Friday, December 30, 2005
No coke at UM
My school is going crazy. No more Coke on campus after a student group raised a fuss about Coke's overseas activities. Good job, kids, you accomplished something! And I thought all you did was drunkenly stumble around Ann Arbor and crowd into Big Ten Burrito. Hmm, I guess those were just law students.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
San Antonio Travesty
The Alamo Bowl last night was a complete debaucle. Probably the worst officiating I have seen in a football game in recent memory. Michigan certainly had their chances to win the game, but as it turned out, the referees became a costly factor. I'm not the biggest UM fan out there -- I've only really followed the team for 3 years now -- but I'm still mad about it. If I were a lifetime UM fan, I would be downright pissed.
For whatever reason, the Alamo Bowl employed Sun Belt conference refs for the game. I don't even know what the Sun Belt is, but I'm sure it's not a power conference, and their refs have no business calling a game between real teams like Michigan and Nebraska. Even my mother, an unbiased observer if there ever was one, said "There was some really bad calls." Amen.
Twice the replay official couldn't figure out how to signal the on-field referees that he wanted to review a play. Lloyd Carr had to waste two second-half timeouts to get obviously controversial plays reviewed -- two timeouts that would have been useful when Nebraska killed the clock at the end of the game. This was a complete failure of the replay system... it might as well have not been used at all.
The refs also missed a blatant pass-interference penalty on 4th down on the last drive. It blows the mind that they might have missed that call. Absolutely blows the mind. My mind is blown.
And then the final play -- the one with all the laterals and craziness. How can there not be a penalty when the entire Nebraska team was on the field, making the entire right side of the field inaccessible? Even if there were also some Michigan people on the field, there should at least have been offsetting penalties. To say today that the players on the field had no effect on the play, as I've heard some morons on ESPN say, is absurd. The left side of the field was full of red, making Mike Hart run to the right before pitching to Ecker. Bottom line: there should have been penalties.
Perhaps the worst part of all this is that ESPN has been running replays of the 1982 "Play" ad nauseum. The parellels between the plays are striking -- the colors of the teams, the number of laterals, the complete ineptitude of the officials (The Play was called incorrectly for two reasons: a) the dude's knee was down; b) the final lateral was clearly going forward -- released at the 29 and caught at the 26). I suppose it's good for college football lore, but it's also complete crap.
As for Michigan, it was a fitting end to a frustrating season. 5 losses by a total of 21 points. They could just as easily have been 10-2 or 6-6, but they end up 7-5, the worst record in 20 years. Yikes.
For whatever reason, the Alamo Bowl employed Sun Belt conference refs for the game. I don't even know what the Sun Belt is, but I'm sure it's not a power conference, and their refs have no business calling a game between real teams like Michigan and Nebraska. Even my mother, an unbiased observer if there ever was one, said "There was some really bad calls." Amen.
Twice the replay official couldn't figure out how to signal the on-field referees that he wanted to review a play. Lloyd Carr had to waste two second-half timeouts to get obviously controversial plays reviewed -- two timeouts that would have been useful when Nebraska killed the clock at the end of the game. This was a complete failure of the replay system... it might as well have not been used at all.
The refs also missed a blatant pass-interference penalty on 4th down on the last drive. It blows the mind that they might have missed that call. Absolutely blows the mind. My mind is blown.
And then the final play -- the one with all the laterals and craziness. How can there not be a penalty when the entire Nebraska team was on the field, making the entire right side of the field inaccessible? Even if there were also some Michigan people on the field, there should at least have been offsetting penalties. To say today that the players on the field had no effect on the play, as I've heard some morons on ESPN say, is absurd. The left side of the field was full of red, making Mike Hart run to the right before pitching to Ecker. Bottom line: there should have been penalties.
Perhaps the worst part of all this is that ESPN has been running replays of the 1982 "Play" ad nauseum. The parellels between the plays are striking -- the colors of the teams, the number of laterals, the complete ineptitude of the officials (The Play was called incorrectly for two reasons: a) the dude's knee was down; b) the final lateral was clearly going forward -- released at the 29 and caught at the 26). I suppose it's good for college football lore, but it's also complete crap.
As for Michigan, it was a fitting end to a frustrating season. 5 losses by a total of 21 points. They could just as easily have been 10-2 or 6-6, but they end up 7-5, the worst record in 20 years. Yikes.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Home
I have made it home safely, back to rainy Washington. Because of scheduling issues, we're opening presents on Christmas Eve (today!) instead of Christmas morning for the first time ever. Strange.
This morning, as NFL games started and I had two good games on my TV, I realized something cool: never again will I be stuck watching a Lions game on a Sunday afternoon. Hooray!
This morning, as NFL games started and I had two good games on my TV, I realized something cool: never again will I be stuck watching a Lions game on a Sunday afternoon. Hooray!
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
All done
I am now 5/6 of the way through law school. One semester to go. As usual, the feeling once exams end is anticlimactic. It's kind of a... now what?... hmmm... so... what do I do now?... feeling.
This semester ended especially strangely because my last exam was for a class I am taking class/fail. Accordingly, I didn't over-study for it, and after the exam I felt like I bombed it. It's weird because I'm sure I passed, and spending more time on it would have been wasteful (re: time I could be spending on graded classes). So, I know it's fine. I just don't like ending on a 'crap, I just got my ass kicked by that exam' note. Oh well.
Heading back to Seattle tomorrow for a break. Hopefully I will not disrupt whatever the Seahawks have going on there (yes, this is a real concern... I am sick, I know).
This semester ended especially strangely because my last exam was for a class I am taking class/fail. Accordingly, I didn't over-study for it, and after the exam I felt like I bombed it. It's weird because I'm sure I passed, and spending more time on it would have been wasteful (re: time I could be spending on graded classes). So, I know it's fine. I just don't like ending on a 'crap, I just got my ass kicked by that exam' note. Oh well.
Heading back to Seattle tomorrow for a break. Hopefully I will not disrupt whatever the Seahawks have going on there (yes, this is a real concern... I am sick, I know).
Monday, December 19, 2005
USC '05 vs. UW '91
ESPN is running a cute little gimmick right now -- how would USC fare against the best teams in college football history? They're starting today with USC vs. the 1991 Huskies. The consensus from the experts is that USC "would roll right through" UW. The USC defense would have no problem stopping the UW offense, and the UW D wouldn't have a prayer against USC's offense. I guess they have to say this, since this is day 1 of an 11-part series (it would be silly if they said, yeah, USC would lose to our #11), but I gotta say, they're wrong. Maybe USC would win, but there's no way they crush that '91 team. I'm no dawg-lover, but that was a ferocious team that could play with anybody.
USC gives up 21.3 points/game; UW gave up 9.2. USC has had close calls with Notre Dame and Fresno State, and they don't think UW'91 could hang? Whatever. That's just stupid. It would be a close game, and I think UW would have a serious shot at winning. That D was simply awesome.
USC gives up 21.3 points/game; UW gave up 9.2. USC has had close calls with Notre Dame and Fresno State, and they don't think UW'91 could hang? Whatever. That's just stupid. It would be a close game, and I think UW would have a serious shot at winning. That D was simply awesome.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Presidential eavesdropping
With the news of the NSA's secret eavesdropping on American citizens, and Bush's unabashed "Yeah, I did it, and I'll do it again," the administration has presented us with a very clear question about presidential authority... but not many answers. Maybe it's the time of year, but to me, this entire situation feels like an exam question: is it legal?
And the answer, like any exam answer, is, I think: it depends. My feeling is that these searches are probably constitutional, but only because "national security" creates a mammoth exception to the normal Fourth Amendment rules, and the limits on presidential power in this regard are vague and unsettled.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable searches," and it's hard to define precisely what "unreasonable" means. Usually it comes down to a balancing test between a person's privacy interests and the government's police interests. And so, as in most balancing tests, the most important factor is probably who is doing the balancing.
Bush tells us in his speech that the Justice Department and White House Counsel say what he did was legal. Well, duh. But let's see what the other branches of the government have to say about it, hmmm? I'm willing to bet they don't say, "Well, if the White House Counsel says it's okay, it must be okay." We all know how Harriet likes to stand up to her pal George when he's wrong, don't we? Oh wait...
So this again is a time when an independent judiciary is invaluable, and this again is a time when I fear a Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito -- two judges who have shown a history of endowing the Executive with nearly endless power. This is actually a time when we should be glad Scalia is there -- my feeling is that he would not be happy about this. But I don't know.
In the end, two things. First, why not get a warrant, Mr. President, before all the spying? Then it would be plainly legal. Second, these are the types of things elections are supposed to cure. Even if it turns out the eavesdropping is legal, it's still the people's job to decide whether they want to live in a place where this kind of spying remains legal. There are a lot of people out there who are thinking this is much ado about nothing: "I'm not breaking any laws, so feel free to spy on me." Others believe in a stronger right to privacy, and believe the government should not be allowed to conduct searches like this without a warrant. This is the type of real issue that's on the line in 2006 and 2008, even though it will likely be swept aside in the news by gay marriage and whether Wal-Mart says "Happy Holidays." I, for one, will remember this when I'm in the voting booth.
And the answer, like any exam answer, is, I think: it depends. My feeling is that these searches are probably constitutional, but only because "national security" creates a mammoth exception to the normal Fourth Amendment rules, and the limits on presidential power in this regard are vague and unsettled.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable searches," and it's hard to define precisely what "unreasonable" means. Usually it comes down to a balancing test between a person's privacy interests and the government's police interests. And so, as in most balancing tests, the most important factor is probably who is doing the balancing.
Bush tells us in his speech that the Justice Department and White House Counsel say what he did was legal. Well, duh. But let's see what the other branches of the government have to say about it, hmmm? I'm willing to bet they don't say, "Well, if the White House Counsel says it's okay, it must be okay." We all know how Harriet likes to stand up to her pal George when he's wrong, don't we? Oh wait...
So this again is a time when an independent judiciary is invaluable, and this again is a time when I fear a Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito -- two judges who have shown a history of endowing the Executive with nearly endless power. This is actually a time when we should be glad Scalia is there -- my feeling is that he would not be happy about this. But I don't know.
In the end, two things. First, why not get a warrant, Mr. President, before all the spying? Then it would be plainly legal. Second, these are the types of things elections are supposed to cure. Even if it turns out the eavesdropping is legal, it's still the people's job to decide whether they want to live in a place where this kind of spying remains legal. There are a lot of people out there who are thinking this is much ado about nothing: "I'm not breaking any laws, so feel free to spy on me." Others believe in a stronger right to privacy, and believe the government should not be allowed to conduct searches like this without a warrant. This is the type of real issue that's on the line in 2006 and 2008, even though it will likely be swept aside in the news by gay marriage and whether Wal-Mart says "Happy Holidays." I, for one, will remember this when I'm in the voting booth.
Major problems
I stayed up late to watch the Stanford-Virginia Tech game on ESPN, which must surely have been a ratings winner, to find out why Stanford sucks so much. Now I know.
They can't rebound -- VT had probably 20 second-chance points. This is because we have only one guy who can board (Haryasz).
We also only have two good players -- Hernandez and Haryasz. Grunfeld is still hurt, and can't create his own shot any more. The rest of the guys are role players and/or scrubs who shouldn't even be playing.
I think it's going to be a long year, unless the role players can develop quickly. The lack of height is going to be a problem that won't go away, though.
The Lopez twins can't get there fast enough for me, but they're still a year away. It's time to see what kind of coach Trent Johnson really is.
They can't rebound -- VT had probably 20 second-chance points. This is because we have only one guy who can board (Haryasz).
We also only have two good players -- Hernandez and Haryasz. Grunfeld is still hurt, and can't create his own shot any more. The rest of the guys are role players and/or scrubs who shouldn't even be playing.
I think it's going to be a long year, unless the role players can develop quickly. The lack of height is going to be a problem that won't go away, though.
The Lopez twins can't get there fast enough for me, but they're still a year away. It's time to see what kind of coach Trent Johnson really is.
Bavasi's plan...
... to make the team worse is chugging ahead at full speed. Welcome, Jarrod Washburn. Not only do you suck, but now you're also overpaid! Congratulations.
Friday, December 16, 2005
This guy plays too many racing video games
But it's a cool way to see Paris. Buckle your seatbelts. (Quicktime required.)
Sign of the apocalypse
Oh great. Now this has happened.
Did you know: The Seahawks have never been on the cover of SI before?
Did you know: The Seahawks have never been on the cover of SI before?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Snow. And more snow.
We got hit with a heavy snowstorm today -- I think about six inches. It's a wet snow -- it's only about 30 degrees out -- so the streets are really ugly. Piles of slush and hidden pits of melted snowwater all over the place. I walked home today in it, and I've walked home in snowstorms many times before, but this was the worst one yet. I got nailed twice by passing cars driving through puddles -- the second time by a bus, which is like 3 cars because it just kept splashing me for what seemed like ten seconds. By the time I got home, I was a wet and muddy mess. But I had a burrito, so it was all good.
Once again, the power of the burrito. Have you read your burrito fortune lately?
Exam update: only one left, and it's a pass/fail class. Almost done.
Once again, the power of the burrito. Have you read your burrito fortune lately?
Exam update: only one left, and it's a pass/fail class. Almost done.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Blech
This is awful. The Mariners signed Carl Everett today. What crap. He's a crappy player, both on and off the field. "Today we achieved one of our offseason goals," Seattle general manager Bill Bavasi said in a statement. I guess one of our offseason goals was to make the team worse. Everett sucks. While we're here, Bavasi sucks too.
And while we're still here, the refs who call so many fouls on Danny Fortson suck too. If you ever watch a Sonics game -- sure, he deserves 3 out of 4 calls that go against him, but he gets a really raw deal on the fourth. And he never gets a call his way. If there's any contact, the foul's on Danny.
That's all for today's suckfest.
UPDATE: This is one good thing about Carl Everett that I forgot: he hates Jamie Moyer too. From today's P-I:
And while we're still here, the refs who call so many fouls on Danny Fortson suck too. If you ever watch a Sonics game -- sure, he deserves 3 out of 4 calls that go against him, but he gets a really raw deal on the fourth. And he never gets a call his way. If there's any contact, the foul's on Danny.
That's all for today's suckfest.
UPDATE: This is one good thing about Carl Everett that I forgot: he hates Jamie Moyer too. From today's P-I:
On Aug. 14, 2001, Everett, then with the Red Sox, grabbed his crotch as he crossed home plate after homering off Jamie Moyer at Fenway Park. He was later fined.
Reached on Tuesday, Moyer declined to comment on the strong possibility that he will share working space with Everett in the coming year.
"I don't know what's going on, so I shouldn't speak about it," said Moyer, who signed a one-year, $5.5 million contract last week.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Save Christmas!
I haven't commented on the whole "Christmas Under Attack!" thing because it is just so absurd I can't accept it as a real idea. So instead, I offer this Onion article, which says it all. (Hat tip: CG) Damn those activist grinches!
Silence...
I'm not dead, I'm just studying for finals. One might say it's the same thing.
My next final is on Thursday (Crim Pro), and then I have Jurisdiction early next week. Then it's vacation time.
My next final is on Thursday (Crim Pro), and then I have Jurisdiction early next week. Then it's vacation time.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
A couple SCOTUS things
Some news of interest to me:
Dahlia talks about the thing that bothered me most about John Roberts, and how it's true about Sam Alito too: he seems very happy to give the Executive unlimited power in the war on terror. This prospect scares me a bit.
Dahlia also talks about today's oral arguments in the Rumsfeld v. FAIR case, which is of interest to law schools. It's about the Solomon Amendment, which requires law schools to allow military recruiters to visit schools to interview students. Most law schools would rather not allow them because of anti-discrimination policies ("don't ask, don't tell"), but because of this law they really have no choice -- if they refuse, the DOD will revoke a massive amount of government funding. FAIR argues that the Solomon Amendment constitutes a First Amendment violation, and they will lose. Interesting case, though.
Finally, the court today continued it's crap approach to Federal Indian Law in the Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawotomi Nation case. The court says feds can tax gas that gets sold on reservations. Boo. I'm not surprised, but I am surprised that Justice Ginsburg dissented -- she has traditionally been awful to Indian tribes. Maybe she's changing her ways?
Dahlia talks about the thing that bothered me most about John Roberts, and how it's true about Sam Alito too: he seems very happy to give the Executive unlimited power in the war on terror. This prospect scares me a bit.
Dahlia also talks about today's oral arguments in the Rumsfeld v. FAIR case, which is of interest to law schools. It's about the Solomon Amendment, which requires law schools to allow military recruiters to visit schools to interview students. Most law schools would rather not allow them because of anti-discrimination policies ("don't ask, don't tell"), but because of this law they really have no choice -- if they refuse, the DOD will revoke a massive amount of government funding. FAIR argues that the Solomon Amendment constitutes a First Amendment violation, and they will lose. Interesting case, though.
Finally, the court today continued it's crap approach to Federal Indian Law in the Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawotomi Nation case. The court says feds can tax gas that gets sold on reservations. Boo. I'm not surprised, but I am surprised that Justice Ginsburg dissented -- she has traditionally been awful to Indian tribes. Maybe she's changing her ways?
Semester wrapping up
Tomorrow is the last day of classes this semester. My first final is a week from Thursday, though I have a paper due Monday. I actually kind of enjoy finals time -- I don't have to do any more reading, and it's really just review. The stress/nervousness is the only thing about it that sucks. But I actually get more sleep during finals than I do during the school year, because now I have no reason to get up before 10. Or noon.
Recap of the weekend: saw Dave Matthews Band concert on Saturday at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit. It was a fun time. They are pretty damn good.
How about those Seahawks? I hope they can keep it up. I'm still skeptical, though.
Recap of the weekend: saw Dave Matthews Band concert on Saturday at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit. It was a fun time. They are pretty damn good.
How about those Seahawks? I hope they can keep it up. I'm still skeptical, though.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
What's wrong, Trent
Stanford hoops now has losses to UC-Irvine, Montana, and UC-Davis. What the hell is going on? I can't believe I have to stomach losses to UC-Davis twice in the same year... in different sports.
Friday, December 02, 2005
I am not alone
For anyone who thinks I'm off the deep end with my Seahawks nihilism, let me introduce ESPN editor Kevin Jackson, also a diehard Seahawks fan. He and I have the same issues. Take, for example, this:
Three weeks ago, I hit my low point while sitting in the south end zone at Qwest Field during the Seahawks' 31-16 victory over the Rams. . . .
As Alexander broke loose for a 17-yard TD run with 1:18 remaining, the crowd went wild … while I cringed.
See, the Rams had no timeouts and there were less than two minutes remaining -- meaning the Seahawks could have taken a knee and run out the clock (every educated 'Hawk fan learned the take-a-knee chart after the Baltimore debacle). Instead, by scoring, Seattle gave the ball back to St. Louis, which needed a TD, a successful onside kick and another TD and two-point conversion to force OT. (Pretty close to how Dallas rallied to beat Seattle on "MNF" last fall.)
As I explained all this to my friend Victor (who's not a Seahawk fan and thus is 100 times more rational), he just politely shook his head. When I finished laying out these impossibly elaborate scenarios for doom, he quietly said, "Dude, you've got issues."
I watched that game with some friends here in Ann Arbor. They could tell you, I had the exact same reaction when Alexander burst through the line toward the end zone -- NO! TAKE A KNEE! TAKE A KNEE! As my friends stared at me in disbelief, I explained that the game would be over -- OVER -- if Shaun had taken a knee. But now, "all the Rams have to do" is score a touchdown, recover the onside kick, score another touchdown, and convert a 2-point conversion. When they shook their heads, wondering how that could ever happen, I said: "it happene LAST YEAR during the Cowboys game. It will happen again."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
