan base. Over expansion has slaughtered the level of play in the NHL - not to mention the fact that in order to fill out the rosters of these ridiculous franchises (Columbus, really?), teams have turned to a growing number of fight-hating European players. While this may cause some to think "Come on - Federov, Jagr, Ovechkin? These guys are great for the league - they're speedy scoring machines!" - none of them would score with dislocated shoulders and ruptured spleens. Even pride of Canada Sidney Crosby can't take the physical play of the NHL while being protected by fighting...imagine a "deregulated league" where each team in Crosby's division employs the equivalent of 3 4th lines to go out and "eliminate" Crosby every night. Team standings would read 1-5-35 - with the 35 ties being scoreless. Scoring is up because the game has opened up due to relaxed passing rules AND the continued presence of fighting. Both of these elements put people in seats. The NHL would be crazy to get rid of fighting. If there are 16,000 at the Garden tonight, how many die hards are back tomorrow if fighting is gone? And how many "new" fans of the friendlier, gentler WNHL would be waiting to fill those seats?
All in all, fighting GOOD.

S: Of course every sport has its caveats so it’s tough to make sweeping statements. That being said, EVERY sport DOES have a system for regulating the athletes’ conduct. In the NHL they use time serving penalties, ejections, and a certain level of toleration for fighting. The system protects the players and entertains the fans. When the question is simply, “Should fighting be allowed in the NHL?” I think there are a few things to consider:
1. Can you get the same result with different means? You didn’t really address this point. I think that you can. Going back to the NFL example, quarterbacks are protected by the threat of 15 yard penalties and costly fines. Ask Jarvis why he let go of Eli. The NHL could protect its players with harsher penalties that would be the equivalent of 15 yards and an automatic first down.

W R: I think this encapsulates how you are (possibly) missing the point. I'll use an example to explain. In 1974, Major League Baseball's American League thought "gee, how can we score more runs, and put more fannies in the seats? Score more runs! Well, since pitchers stink at hitting - usually - let's 'designate' some one to hit for them." So, what if in 2013 there's another strike? Attendance is down, and without McGwire, Sosa and undetectable PEDs, no home run chase is going to bring people back... "Hmmm...I know! Let's have 'offensive' and 'defensive' line-ups! I mean, catchers can't really hit, most short stops can't, how about 9 DHs for offense, and 9 position players?" Why not? See my point? That's just not how the sport is played. If you are framing this conversation (not you personally) with "I just don't understand why there is fighting in hockey" - you can leave the "why there is fighting in" out of that statement. You PERFECTLY sum up what effect on the sport this would potentially have with your "Why did Jarvis let go of Eli?" question: Because when there is ambiguity about the rules, players let up for fear of hurting their teams. There is no ambiguity surrounding repeated uppercuts to your face, no matter how tough you are.

S: 2. How would this affect the league? You did address this. Moms would be happy, but as you point out, they’re not the ones buying tickets. Merchandising would also suffer. Sure, there are lots of people wearing the jerseys of the goal scorers, but then there’s a huge contingent of fans that latch on to their favorite goon and buy the PJ Stock jerseys. TV ratings would go down, etc.

W R: I agree. Nothing to add, except that I think the core base of fans diminishes, too.

S: 3. A new point: what about the kids? Fighting in the NHL sets a bad example for children. Next thing you know, little Johnnie is dropping the gloves in Pee Wee hockey. But who’s really to blame, the NHL or the parents?

W R: Fighting is not allowed in any league other than the NHL. Youth, High School, College, etc all disallow fighting. Every sport has it's on and off field (or ice) issues that parents and coaches need to address with children. There is no epidemic of beanballs is youth baseball, to go back to a prior point of yours. Frankly, and I'm not pointing this directly at you, I'm a little sick of the "What about the children?" element invading every aspect of our society. What about the parent's ability to explain to their children "Don't fight in hockey (couldn't come up with a great, moral position there - so that's enough)."

S: Whether or not you support fighting really comes down to how you prioritize these issues. For the people that make the rules, it’s almost exclusively a question of money. Fighting’s not going anywhere.
Just to be clear, I’m a fan of the fights. And I do see your point that fighting is a part of the game and if you change the policy on fighting, you effectively change the game.But I still think a different means could be utilized to get the same desired effect. Whether Jarvis lets up because he’s afraid of a penalty or because he knows he and Plaxico will have to drop buckets following the play… He still lets up.

W R: Unless he is worried that Plax is going to shoot him, I disagree. Both teams are penalized equally in a fight - you are not hurting the team; when you are penalized in football, you hurt the team.
I understand you are a fan, sorry to get carried away with some of the illustrations. By fan, I mean "of mine."

S: Well then what purpose does fighting in the NHL serve other than fan entertainment? I thought you agreed that it’s a deterrent.

W R: You get punched in the face. It is a deterrent that people happen to like to watch.

S: So how do you reconcile “You get punched in the face. It is a deterrent that people happen to like to watch“ with “Unless he is worried that Plax is going to shoot him, I disagree”?
Either it’s deterrent (as is a penalty) or it’s not.

W R: You're splicing arguments. If that's how football worked, then fine. Sure, there would be a "goon" on the Giants who would clock Jarvis Green. Instead there is a penalty. So, yes, you could get rid of fighting and replace it with a penalty for "roughing the forward" - but you could also allow NBA centers to use butterfly nets in the Western Conference to keep scoring down, right?

S: "So, yes, you could get rid of fighting and replace it with a penalty for 'roughing the forward.'" That’s all I was looking for. Have a good evening.

W R: This is not over. You could get rid of the defensive line in football and replace it with a tennis net. You could get rid of the outfield in baseball and replace it with a dangerous, gator-infested swamp, but make the base baths a quarter mile long and shrink the game to three innings (that actually sounds awesome - I now officially "don't understand" these "short" base paths and "safe" outfields - they could be replaced).
Do you see what I mean? By saying "So, yes, you could get rid of fighting and replace it with a penalty for 'roughing the forward'" and following with "but you could also allow NBA centers to use butterfly nets in the Western Conference to keep scoring down, right?" I am implying that both are ridiculous (and deserve bonus points for the added analogy that driving down scoring in basketball would be a ratings downer just like eliminating fights from the NHL).

S: I don’t see how your basketball analogy is even relevant. If your goal is to drive down scoring and kill your ratings then yes, give them butterfly nets. But that’s not what I’m getting at.We agree that fighting in hockey results in more scoring. What I’m pointing out is that the NFL has accomplished this same result by different means. Fighting in hockey could be replaced by a rule change. I concede that removing the fighting element would hurt ratings and the integrity of the game.This is over. No bonus points.

W R: We are so close on this, yet so far away. We're saying the same things for different reasons. The basketball analogy is totally relevant, at least more relevant than your NFL analogy - and here's why: Protecting the quarterback in the NFL is strictly a marketing move, not a rule change to help scoring. Pass interference rule changes were put in place to drive up scoring. Same with the NHL easing up on icing and passing restrictions - it has driven up scoring. They've flirted with making the net bigger - fine. Eliminating fighting in the NHL would be an equivalent of butterfly nets in the NBA - 1. Makes no sense, 2. Drives down scoring 3. Upsets fan base.

S: There have been a slew of NFL rule changes that generate more offense. I’m not just talking about protecting the QB. And you’re just plain wrong that protecting the showcase QBs doesn’t help scoring. Look at the Patriots minus Brady. They went from setting records to winning games by clock management.Eliminating fighting would only drive down scoring if you didn’t replace it with rules that protect the offense. We don’t even have to get into the specifics of what those rules might be because it’s beyond the scope of my argument. I’m not in favor of it but it is an option, as demonstrated by the NFL.

W R: See, I still disagree. Protecting the QB has a lot less to do with scoring than I think you give it credit for. The problem with the Pats was that Cassell, despite his later successes, was not ready to handle the offense. If you remember, most folks thought Cassell was up to be cut in the preseason. Joe Flacco was a backup at the start of this season, and Baltimore's scoring was UP compared to years past once he took over (at the start of the season). I could make the case that the Steelers would have scored more with Leftwitch than Big Ben, and then strangely bolster that by pointing out that once Leftwitch was out of Jacksonville, the Jags fared better offensively with Gerrard (at least for one year). Quarterbacks are protected because they are named Brady, Manning, Aikman, Marino. I just don't think it's as apples to apples as you're asserting.

S: Well as far as apples to apples, the rule change would have to be unique to hockey since it’s a unique sport. I’m not saying that an NFL rule would directly translate, but I think the principle could be the same.You’re using exceptions to argue your point about QBs. Brady, Manning, Aikman and Marino are all Hall of Famers and when they are out of the game, scores are lower. Brady himself was an exception when he replaced an injured Bledsoe.

W R: If I can make this many cases, how can they be exceptions?

S: Well you made 2 cases and speculated another. Are you seriously arguing that more QB injuries wouldn’t affect scoring? You think that in the majority of NFL franchises there’s no drop off in offensive production from the starter to the backup?

W R: Not a substantial one. If you have an elite QB, sure - but how many elite QBs are there that are THAT much better than their backups? And here are some more "exceptions" Kurt Warner this year, Tony Romo 2 years ago, Derek Anderson 2 years ago, NY Giants in 1989 (Hostetler replacing Simms), the only undefeated team in NFL history, we could really go on and on...
The rule is in place because of interest in the actual QBs - pink Patriots hats, if you will. Not to protect scoring.

S: Agree to disagree. I think that the direction the NFL has been heading speaks for itself. Most teams don’t have Kurt Warners or Tony Romos as backups. They have Scott Zolaks.

W R: Most teams don't have elite QBs
AFC East, opening day, 2008: Trent Edwards (backed up by JP Lossman). Chad Pennington (backed up by John Beck) Brett Favre (backed up by Kellen Clemens) Tom Brady (backed up by Matt Cassell). One elite QB, and maybe one other case where there's a decent drop (Miami, though Chad Pennington will never be accused of lighting the scoreboard on fire).
AFC South opening day, 2008: Vince Young (backed up by Kerry Collins) David Garrard (backed up by Cleo Lemon) Peyton Manning (backed up by Jim Sorgi) Matt Schaub (backed up by Sage Rosenfels). One elite QB, one case that might be the biggest "miss" of my prior email (Kerry Collins) and 2 other very strong cases. I randomly picked this division, by the way - and won't go through the rest, but I think my point is clear. In very few cases is there an "Well, we just went from 13-3 to 7--9" when a QB goes down. In fact, you can argue that it HELPS as often as it hurts.

S: I think there are some cases where there is significant drop off:

NE Brady/Cassel. 2007 12 games 30+ pts compared with 2008 6 games 30+ pts.

CIN Palmer/Fitzpatrick

NYG Manning/CarrPHI McNabb/Kolb

IND Manning/Sorgi

NYJ Favre/Clemens or Ratliff

JAX Garrard/Lemon
Then the majority of teams fall in the middle where there is some drop off. I’m talking noticeable score differences and a few W’s become L’s.
Then there are a FEW teams where there would be a negligible drop off or an unexpected (or fluke) gain. WSH Collins/Campbell, TB Griese/Garcia, TN Collins/Young, CLE Quinn/Anderson, MIA Henne/Pennington (this is my potential unexpected gain scenario). I think I hit all of them.
I don’t buy that a starter going down helps as often as it hurts. I think any W’s that a backup can get are accentuated because of lowered expectations and would have been W’s with the original starter. Most New Englanders were very pleased with Cassel’s performance this year, but do you think they would be pleased if Brady hadn’t been injured and the Pats had missed the playoffs? No way.

W R: Right off the bat I disagree with Favre (stunk last year - gone now, in favor of Clemens), Palmer (never going to be what he was pre-knee injury) and Garrard (unless he has another "magical" season like '07 - read "best rushing game in the division" - he won't finish the year as the JAX QB). I only marginally agree about Manning (NYG), who has never really shown me he's anything more than a solid running game and a great defensive line...
Your point about NE is moot: Brady is an elite QB. No one says "You know, I really would like to have seen what Bledsoe could have done with the 2001 Pats." Even better - you can make the argument that the Pats don't beat Pittsburgh in the playoffs that year without BACKUP Drew Bledsoe.
You are totally over rating the SCORING importance of a QB. Vick was more of a scoring threat than Matt Ryan, right? In fantasy land, if Vick came back to ATL, who would back up who?

S: There’s no running game without a passing threat (and vice versa).
You are under rating the importance of QBs. Any scoring aside from pick-6’s is orchestrated by the QB. He throws the ball, opens up the running game, gets within field goal range, and/or runs for the TD himself. In some instances you see the QB in a position to actually catch a TD pass as well.
Vick is more of a scoring threat as a scrambler. Who starts comes down to who produces more, because he’s the bigger threat.

W R: You know - I was going to blast you with more statistics about QBs, but let's end this here. It's hard to quantify my point, because for every example I give of successful backups, I can remind myself of a time when I have thought "They can draft all the (insert non-elite QB positions here) they want, Team X isn't going anywhere until they figure out who's going to play QB." Of course, I counter that (in my head) with "Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer...non-elite QBs won 2 Super Bowls this decade, and the rest were Brady, Mannings and Roethlisberger (not sure on the spelling). On and on, back and forth.
We'll close with this - if they took fighting out of hockey, that's just one less talking point for hockey.

S: Bringing us back to your original argument, harsh roughing the passer penalties weren’t introduced to protect the Johnsons and Dilfers. They were introduced to protect the Bradys and Mannings; guys that DO make the most significant scoring differences on their respective teams. They’re also the QBs whose names alone make a lot of money for the league so our argument is basically a chicken or the egg debate.

W R: You had to get that last little remark...
The reason Bradys and Mannings are protected has more to do with marketing than scoring and winning. I know we're all trying to get all of those Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson commercials out of our heads from the beginning of the decade, but I need to warn you that word on the street is that Seneca Wallace can really pitch a killer tag line. Sometimes I wonder if they even let Dilfer and Johnson into the park at Disney for free.
We'll close with this - if they took fighting out of hockey, that's just one less talking point for hockey.

S: So if the leading goal scorers were marketing cash cows instead of toothless goons with accents, do you suppose we’d see an end to fighting and mandated facemasks?

W R: What do you mean "if"? Outside of Manitoba, the ony hockey player I can think of with any endorsements whatsoever is Sidney Crosby. Before he was identified as a China Doll, Patrice Bergeron was the "face of the Bruins." Gretzky had endorsements. You may think I'm making your point, but I'm not. To really prove my point, wehn Zdeno Chara was brought on board with the Bruins, there was a legitimate and ongoing debate about whether a non-scoring defenseman could be the face of a franchise.
Maybe I'm not getting your point - are you saying that leading goal scorers ARE toothless goons with accents? Have you seen Sidney Crosby? Peyton Manning is a toothless, noseless, limbless pulp of a goon next to him.
Leading goal scorers are marketing cash cows, relatively speaking, in the great white north with the game just the way it is.
If you got rid of fighting, put face cages on every helmet, and put in place "roughing the forward" - you would see the NHL cease operations within 2 years.
WE'LL CLOSE WITH THIS - if they took fighting out of hockey, that's just one less talking point for hockey.

S: Last word.

T.V. Land

Alex P. Keaton Jumps the Shark

This is Jonathan Krohn. Jonathan is 14. Jonathan recently spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. Jonathan was also recently featured in a New York Times article, which I invite you to read before continuing with this post.

Now I invite you to watch Jonathan's CPAC speech:



Again, Jonathan is only 14, so he can be excused for his words and actions. The same cannot be said, however, for both the organizers of this event, and those in attendance, who gave this young man a standing ovation. This is not to imply that Mr. Kohn should have been booed off of the stage, but at any point did the organizers of this event think, "Ahhh, maybe in a few years, Johnathan," and did anyone in the audience think "Why am I standing and clapping? Has it come to this? That was literally two and a half minutes of nothing...from a fourteen year-old." The answer is no. In fact, Johnathan is the new darling of the conservative arm of the Republican Party.

Now, I invite you to enter the first contest in the brief history of this website. Commenters are invited to offer their best summation of the phenomenon we experience with young Mr. Kohn, wherein some one so perfectly embodies the characteristics of an ideal, object or, in this case, political party that they become a living metaphor.

It Seems Like Only Yesterday...

Never Forget

In January Harper's Magazine published a special edition of their monthly Harper's Index, this time focusing on the notable moments and achievements of our former president, George W. Bush. One notable exception, and my personal favorite, is February 22nd, 2006, when Bush announced plans to sell control of United States seaports to a firm from The United Arab Emirates, proving that Bush, as Bill Maher so eloquently stated "would try to sell The Red Cross to Dracula." So here, for your reading pleasure, is a compilation of both interesting facts - and the next few dozen problems we'll find out Barack Obama caused while George W. Bush was president.

Reprinted from Harper's Magazine, January 2009

HARPER’S INDEX

Number of news stories from 1998 to Election Day 2000 containing “George W. Bush” and “aura of inevitability” : 206

Amount for which Bush successfully sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car in 1999 : $2,500

Year in which a political candidate first sued Palm Beach County over problems with hanging chads : 1984

Total amount the Bush campaign paid Enron and Halliburton for use of corporate jets during the 2000 recount : $15,400

Percentage of Bush’s first 189 appointees who also served in his father’s administration : 42

Minimum number of Bush appointees who have regulated industries they used to represent as lobbyists : 98

Years before becoming energy secretary that Spencer Abraham cosponsored a bill to abolish the Department of Energy : 2

Number of Chevron oil tankers named after Condoleezza Rice, at the time she became foreign policy adviser : 1

Date on which the GAO sued Dick Cheney to force the release of documents related to current U.S. energy policy : 2/22/02

Number of other officials the GAO has sued over access to federal records : 0

Months before September 11, 2001, that Cheney’s Energy Task Force investigated Iraq’s oil resources : 6

Hours after the 9/11 attacks that an Alaska congressman speculated they may have been committed by “eco-terrorists” : 9

Date on which the first contract for a book about September 11 was signed : 9/13/01

Number of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and North African men detained in the U.S. in the eight weeks after 9/11 : 1,182

Number of them ever charged with a terrorism-related crime : 0

Number charged with an immigration violation : 762

Days since the federal government first placed the nation under an “elevated terror alert” that the level has been relaxed : 0

Minimum number of calls the FBI received in fall 2001 from Utah residents claiming to have seen Osama bin Laden : 20

Number of box cutters taken from U.S. airline passengers since January 2002 : 105,075

Percentage of Americans in 2006 who believed that U.S. Muslims should have to carry special I.D. : 39

Chances an American in 2002 believed the government should regulate comedy routines that make light of terrorism : 2 in 5

Rank of Mom, Dad, and Rudolph Giuliani among those whom 2002 college graduates said they most wished to emulate : 1, 2, 3

Number of members of the rock band Anthrax who said they hoarded Cipro so as to avoid an “ironic death” : 1

Estimated total calories members of Congress burned giving Bush’s 2002 State of the Union standing ovations : 22,000

Percentage of the amendments in the Bill of Rights that are violated by the USA PATRIOT Act, according to the ACLU : 50

Minimum number of laws that Bush signing statements have exempted his administration from following : 1,069

Estimated number of U.S. intelligence reports on Iraq that were based on information from a single defector : 100

Number of times the defector had ever been interviewed by U.S. intelligence agents : 0

Date on which Bush said of Osama bin Laden, “I truly am not that concerned about him” : 3/13/02

Days after the U.S. invaded Iraq that Sony trademarked “Shock & Awe” for video games : 1

Days later that the company gave up the trademark, citing “regrettable bad judgment” : 25

Number of books by Henry Kissinger found in Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz’s mansion : 2

Number by then–New York Times reporter Judith Miller : 1

Factor by which an Iraqi in 2006 was more likely to die than in the last year of the Saddam regime : 3.6

Factor by which the cause of death was more likely to be violence : 120

Chance that an Iraqi has fled his or her home since the beginning of the war : 1 in 6

Portion of Baghdad residents in 2007 who had a family member or friend wounded or killed since 2003 : 3/4

Percentage of U.S. veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who have filed for disability with the VA : 35

Chance that an Iraq war veteran who has served two or more tours now has post-traumatic stress disorder : 1 in 4

Number of all U.S. war veterans who have been denied Veterans Administration health care since 2003 : 452,677

Number of eligibility restrictions for admission into the Army that have been loosened since 2003 : 9

Percentage change from 2004 to 2007 in the number of Army recruits admitted despite having been charged with a felony : +295

Date on which the White House announced it had stopped looking for WMDs in Iraq : 1/12/05

Minimum number of close-up photographs of Bush’s hands owned by his current chief of staff, Josh Bolten : 4

Number of vehicles in the motorcade that transports Bush to his regular bike ride in Maryland : 6

Estimated total miles he has ridden his bike as president : 5,400

Portion of his presidency he has spent at or en route to vacation spots : 1/3

Minimum number of times that Frederick Douglass was beaten in what is now Donald Rumsfeld’s vacation home : 25

Estimated number of juveniles whom the United States has detained as enemy combatants since 2002 : 2,500

Minimum number of detainees who were tortured to death in U.S. custody : 8

Minimum number of extraordinary renditions that the United States has made since 2006 : 200

Date on which USA Today added Guantánamo to its weather map : 1/3/05

Number of incidents of torture on prime-time network TV shows from 2002 to 2007 : 897

Number on shows during the previous seven years : 110

Percentage change since 2000 in U.S. emigration to Canada : +79

Number of the thirty-eight Iraq war veterans who have run for Congress who were Democrats : 21

Percentage of Republicans in 2005 who said they would vote for Bush over George Washington : 62

Seconds it took a Maryland consultant in 2004 to pick a Diebold voting machine’s lock and remove its memory card : 10

Number of states John Kerry would have won in 2004 if votes by poor Americans were the only ones counted : 40

Number if votes by rich Americans were the only ones counted : 4

Portion of all U.S. income gains during the Bush Administration that have gone to the top 1 percent of earners : 3/4

Increase since 2000 in the number of Americans living at less than half the federal poverty level : 3,500,000

Percentage change since 2001 in the average amount U.S. workers spend on out-of-pocket medical expenses : +172

Estimated percentage by which Social Security benefits would have declined if Bush’s privatization plan had passed : –15

Percentage change since 2002 in the number of U.S. teens using illegal drugs : –9

Percentage change in the number of adults in their fifties doing so : +121

Number of times FDA officials met with consumer and patient groups as they revised drug-review policy in 2006 : 5

Number of times they met with industry representatives : 113

Amount the Justice Department spent in 2001 installing curtains to cover two seminude statues of Justice : $8,650

Number of Republican officials who have been investigated by the Justice Department since 2001 : 196

Number of Democratic officials who have been : 890

Number of White House officials in 2006 and 2007 authorized to discuss pending criminal cases with the DOJ : 711

Number of Clinton officials ever authorized to do so : 4

Years since a White House official as senior as I. Lewis Libby had been indicted while in office : 130

Number of U.S. cities and towns that have passed resolutions calling for the impeachment of President Bush : 92

Percentage change since 2001 in U.S. government spending on paper shredding : +466

Percentage of EPA scientists who say they have experienced political interference with their work since 2002 : 60

Change since 2001 in the percentage of Americans who believe humans are causing climate change : –4

Number of total additions made to the U.S. endangered-species list under Bush : 61

Average number made yearly under Clinton : 65

Minimum number of pheasant hunts Dick Cheney has gone on since he shot a hunting companion in 2006 : 5

Days after Hurricane Katrina hit that Cheney’s office ordered an electric company to restore power to two oil pipelines : 1

Days after the hurricane that the White House authorized sending federal troops into New Orleans : 4

Portion of the $3.3 billion in federal Hurricane Katrina relief spent by Mississippi that has benefited poor residents : 1/4

Percentage change in the number of Louisiana and Mississippi newborns named Katrina in the year after the storm : +153

Rank of Nevaeh, “heaven” spelled backward, among the fastest growing names given to American newborns since 2000 : 1

Months, beginning in 2001, that the federal government’s online condom fact sheet disappeared from its website : 17

Minimum amount that religious groups received in congressional earmarks from 2003 to 2006 : $209,000,000

Amount such groups received during the previous fourteen years : $107,000,000

Percentage change from 2003 to 2007 in the amount of money invested in U.S. faith-based mutual funds : +88

Average annualized percentage return during that time in the Christian and Muslim funds, respectively : +11, +15

Number of feet the Ground Zero pit has been built up since the site was fully cleared in 2002 : 30

Number of 980-foot-plus “Super Tall” towers built in the Arab world in the seven years since 9/11 : 4

Year by which the third and final phase of the 2003 “road map” to a Palestinian state was to have been reached : 2005

Estimated number of the twenty-five provisions of the first phase that have yet to be completed : 12

Number of times in 2007 that U.S. media called General David Petraeus “King David” : 14

Percentage change during the first ten months of the Iraq war “surge” in the number of Iraqis detained in U.S.-run prisons : +63

Percentage change in the number of Iraqis aged nine to seventeen detained : +285

Ratio of the entire U.S. federal budget in 1957, adjusted for inflation, to the amount spent so far on the Iraq war : 1:1

Estimated amount Bush-era policies will cost the U.S. in new debt and accrued obligations : $10,350,000,000,000

Percentage change in U.S. discretionary spending during Bush’s presidency : +31

Percentage change during Reagan’s and Clinton’s, respectively : +16, +0.3

Ratio in 1999 of the number of U.S. federal employees to the number of private employees on government contracts : 15:6

Ratio in 2006 : 14:15

Total value of U.S. government contracts in 2000 that were awarded without competitive bidding : $73,000,000,000

Total in 2007 : $146,000,000,000

Number of the five directors of the No Child Left Behind reading program with financial ties to a curriculum they developed : 4

Amount by which the federal government has underfunded its estimated cost to implement NCLB : $71,000,000,000

Minimum number of copies sold, since it was released in 2006, of Flipping Houses for Dummies : 45,000

Chance that the buyer of a U.S. home in 2006 now has “negative equity,” i.e., the debt on the home exceeds its value : 1 in 5

Estimated value of Henry Paulson’s Goldman Sachs stock when he became Treasury Secretary and sold it : $575,000,000

Estimated value of that stock today : $238,000,000

Salary in 2006 of the White House’s newly created Director for Lessons Learned : $106,641

Minimum number of Bush-related books published since 2001 : 606

Number of words in the first sentence of Bill Clinton’s memoir and in that of George W. Bush’s, respectively : 49, 5

Minimum number of nicknames Bush has given to associates during his presidency : 75

Number of associates with the last name Jackson he has dubbed “Action Jackson” : 2

Number of press conferences at which Bush has referred to a question as a “trick” : 14

Number of times he has declared an event or outcome not to be “acceptable” : 149

Rank of Bush among U.S. presidents with the highest disapproval rating : 1

Average percentage of Americans who approved of the job Bush was doing during his second term : 37

Percentage of Russians today who approve of the direction their country took under Stalin : 37