On the Summers' resignation and the role of gov't in science:
Summers merely pointed out at a faculty meeting that maybe, just maybe, the reason there aren't as many women as men in the sciences is because there are fundamental differences between men and women. Apparently, Harvard faculty chose to close their eyes, ignore the research and cling to the belief that women are discriminated against in science. They demanded an apology from Summers for citing some research which might indicate their deeply held personal beliefs were incorrect. What a bunch of idiots.
Second, since the majority of research money comes from the gov't, why shouldn't it dictate or regulate where and to whom that money goes? It already does with the current NIH review system, which is why some projects get funded and others don't. I don't know if this is the best system for funding public research; another option is one in which every project gets funded (regardless of rationale, success rates, etc).
Finally, why is research into genetic differences between men, women and analytical reasoning faculties not worthwhile science? It seems to me that is a fascinating area with the potential to explain how human brains work with regard to the ability to reason. Sure it's obvious that there are difference between men and women but no one knows why some are Stephen Hawkings and Einsteins while others are Britney Spears (to look at the extremes).
Monday, February 27, 2006
Friday, February 24, 2006
Re: Bad News
Pretty sure I don't need science to tell me that women's brains aren't as analytically and rationally programmed as men's (hence their lesser numbers in science fields). I'm also fairly certain that political currents have no place in science and that it's not the government's job to regulate scientific research. But whatever.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
NSA Surveillance
The question of the President's Article II power aside, Sen. Feinstein's position that such a power can be bound by FISA or any other legislation seems self-evidently wrong. If the President has the Constitutional authority, Congress cannot change the fact.
The President has some recent precedent on his side. In 2002, the three judges of the FISA Court of Review addressed the issue in In re: Sealed Case. The FISA courts had been impeding the Justice Department's initiation of new policies concerning the Patriot Act, i.e. tearing down "the wall" between intelligence officials and criminal investigators erected by the Clinton Justice Department. The Court of Review ruled in favor of the administration as the FISA courts had no grounds upon which to direct internal Justice Dept. policy. Basically, the FISA courts were exceeding their constitutional bounds. They had no constitutional authority to direct the executive branch nor did Congress. The Court went on to refer to an older case, Truong, stating, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information... FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." The Supreme Court refused to take the case.
It is also interesting to note that the New York Times sat on the story for a year. Its release was conveniently timed with debate over the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the release of a Times' reporter's anti-administration book, one topic of which was "domestic spying". Further, members of Congress had been alerted to the program multiple times and voiced no concern. Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she had been briefed on the program since 2003 and thought it was "essential to US national security." When the Times finally ran the story and the "scandal" hubbub began, Harman changed her tune.
There was plenty of media outcry about the arguably less dangerous Valerie Plame leak. What is not getting much play in the media is the danger caused or that could be caused by leaks about the NSA program. Hmm... I wonder why...
The President has some recent precedent on his side. In 2002, the three judges of the FISA Court of Review addressed the issue in In re: Sealed Case. The FISA courts had been impeding the Justice Department's initiation of new policies concerning the Patriot Act, i.e. tearing down "the wall" between intelligence officials and criminal investigators erected by the Clinton Justice Department. The Court of Review ruled in favor of the administration as the FISA courts had no grounds upon which to direct internal Justice Dept. policy. Basically, the FISA courts were exceeding their constitutional bounds. They had no constitutional authority to direct the executive branch nor did Congress. The Court went on to refer to an older case, Truong, stating, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information... FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." The Supreme Court refused to take the case.
It is also interesting to note that the New York Times sat on the story for a year. Its release was conveniently timed with debate over the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the release of a Times' reporter's anti-administration book, one topic of which was "domestic spying". Further, members of Congress had been alerted to the program multiple times and voiced no concern. Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she had been briefed on the program since 2003 and thought it was "essential to US national security." When the Times finally ran the story and the "scandal" hubbub began, Harman changed her tune.
There was plenty of media outcry about the arguably less dangerous Valerie Plame leak. What is not getting much play in the media is the danger caused or that could be caused by leaks about the NSA program. Hmm... I wonder why...
Bad news...
...Larry Summers, former Clinton administration official, has resigned as Harvard President. The general consensus is that Harvard's feminists have succeeded in pushing him out. Here is an article pointing out the threat to academic freedom especially in scientific endeavor into the difference in male and female biology and brain function.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Here....
Sorry I couldn't just paste the link; I got this from a subscription database on campus.
----------------------------------
Knight Ridder Washington Bureau (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service) Jan 23, 2006 pNA
Presidential power a key issue in debate over eavesdropping. Byline: Ron Hutcheson
WASHINGTON _ The dispute over President Bush's domestic spying program hinges on the same tough question that vexed the nation's founders: How much power does a president have?
Bush and his legal advisers argue that the Constitution and federal law give him the right to authorize domestic eavesdropping without a warrant from a court or specific approval from Congress. The electronic surveillance, conducted by the super-secret National Security Agency, is aimed at communications between the United States and suspected terrorists overseas.
Bush's critics, citing the same legal sources, charge that he exceeded his legal and constitutional authority and could be impeached for breaking the law.
Here's a look at the legal underpinnings of the controversy:
THE CONSTITUTION
The foundation for Bush's view of his authority is Article II of the Constitution, which says "the president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
No one disputes that the president has broad power to protect the nation in wartime or that he's the civilian boss of the military, but there's sharp disagreement over the extent of presidential authority. Bush says the constitutional clause empowers him to use any and all available tools _ including electronic surveillance _ to guard against terrorist attacks.
"My most important job is to protect the security of the American people," the president said Monday at Kansas State University. "What I'm telling you is we're using all assets at our disposal to protect you in a different kind of war."
The Constitution is a carefully constructed system of checks and balances, many of which are intended to limit presidential power.
For example, it gives Congress _ not the president _ the power to declare war, "to raise and support armies," to maintain a navy and to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
The Fourth Amendment guarantees people the right to be secure from "unreasonable searches and seizures." No court shall issue a search warrant, it says, except upon a showing that there's "probable cause" to think that a law is being broken and the warrant seeker describes the specific place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
Critics say Bush's assertion of power recognizes no limits to his authority so long as he's acting to protect America from harm.
Previous Supreme Court rulings also check presidential authority.
In 1952, the court blocked President Harry S Truman's plan to take over the steel industry during the Korean War. The court rejected Truman's assertion that his role as commander in chief gave him the power to avert a labor strike that might disrupt war supplies.
In 2004, the court directly challenged Bush's sweeping claim of wartime powers in the fight against terrorism. The justices agreed that Bush could detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, but said he couldn't deny the captives access to the courts.
"We have long since made it clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.
FEDERAL LAW
Bush and his advisers contend that Congress "confirmed and supplemented" the president's constitutional power by authorizing the use of force against terrorists three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Lawmakers authorized the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" involved in the attacks.
In a recent 42-page statement on the eavesdropping issue, the Bush Justice Department contended that the congressional resolution, coupled with the president's authority as commander in chief, "places the president at the zenith of his powers" to wage war.
"Electronic surveillance is a fundamental tool of war that must be included in any natural reading of the (resolution's) authorization to use `all necessary and appropriate force,'" the Justice Department contended.
Bush's critics say employing the use-of-force resolution to justify domestic surveillance is a stretch.
"It does not authorize the president to do anything other than use force. It doesn't say he can wiretap people in the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
The critics charge that Bush's approach violates the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Congress passed that act in response to abuses of power during the Nixon administration that included electronic surveillance of the president's political opponents and critics in the news media.
The law also was intended to plug a gap in the legal framework that governs federal eavesdropping. The government has wide latitude to spy overseas for national security, but domestic eavesdropping is far more sensitive.
FISA asserts that electronic surveillance within the United States requires court oversight to avoid running afoul of the prohibition against unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment.
FISA established a special court to deal with secret intelligence investigations, and requires warrants for electronic surveillance in cases that involve national security. If government agents need to move quickly, they're permitted to act first and then have up to three days to get court warrants.
FISA makes it a crime to engage in electronic surveillance outside the statute's framework, unless another law authorizes it.
Bush advisers say technological advances and the unique nature of the war on terrorism made the FISA warrant procedure unworkable. They say they considered asking Congress to update the law, but decided against it to avoid possible disclosure of the government's intelligence-gathering techniques.
They contend that the congressional use-of-force resolution and the president's constitutional power as commander in chief override FISA.
"It would be unreasonable and wholly impractical to demand that Congress specifically amend FISA in order to assist the president in defending the nation," the Justice Department said.
But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, concluded in a report Jan. 5 that the administration's legal justification "does not seem to be as well-grounded" as Bush's advisers claim.
The report also questioned the notion that Bush could simply ignore FISA.
"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations ... ," it said.
"While courts have generally accepted that the president has the power to conduct domestic electronic surveillance within the United States inside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power."
Administration officials say they can bypass FISA and use a lower legal standard than the act requires and than the language in the Fourth Amendment calls for in deciding when to eavesdrop. FISA requires federal agents to demonstrate that there's "probable cause" in order to get an eavesdropping warrant, the same language used in the amendment. The National Security Agency, acting without court oversight, says it engages in electronic surveillance if it considers the eavesdropping "reasonable."
"The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al-Qaida or one of its affiliates," Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, one architect of the eavesdropping, said Monday at the National Press Club.
Bush's critics charge that the administration's position is an unprecedented power grab that calls into question the president's commitment to rule of law.
"Congress established the FISA court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap," former Vice President Al Gore charged last week.
"FISA does not contain a provision allowing the president to waive its application," Feinstein said. "If the law needed changing, we could have done so."
Senate hearings on the issue are scheduled for next month. Civil liberties groups have sued seeking to shut down the eavesdropping program. Bush says he won't back down.
___
To learn more online:
For the Congressional Research Service report, go to www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
For President Bush's remarks Monday and other information on his position, go to www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity
For the American Civil Liberties Union's view, go to www.aclu.org
For a white paper from the Justice Department on the NSA's eavesdropping, go to www.realcities.com/multimedia/nationalchannel/news/KRT(underline)Packages/archive/krwashington/NSA-White-paper.pdf
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is at www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleiv
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, on the president's role as commander in chief is at www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2
----------------------------------
Knight Ridder Washington Bureau (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service) Jan 23, 2006 pNA
Presidential power a key issue in debate over eavesdropping. Byline: Ron Hutcheson
WASHINGTON _ The dispute over President Bush's domestic spying program hinges on the same tough question that vexed the nation's founders: How much power does a president have?
Bush and his legal advisers argue that the Constitution and federal law give him the right to authorize domestic eavesdropping without a warrant from a court or specific approval from Congress. The electronic surveillance, conducted by the super-secret National Security Agency, is aimed at communications between the United States and suspected terrorists overseas.
Bush's critics, citing the same legal sources, charge that he exceeded his legal and constitutional authority and could be impeached for breaking the law.
Here's a look at the legal underpinnings of the controversy:
THE CONSTITUTION
The foundation for Bush's view of his authority is Article II of the Constitution, which says "the president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
No one disputes that the president has broad power to protect the nation in wartime or that he's the civilian boss of the military, but there's sharp disagreement over the extent of presidential authority. Bush says the constitutional clause empowers him to use any and all available tools _ including electronic surveillance _ to guard against terrorist attacks.
"My most important job is to protect the security of the American people," the president said Monday at Kansas State University. "What I'm telling you is we're using all assets at our disposal to protect you in a different kind of war."
The Constitution is a carefully constructed system of checks and balances, many of which are intended to limit presidential power.
For example, it gives Congress _ not the president _ the power to declare war, "to raise and support armies," to maintain a navy and to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
The Fourth Amendment guarantees people the right to be secure from "unreasonable searches and seizures." No court shall issue a search warrant, it says, except upon a showing that there's "probable cause" to think that a law is being broken and the warrant seeker describes the specific place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
Critics say Bush's assertion of power recognizes no limits to his authority so long as he's acting to protect America from harm.
Previous Supreme Court rulings also check presidential authority.
In 1952, the court blocked President Harry S Truman's plan to take over the steel industry during the Korean War. The court rejected Truman's assertion that his role as commander in chief gave him the power to avert a labor strike that might disrupt war supplies.
In 2004, the court directly challenged Bush's sweeping claim of wartime powers in the fight against terrorism. The justices agreed that Bush could detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, but said he couldn't deny the captives access to the courts.
"We have long since made it clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.
FEDERAL LAW
Bush and his advisers contend that Congress "confirmed and supplemented" the president's constitutional power by authorizing the use of force against terrorists three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Lawmakers authorized the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" involved in the attacks.
In a recent 42-page statement on the eavesdropping issue, the Bush Justice Department contended that the congressional resolution, coupled with the president's authority as commander in chief, "places the president at the zenith of his powers" to wage war.
"Electronic surveillance is a fundamental tool of war that must be included in any natural reading of the (resolution's) authorization to use `all necessary and appropriate force,'" the Justice Department contended.
Bush's critics say employing the use-of-force resolution to justify domestic surveillance is a stretch.
"It does not authorize the president to do anything other than use force. It doesn't say he can wiretap people in the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
The critics charge that Bush's approach violates the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Congress passed that act in response to abuses of power during the Nixon administration that included electronic surveillance of the president's political opponents and critics in the news media.
The law also was intended to plug a gap in the legal framework that governs federal eavesdropping. The government has wide latitude to spy overseas for national security, but domestic eavesdropping is far more sensitive.
FISA asserts that electronic surveillance within the United States requires court oversight to avoid running afoul of the prohibition against unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment.
FISA established a special court to deal with secret intelligence investigations, and requires warrants for electronic surveillance in cases that involve national security. If government agents need to move quickly, they're permitted to act first and then have up to three days to get court warrants.
FISA makes it a crime to engage in electronic surveillance outside the statute's framework, unless another law authorizes it.
Bush advisers say technological advances and the unique nature of the war on terrorism made the FISA warrant procedure unworkable. They say they considered asking Congress to update the law, but decided against it to avoid possible disclosure of the government's intelligence-gathering techniques.
They contend that the congressional use-of-force resolution and the president's constitutional power as commander in chief override FISA.
"It would be unreasonable and wholly impractical to demand that Congress specifically amend FISA in order to assist the president in defending the nation," the Justice Department said.
But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, concluded in a report Jan. 5 that the administration's legal justification "does not seem to be as well-grounded" as Bush's advisers claim.
The report also questioned the notion that Bush could simply ignore FISA.
"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations ... ," it said.
"While courts have generally accepted that the president has the power to conduct domestic electronic surveillance within the United States inside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power."
Administration officials say they can bypass FISA and use a lower legal standard than the act requires and than the language in the Fourth Amendment calls for in deciding when to eavesdrop. FISA requires federal agents to demonstrate that there's "probable cause" in order to get an eavesdropping warrant, the same language used in the amendment. The National Security Agency, acting without court oversight, says it engages in electronic surveillance if it considers the eavesdropping "reasonable."
"The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al-Qaida or one of its affiliates," Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, one architect of the eavesdropping, said Monday at the National Press Club.
Bush's critics charge that the administration's position is an unprecedented power grab that calls into question the president's commitment to rule of law.
"Congress established the FISA court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap," former Vice President Al Gore charged last week.
"FISA does not contain a provision allowing the president to waive its application," Feinstein said. "If the law needed changing, we could have done so."
Senate hearings on the issue are scheduled for next month. Civil liberties groups have sued seeking to shut down the eavesdropping program. Bush says he won't back down.
___
To learn more online:
For the Congressional Research Service report, go to www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
For President Bush's remarks Monday and other information on his position, go to www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity
For the American Civil Liberties Union's view, go to www.aclu.org
For a white paper from the Justice Department on the NSA's eavesdropping, go to www.realcities.com/multimedia/nationalchannel/news/KRT(underline)Packages/archive/krwashington/NSA-White-paper.pdf
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is at www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleiv
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, on the president's role as commander in chief is at www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Johnny...
...you're missing out on the gay cowboy craze. Now Willie Nelson's even in the mix.
As the great Waylon Jennings sang, "I don't think Hank done it this way".
As the great Waylon Jennings sang, "I don't think Hank done it this way".
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Warning..
...The Bork review I posted yesterday is not that great. (I posted it before I finished it. All apologies. I'm a little suprised since it was in The New Criterion.)
Mark Steyn, however, remains fantastic (he also writes for the New Criterion as it turns out).
Mark Steyn, however, remains fantastic (he also writes for the New Criterion as it turns out).
Monday, February 13, 2006
The cure...
...for the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that ails me: Bork's review of Breyer's Book and Mark Steyn's latest. A sample:
From Europe's biggest-selling newspaper, the Sun: ''Furious Muslims have blasted adult shop [i.e., sex shop] Ann Summers for selling a blowup male doll called Mustafa Shag."
Not literally "blasted" in the Danish Embassy sense, or at least not yet. Quite how Britain's Muslim Association found out about Mustafa Shag in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were confronted by just another filthy infidel sex gag. The Muslim Association's complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults the Prophet Muhammad -- who also has the title al-Mustapha.''
(ok, so this one's not about jurisprudence, but laughter, they say, is the best medicine.)
From Europe's biggest-selling newspaper, the Sun: ''Furious Muslims have blasted adult shop [i.e., sex shop] Ann Summers for selling a blowup male doll called Mustafa Shag."
Not literally "blasted" in the Danish Embassy sense, or at least not yet. Quite how Britain's Muslim Association found out about Mustafa Shag in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were confronted by just another filthy infidel sex gag. The Muslim Association's complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults the Prophet Muhammad -- who also has the title al-Mustapha.''
(ok, so this one's not about jurisprudence, but laughter, they say, is the best medicine.)
Hollywood 'resists gay US actors'...
...according to Ian McKellen. Needless to say, Sir Ian would not...
Apparently...
...the VP has been shooting at the elderly. One way to solve the Social Security problem I guess.
A light in the darkness
There is one man with some sense in our once-august legislative branch.
Sorry I haven't gotten to the Oregon case. I just can't work up the will. Reading Supreme Court cases is bad for my health as well.
Sorry I haven't gotten to the Oregon case. I just can't work up the will. Reading Supreme Court cases is bad for my health as well.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Eric:
I don't know enough about what the heck is going on with the NSA-spying-4th amendment stuff to make a comment. Is there anything short and easy to read (and objective) to catch me up?
Monday, February 06, 2006
When the Superbowl is not at all super
First, let me say I had no personal investment in the Superbowl this year. I don't care about Pittsburgh or Seattle as teams. I do like individual players on each team, notably Troy Polamalu (crazy -silly hair, ridiculous second year player), "Fast Willie" Parker (first year RB, pretty good as well) and of course Shawn Alexander. He's just so happy. All the time. So I really didn't care who won. Seeing both teams sporadically throughout the season, Seattle seemed to have the stonger offense and Pittsburgh the better defense. I picked Seattle as 7 point favorites while still respecting the fact that both were pretty good teams.
First, the good. There were some funny commercials, my favorite being the Bud Light "magic fridge." You can watch them all here. I hate Bud Light. It is one of my most unfavorite beers. I will NEVER drink it unless there is nothing else to drink. That being said, they had the best commercials this year.
Next, the bad. What an awful game. And by awful game I mean officiating. First, D-Jac's TD catch as offensive pass interference? Maybe. Maybe I'll take that. But, and thats a big BUT, you need to watch both teams awfully careful if you want to call that kind of penalty. Which the refs did not do. Are you telling me Pitt receivers didn't make those same weak-ass push offs? Then you are either stupid or a liar. But I can accept that as a call, because it's hard to tell what exactly is "pass interference" (only slightly less vague than "football move").
Second, and this is totally ridiculous, is the call on Roethlisberger's "touchdown." I submit to you the worst officiating I have ever seen with that play. That clearly was not a touchdown. In no way. And Big Ben knew it, the asshole. You saw him throw his arm with the ball over the line AFTER he was down. He knew it and he was flat out cheating. But I don't blame the player, because I'm sure a Seattle player in a similar situation would have done the same thing. However, one reason there are supposed to be impartial officials is to take care of situations like this. Clearly the ref was either stupid, blind or pursuing an agenda.
Third, a relatively minor point. Hasselbeck throws an interception. Great. Sucks for him. The interceptor manages to run back to Hasselbeck where he tackled by Hasselbeck. Again, great. But wait, the ref calls a penalty! On Seattle? OK. On Hasselbeck? For a low block?? A LOW BLOCK??? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????? There was nothing wrong with the block. There was something more sinister afoot.
What I mean to say is, from the start, Pittsburgh was going to win. And apparently if that means the refs had to cheat in order to allow that then so be it.
Further, I think it was a conspiracy (by whom I'm not sure) that was hatched even before the Superbowl itself. Think about Vanderjagt's missed FG at the end of the that playoff game. Did he really miss it? Or was is intentional. How could such an accurate kicker miss one of the most important kicks of his career? His contract with the Colts is up this year....Just something to think about.
Cross-posted at Let's disco dance, Hammurabi!
First, the good. There were some funny commercials, my favorite being the Bud Light "magic fridge." You can watch them all here. I hate Bud Light. It is one of my most unfavorite beers. I will NEVER drink it unless there is nothing else to drink. That being said, they had the best commercials this year.
Next, the bad. What an awful game. And by awful game I mean officiating. First, D-Jac's TD catch as offensive pass interference? Maybe. Maybe I'll take that. But, and thats a big BUT, you need to watch both teams awfully careful if you want to call that kind of penalty. Which the refs did not do. Are you telling me Pitt receivers didn't make those same weak-ass push offs? Then you are either stupid or a liar. But I can accept that as a call, because it's hard to tell what exactly is "pass interference" (only slightly less vague than "football move").
Second, and this is totally ridiculous, is the call on Roethlisberger's "touchdown." I submit to you the worst officiating I have ever seen with that play. That clearly was not a touchdown. In no way. And Big Ben knew it, the asshole. You saw him throw his arm with the ball over the line AFTER he was down. He knew it and he was flat out cheating. But I don't blame the player, because I'm sure a Seattle player in a similar situation would have done the same thing. However, one reason there are supposed to be impartial officials is to take care of situations like this. Clearly the ref was either stupid, blind or pursuing an agenda.
Third, a relatively minor point. Hasselbeck throws an interception. Great. Sucks for him. The interceptor manages to run back to Hasselbeck where he tackled by Hasselbeck. Again, great. But wait, the ref calls a penalty! On Seattle? OK. On Hasselbeck? For a low block?? A LOW BLOCK??? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????? There was nothing wrong with the block. There was something more sinister afoot.
What I mean to say is, from the start, Pittsburgh was going to win. And apparently if that means the refs had to cheat in order to allow that then so be it.
Further, I think it was a conspiracy (by whom I'm not sure) that was hatched even before the Superbowl itself. Think about Vanderjagt's missed FG at the end of the that playoff game. Did he really miss it? Or was is intentional. How could such an accurate kicker miss one of the most important kicks of his career? His contract with the Colts is up this year....Just something to think about.
Cross-posted at Let's disco dance, Hammurabi!
Nick
I'm sorry for ever arguing with you about the nfl. I'm pretty sure Vince McMahon scripted that superbowl last night. I was waiting for the lights to go out and the loudspeaker to blare "DO YOU SMELL WHAT THE ROCK IS COOKING?" and then HHH would pedegree the rock and maybe hit jerome bettis with a bench. Awful, awful, awful game. Those were superbowl caliber refs? Really? I'm not sure I can bring myself to watch a game next year. If I were a pitts player, I would have run off the field and hid under a hooded sweatshirt until I was safely out of Detroit. Maybe that was payback for the Polamalu call against indy? If so, it seems excessive. I think Bill Leavy should've gotten the MVP. This is one of the few times I can think of that consistently awful officiating has affected the outcome of a game. I'm just gonna go ahead and assume it was the nfl saying "here jerome, win a superbowl in your hometown. you just show up, get about 37 yards and we will do the rest."
Awful.
Awful.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Constitution....
I've got something. Since this seems to be the constituional scholarship blog, It's funny nobody has a take on the King George v. Fourth Amendment case. I'm sure my seething outrage is completely sentimental and seditious and pro-terrorist...in a word...liberal, but I just wondered what Scalia and DeTocqueville would say about it.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
2008!
Well that makes sense since, and I quote: "Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship." Also, Mr. T will be his running mate since we know they are friends: "Chuck Norris and Mr. T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly destroyed, as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building." You know the source.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
unreal
So...
no one has anything...not even after that ludicrous speech GWB spat at the nation? Nothing?
no one has anything...not even after that ludicrous speech GWB spat at the nation? Nothing?
Chuck Norris is Mighty
Chuck Norris sleeps with a night-light. Not because Chuck Norris is afraid of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)