A couple items

Poking around on SI.com, I found two things of interest. First, is this nice column about the Stanford resurgence by Seth Davis, who usually likes to torch us at his first opportunity. A nice change of pace there, Seth.

Next is this week's SI column from Rick Reilly. (That link will only work for magazine subscribers, so the content is pasted below.) Wally will love this column, until the last line. I'm not sure why Rick is being so pissy, but I guess it's nothing new; I've never liked his writing much. Is this tongue-in-cheek, or is he really asking for the wrath of an entire region? Or is this the mother of all reverse-jinxes? I can't tell. Anyway, here it is:

Giving Seattle the Needle

Okay, Seattle, grab a grande, skinny, no-foam, half-caf Espresso Macchiato and let me explain why the Pittsburgh Steelers are going to grind you up like a Sumatra blend in Super Bowl XL.

You suck at sports.

You always have. You make nice motherboards, but you're dweebier than Frasier Crane's wine club. You've had the big three pro sports for 30 years now -- almost 40 for the NBA -- and you have one lousy championship to show for it. Uno. The 1978 Seattle SuperSonics. My God, you people have fewer parades than Venice.

What's amazing is, you do college sports even worse. In the 70 years that a mythical national championship has been awarded in college football, the University of Washington has one half of one title: in 1991 (with Miami). Zippo in basketball, baseball, track or field. O.K., the Huskies are good at crew (three women's titles, one men's). Wonderful. Somewhere, three salmon cheer.

Your most famous athlete is a horse, Seattle Slew. Your most famous athletic moment was Bo Jackson's turning the Boz's chest into a welcome mat on Monday Night Football. Your greatest contribution to sports was the Wave, the fan-participation stunt that screams to the world, "We have no idea what the score is!"

And do you know why you stink, Seattle? Because ...

1. You're too damn nice.

Look at your Seahawks. Your MVP halfback, Shaun Alexander, teaches kids chess. Your scariest player is named Pork Chop. My God, last week, you offered valet parking service to reporters at Seahawks headquarters. (Seattle fans: If you see valet parking at Detroit's Ford Field this week, they're trying to steal your car.)

Nearly every five-dollar-steak-tough athlete who comes to Seattle leaves -- Gary Payton and Randy Johnson for instance. Consider Seattle's two favorite athletes -- Steve Largent and Fred Couples. Those guys wouldn't complain if somebody extinguished a Cohiba in their ears. Your sportswriters are more forgiving than Hillary Clinton. If they covered Jeffrey Dahmer, they'd refer to him as "a people person."

You Seattle fans don't just accept mediocrity. You crave it. You support your boys come hell or low water. You show up at the rate of three million a year for the Mariners, who never fail to let you down. Even the stadium sounds cuddly: Safeco Field. You pack the house for the underachieving SuperSonics, led by the NBA's nicest loser, Ray Allen. Your Seahawks went 21 years without a playoff win, and the fans didn't so much as clear their throats. Everybody just goes, "Well, that was fun. Let's kayak!" Hey, you can't spell Seattle without settle.

The whole town is 100% June Cleaver. I once walked into Nordstrom, the Seattle-based department store, and sheepishly asked if I could bring back a shirt I'd bought a month before in another town. The clerk said, "Sir, this is Nordstrom. You could wear it for 10 years, throw up on it and roll down a mountain in it and we'd take it back." Ask that at Neiman Marcus and they call security.

It ain't happening. Walruses don't do triple Salchows, and Seattle teams don't win titles.

2. You're too damn geeky.

Your owner, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, looks like the kid in high school who always got taped to the goalposts. If Allen wins, will he call all his friends from band camp? Throw his slide rule into the air? Plot his joy on a scatter chart?

Look, your average Seahawks fan drives a Prius. Your average Steelers fan drives a Ford Excursion, which has Priuses in its tire treads. Seahawks fans own poodles. Steelers fans eat them.

3. You're too damn wet.

Seattle is a great place if you happen to be mold. It just rained 27 straight days and it wasn't even a record. Seattle is basically a lot of guys waiting for a bus with rain starting to seep into their socks. Most kids are seven years old before they realize the umbrella is not an extension of the right arm. No wonder most great athletes leave. Ken Griffey Jr. left, basically saying, "I want my kid to be able to play outside once in a while."

In short, you people are too damn peaceful and happy in your Emerald City. You ever know anybody from Pittsburgh? You want this Super Bowl. Pittsburgh needs it. You're going to get smoked like a platter of smelt.

(But do you mind if we come live there?)

12th Man business

I wish I could speak intelligently about the dispute over the 12th Man with Texas A&M. I haven't taken any Trademark classes, so I know very little. Instead, I'll speak unintelligently (which has never been a problem for me).

I'm guessing that A&M has a case here. They own the trademark, and it's surely being diluted by the Seahawks' use of the mark throughout the years. The Hawks are also almost surely infringing on that mark. If it's a valid trademark, the Hawks might be in trouble.

Trademark infringement generally comes down to a few factors, if I remember correctly: Strength of the senior mark, relatedness of the goods/services, similarity of the marks, evidence of actual confusion, similar marketing channels, likely degree of purchaser care, intent of the defendant, and likelihood of expansion of product lines. Under a few of those factors, the Hawks are probably cooked. Their best argument is probably under strength of the senior mark--do people really think of A&M when they hear "12th Man?" Personally, I thought it was a generic label for all football crowds... no association with A&M at all. It's like someone trademarking "home field advantage." (Hey, there's an idea.)

For a dilution claim, I know that A&M has to present evidence of actual dilution (i.e., not just speculation of likely dilution). I have no idea if this is possible here or not.

So, I don't know how the Hawks will win this one. One last factor might be that A&M only registered the mark for the first time in 1990, whereas the Hawks had already been using the term for at least 6-10 years prior to that time. I don't know if that will matter or not, but it might help show that the trademark should not have been registered to A&M in the first place if two teams were using it (even if A&M had been using it longer). I dunno. As I said, I'm only speaking unintelligently here.

Non-football things

Just to prove that I do things other than watching ESPN and NFL Network, here's something. I watched Stanford win a miracle game tonight against Washington. Somehow they won a game despite being down 3, inbounding the ball under their own hoop, with 2.1 seconds left. Awesome.

Second, being an editor of student-written legal articles is not all it's cracked up to be. These people can be very difficult to deal with sometimes. I feel like the guy in those Monster.com commercials who works with monkeys. Arrgh.

Oh, and... go Seahawks. Welcome to Detroit! Just in case anyone was wondering, no, I'm not going to the game. Tickets are way too expensive for a lowly student. Unless you got 3 grand you want to give me. But if any of you are going to the game, you can crash with me, since my apartment is closer to Ford Field than any available hotel room. Next closest room is probably in Lansing. (Yes, I realize that this post was supposed to be about non-football things, but I can't help it.)

Super Bowl experience

One of the running themes this week, in SB XL analysis, is how the Seahawks are inexperienced in the Super Bowl, while the Steelers have been there before. Uh, really?

It's true that the franchise and most Seahawks players have not played in the Super Bowl before. I think only 5 players have been there. But the Steelers? Sure, the team has been there 5 times, but among the players, only ONE has been there before: Willie Williams (a former Seahawk).

So all this talk about it being new for the Seahawks, and not for the Steelers, is rubbish. It's new for both. And it's been since 1979 since the Steelers won one, so the pressure to win the game for the fans is probably equally strong.

Making sense at ESPN

This is from Seth Wickersham on ESPN.com -- I'd post the link, but it's an "Insider" page.
--
Talked to my friend Steve of Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune fame this morning. He mentioned that this Super Bowl reminds him a lot of the Pats-Rams game in 2002. I agree. The reasoning? Just because one conference is so much stronger than the other, people assume the team from that conference will easily walk over the other.

Our point: Just because the NFC stinks doesn't mean the Seahawks do.

People are handing this game to the Steelers, and it's easy to see why. Everyone has underestimated this team, and it has knocked off the top three seeds in the AFC. So I figured I'd take an informal poll. Something to tell me that Steve and I aren't the only ones who think Seattle will win this game.

Over e-mail, I asked John Hassan, an editor at ESPN.com, his opinion.

"I see the Steelers winning by 10."

(Disclaimer: John is a Pats fan, so I think he's picking the Steelers to make New England look better, considering the Pats' win over Pittsburgh earlier this year.)

I called my editor at ESPN The Magazine, Chad Millman, for his take.

"Pittsburgh," he said.

Think it'll be close?

Pause. "No."

(Disclaimer: Chad picked the Vikings for the Super Bowl. He also volunteered to look even dumber by getting the prediction of his buddy Matt Rosenberg, who has owned Chad for 20 years in their weekly betting pools. "Seahawks 24, Steelers 21" Rosenberg says. "MVP: Hasselbeck.")

I called sportswriter Wright Thompson of The Kansas City Star. "Who's going to win the Super Bowl?"

"Oh, Pittsburgh," he said.

Will it be close?

Pause. "Define close."

(Disclaimer: Wright defines "close" in food metrics. Example: "I thought about not eating that second half rack, but I wasn't close to being full." So I think he sees Pittsburgh winning by at least a touchdown.)

I called ESPN The Magazine contributing writer Justin Heckert.

"I'm going to be rooting for Pittsburgh."

Why? I mean, the Steelers have four rings already. The Hawks have Steve Largent and Kenny Easley and a quarterback who set the NFL record for fumbles and a former stadium that had tiles falling from the roof.

"Because Jerome Bettis used to be a Ram," he said.

(Disclaimer: Justin is a Rams fan and thus hates the rival Hawks.)

I e-mailed my friend Tom Hurlbert, a lifelong Steelers fan turned architect turned South Dakota radio host from whom You The Reader will hear later this week in this space.

"I lost my girlfriend of two years -- nay, my soul mate for life -- because she refused to grace a beautiful youth-large three-quarter sleeve Franco Harris jersey that I got as a boy for Christmas in 1983," he wrote.

(Disclaimer: I wrote Tom back saying, "Girlfriend of two years? Can this be true? You can't give me fiction." Tom wrote back, "Guilty. No girlfriend. How did Kerouac do it?")

I called my sister, Lauren. She, like me, grew up in Alaska, where we'd get Hawks games every Sunday. She still lives in the Last Frontier, so I figured she'd know from the Anchorage Daily News that the Seahawks have won 15 games this year. That they would have finished 14-2 had they not lost a meaningless game to Green Bay. Maybe she'd have noticed what Bill Cowher said in his Tuesday news conference, "If anyone has flown under the radar, it's Seattle."

"I don't know who'll win," she said.

You don't?

"No. I'll have to go to your blog to find out."

Finally. A voice of reason.

Game reaction

What utter bliss. I never thought I would see my stadium filled with confetti, my team on the podium, my quarterback lifting the trophy. I just never thought it would happen.

I can only imagine what it's like in Seattle right now. I don't know how the local news covers anything else, or how anyone gets any work done. Here in Ann Arbor, people are interested because the Super Bowl is in Detroit; the game itself isn't so much of a story. Jerome Bettis... whatever.

It's funny that many people here have come up to me and offered congratulations. And they're not being condescending or facetious, either. They're sincerely happy to see such a downtrodden franchise and their downtrodden fans make it to the big game.

And then the few people here who are from Seattle, we talk Seahawks and give each other high fives. We're in our own little club.

I feel like Forrest Gump, when he gets his leg braces off. He's been hobbling around for years, people making fun of him and throwing rocks at him. But he starts running a little, and then the braces come flying off, and all he wants to do is run and run and run. That's me. All I want to do is run and run, now that the leg braces of NFL failure have flown off. Run Forrest, run.

And one last thing. While I and other Seahawks fans have been waiting 30 years for this, my niece Quincy only has to wait a week. Charmed life, to be sure.

Another SI cover

Is this one regional, too? I hope not. I got stuck with the Jake Plummer cover last week. I don't want no Jerome Bettis in my house.
UPDATE: Yes, another regional cover. I bet I get Jerome, the Detroit native, here. SI is really going out of their way to avoid "Cover Jinx" accusations, aren't they?

XL

Wow.

The Championship Game

I'm going to wear the same clothes tomorrow that I wore last Saturday; I'm going to eat the same meals that I ate last Saturday; I'm going to sit in the same chair to watch the game that I sat in last Saturday. You might call me superstitious, but I think I am just eliminating variables. The more variables I eliminate, the fewer things I can blame a potential loss on, if the Seahawks should lose. There's nothing weird about that, is there?

So it's time again for my breakdown of the game. I'm sure nobody cares, but whatever. Here goes.

Unfortunately, the Hawks' performance last week did nothing to stop the talk about them being frauds. They beat the Redskins, but the Redskins looked so bad that no one feels okay giving the Hawks all the credit. So despite the Redskins having won 6 in a row, including a road playoff game, the Hawks were still lucky, they've still played an easy schedule, and they still have no defense. I have to agree a little bit with all of it. I still don't know what to expect from this team against a good team in a pressure situation. This weekend is put up or shut up.

On offense, I think the game again comes down to Hasselbeck. If he has a good game, makes smart reads and accurate throws, they'll score points. The running game will have a lot to prove this week after a below-average game last week. I think they'll be better. A lot was made about how bad Alexander looked before his concussion. Certainly the fumble was not good, but the other runs were not uncharacteristic for a 1st quarter of a Seahawks game. As I said last week, the Seahawks O-line will wear them down. The first quarter is tough, but Shaun should have some running room by the second half. If Shaun gets hurt again, the offense is going to look a lot like last week.

Carolina's D is very similar to the Redskins', I think. The big difference is that Carolina's big playmaker is a D-lineman (Peppers), while the Skins' was a safety (Taylor). I was more scared of Taylor than I am of Peppers because the Hawks can double team Peppers all day with Locklear plus the tight end or fullback. Taylor could run all over the field unabated.

Carolina's D also gave up a fair amount of yards to the Bears. Rex Grossman found success throwing over the middle. I think the Hawks will be able to do every thing the Bears could, and then some.

On the flip side, Carolina's O is all about Steve Smith. I lose sleep over this. He burns people deep, on wide receiver screens, and on end-around runs. Carolina will put the ball in his hands 10-15 times, and every time will be scary. If the Hawks D can avoid the big play, they'll be in good shape.

The rest of the Carolina O is a mystery to me. I don't know what to expect from Goings and the running game, but I saw the Hawks D shut down Clinton Portis, so I expect them to control Goings too. I worry about Delhomme throwing over the middle of the field to a tight end or slot receiver, just like that big play to Cooley last week. That's been a trouble area for this defense all year (see Jeremy Shockey, Ben Troupe, etc.). They need to avoid the big play over the middle.

Last, the D needs to win on third downs. They were good against Washington, but this season they've had a history of giving up big plays on third-and-long. They have to make third down stops to win this game.

So that's my quick breakdown. I've been wrestling all week with the decision whether to fully commit myself to this team; I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop all season. Now, I think it's time that I give in. The team has played hard, and they deserve the full backing of even the most jaded and cynical of fans. So it's official. My heart is with this team.

When I think about it, I really have no choice about it. There has been no bigger sporting event in my life. The only games that compare are the 1983 AFC Championship Game, Game 7 of the '93 Western Conference Finals, Game 7 of the '96 Western Conference Finals, and the '98 Final Four game against Kentucky. In my 25 years of watching sports, those are the only individual games where my teams have had a chance to advance to a championship game. Only the '96 Sonics won the game. No team has ever had a game to win a championship. So by mere circumstance, tomorrow's game is among the 5 biggest games of my life. Given that the Seahawks were really my first love, I might have to put tomorrow's game at #1. For that reason, I'm putting all the paranoia, curses, and frustration in a box and burying it in the yard. Tomorrow, I will root for my team vigorously and faithfully.

The prediction: Seattle 27, Carolina 20.

Go Seahawks!

Bowling is back

After a month and a half off, bowling is back. I started the season with a 147, 114, and 193. Yes, 193. I closed the first 9 frames, including picking up a 5-10 split in the 8th. In the 10th, I got a 7 on the first roll and only 2 on the second. Boo. I had a chance at another 200 game, and it slipped away.

Last semester was a struggle at the lanes; lots of inconsistent play. I'm trying new physical and mental approaches to this season. Hopefully it will pay off.

I should mention, now that I'm talking bowling, that I spent New Years with college friends Zak and Kimmy, and their friend Sam. Sam, in our third game, started with SIX straight strikes. This is called a "six-pack," apparently. He finished with a 218. Holy crap. It was amazing. His other games were average, so this run of strikes was really crazy.

Um, for no reason whatsoever, here's a list of bowling slang. I didn't know any of these.

Gonzales v. Oregon

I haven't had the energy to formulate a coherent analysis of the Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Oregon, the assisted suicide case, because of my football obsession. It's an interesting case, though, and it deserves some discussion. I'm not exactly qualified to lead that discussion, but I can point to some people who are.

Basically, the court ruled 6-3 that Oregon can keep its assisted suicide law, and the US Attorney General does not have statutory power to assert his own rule of law. It's interesting for a number of reasons, many of which might be completely boring to people other than me.

First, it's interesting that most of the justices in the majority were those who voted on the side of the government in Raich (the medical marijuana case). Only O'Connor voted for the states in both cases, and only Scalia voted for the feds in both.

Scalia's approach is interesting in itself. Labeled a "conservative" jurist, this is the second time he has bucked the normally-conservative federalist route in favor of the Wickard approach. There's much more about Scalia here.

The Chief Justice silently signs on to the dissent. Here's what some say about that.

In the end, I think it's a good decision. I don't think the majority is saying that the feds don't have the constitutional power to overturn the Oregon law; instead they're saying that if Ashcroft/Gonzales wants to do it, Congress has to make that power explicit when we're dealing with special state issues like assisted suicide. Here, Congress didn't do that.

Okay, that's all I can muster before my thoughts revert to football. Go Seahawks.

A little more on the Alito hearings

This is what I wanted to say in an earlier post, but Dershowitz says it better. Here's an under-reported truth:

[A]s my colleague Bill Stuntz has pointed out, the Supreme Court's greatest impact on people's lives is not in so many of the sensational but largely symbolic areas of constitutional law (think: Ten Commandments displays), but rather in the field of criminal justice. "[T]he Supreme Court's most important job is not managing the culture wars. Regulating the never-ending war on crime is a much bigger task." Senators, however, are afraid to question nominees about their commitment to the rights of the accused. No politician wants to risk being seen as sympathetic to criminals or labeled "soft on crime."

When it rains...

Two SI covers in one month? This is just too weird.
UPDATE: Oh, okay. It's just a regional cover. Every remaining team is on the cover somewhere.

Oh jeez

From this month's edition of Stanford Magazine is this cheery image of clerking in Alaska. Apparently, I might: drown, freeze, get mauled by a bear, or get shot by a gun-toting local. Oh boy. I can't wait.

Funny, but true

What to get the lawyer who has everything? The Billable hour watch. I will now set myself on fire.

Pigskin fever

As is probably obvious by this point, I am obsessed with NFL coverage right now. I spend all morning reading the news from Seattle, Charlotte, and national media, then I spend all afternoon watching those horrible sports talk shows on ESPN. That's how bad it is: I'm even watching "First and 10" with their unbearable commentators. But can you blame me? I don't get to savor these deep playoff runs very often.

By the way... almost every pundit is picking Carolina, yet Vegas still has the Seahawks favored by at least 3.5 points. What does Vegas know that everybody else doesn't?

Seahawks-Panthers

I'm starting to think a bit more about the matchups in this game... but first, a few things that struck me about the weekend's games.

First, Seattle's difficulties on offense. It's always hard to tell how things would have been with a healthy Alexander, but early in that game the Hawks O looked pretty bad. Even when Shaun was in there, he got stuffed. But there's nothing new about that, really. If you think back to the games against better defenses this year, Shaun always started slow but ended up with a good game. I'm thinking especially about the Cowboys and Giants games. That Seahawk offensive line is awesome, and they wear teams down. It's not surprising that an amped-up D-line will shut down the Hawks' run in the first quarter. Few have been able to do it in the Fourth.

Second, the Panthers' passing game. It was pretty much just one guy... little Steve Smith. I'm reading this week how impressive that was, especially against such a good defense. But I'm not totally sure. The Bears were certainly good during the regular season, but they literally fell down instead of guarding Smith. Is there a receiver in the NFL who wouldn't have scored if the defender, playing one-on-one, falls down? So I guess that means I have two suggestions for the Seahawks this week: double cover Smith, and DON'T FALL DOWN. I still expect Smith to catch a bunch of balls and gain a bunch of yards, but they have to keep him out of the end zone.

Last, I hope Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, Robbie Tobeck, Chris Gray, Sean Locklear, Mack Strong, and Shaun Alexander are listening to the pundits this week. They're getting no love. Come on, boys, let's go hit somebody in the mouth. And Matt Hasselbeck, everybody is talking about you like you're Matt Hasselhoff. Play smart.

Quincy

Here's an early look at Q. Odds I will call her Q-Ball: very good.

Hawks moving on

For all concerned, yes I'm still alive after the Seahawks' playoff game this weekend. They won! If they hadn't, I would probably have Jake Plummer's beard and be living under a bridge somewhere. In a game typical of this season, they won in a way that makes it difficult to know just how good they really are. The Redskins appeared to be a miserable offensive team, but maybe the Hawks' D was really that good. The Seahawks offense seemed to be only average, but they were playing a good D and were without the league MVP. It turns out Matt Hasselbeck can handle playoff pressure, and the Hawks' return teams suck. That's really all anyone can say with certainty right now.

At the end of the first quarter, I was sure the Hawks were going to lose. Hell, at halftime I was sure they would lose. But they slowly took control, and after Hall missed that field goal, you knew it was going to turn out okay. Now I can breathe a little bit before getting refocused on this week's game.

Then the news about Sean Locklear came out. Apparently he got in a domestic dispute at a billiards bar when he saw his girlfriend dancing with another guy. Oh great. Not only is he still in jail because all the judges are on holiday, but now he's going to get an earful from opposing players on Sunday. Can you imagine the trash talk? I'm sure Julius Peppers will have plenty of choice things to say about Sean's girlfriend. Dude. Just stay focused, Sean.

So anyway, I can now say unequivocally that this is the biggest football game of my life on Sunday. That's kinda fun. It's also going to give me a few more ulcers.

The newest McGee

I'm happy to announce the arrival today, Sunday, January 15, at 5:55 p.m. PST, of Quincy Grace McGee, a baby girl weighing 8 pounds 9 ounces. Hooray, hooray! Congrats to Tim and LaVerne, Maddie, and the grandparents. I'll post pics when I have some.

Truthiness

If you haven't watched The Colbert Report yet, you should. It's brilliant. Here's another reason why.

The Game

So I think I have three or four ulcers because of the Seahawks game this weekend. On paper, I think the Hawks should win. But I'm not a "tortured Seattle sports fan" for nothing; I know what happens when we're "supposed" to win: heartbreak and crying. That being said, let me pretend to be a normal sports fan for a moment and think about this game as if a non-tragically-cursed team were involved.

It is interesting to find that many Redskins fans think they are going to win this weekend. Irrational faith in one's favorite team being one thing, I think this is also due to the perception that the Hawks are a fraud ("they played an easy schedule," "they should have lost to the Giants," "they have no defense," etc.). Despite a 13-3 record and an 11-game winning streak, few people across the country are impressed. I just hope the Hawks hear this talk, and come out with something to prove.

This is what Skins fans tell me: if they stop Shaun Alexander, and then get anything from their offense, they'll win. I just don't see how that could be true.

First, Shaun and the O-line don't slump. They don't have off-days (knock on wood). The only way to stop the run is to put enough defenders at the line -- I think it'll require 8 men in the box to shut it down. If you do that, though, it leaves the offense to Hasselbeck and his crew of underrated receivers. To me, this is where the game will be won or lost. If Matt has a good game -- makes the right reads, avoids the blitzes, doesn't throw picks -- the Hawks should win. The Redskins will key on Shaun, and it will be up to Matt to make the right calls to burn 'em when they do. Matt has been great this season, and he has played well in the last two playoff games (over 300 yds each game), the Al Harris interception notwithstanding. The way I see it, the game pretty much falls on him.

On defense, it'll be about avoiding the big play. I am okay with giving Brunell 40 attempts, as long as he doesn't ever complete a long one to Santana Moss. The Hawks have a good run-D, so I don't think Portis will hurt them too badly. The D-line should be able to get to Brunell and make him move around on those wobbly knees. So my worries are centered on Moss and Cooley. The Skins will gain more yards than they did last week, but as long as the Hawks don't give them turnovers and a short field to work with, I think the Hawks D will be okay.

So, if I were a rational person, I would predict a Seahawks win. Something like 30-13. But the Seahawks have a history that they just can't ignore. Everyone in the stadium will know it. As soon as anything bad happens, or if the Hawks are protecting a small 4th quarter lead, the tension there will be palpable. For reference, see my ulcers. I think the Skins have a good chance to win this game -- not because they have a better team, but because bad shit happens to Seattle teams. It's just naive to deny it at this point. So the tortured fan inside me sees something like 17-16, Redskins. So this is what I'm going to do -- split the difference. I'll meet the Seahawks halfway if they'll do the same. I'll be half-less paranoid if they're half-less tragic. 23-15, Seattle.

Last things on Alito hearings

First, the idea that Democrats were tough on Alito is silly. They weren't tough. They were annoying and obnoxious, maybe, but not tough.

Second, all the Senators on the Judiciary Committee need to be better prepared. Alito was clearly the best legal mind in the room, which is good, but the Senators should not be lagging so far behind. They ask some pretty dumb questions sometimes, and make themselves look like they're in over their heads. I understand that these hearings are as much about letting the Senators sit there and talk about what they think the law should be and what the judiciary should do, but when they engage in actual legal discourse, they shouldn't appear so confused. For example, I like Senator Feinstein a lot, but I noticed her talking about the Commerce Clause and "standing" as if they might be the same thing. Uhhh, no. Schumer had some weird ideas too. Republicans weren't as bad, but they weren't there to ask real questions, so it wasn't as apparent that they didn't know what they were talking about.

I was most impressed with Senator Feingold. I liked his style, I liked most of his questions, and I liked how he would follow up with mostly-intelligent questions if Alito's answer wasn't complete. I think I've heard his name mentioned for potential presidential nominees in '08. I wouldn't mind seeing that. (He was, if you recall, the only senator not to vote for the USA PATRIOT Act... worth mentioning.)

Sleepy

Jet lag is kicking my ass. It shouldn't be so tough, but I can't seem to fall asleep before 3:30am. When I get up at 8am, I'm hurting. I just fell asleep in the Reading Room.

"He is like a very, very smart rock."

That's Dahlia on the Alito hearings. I watched them today, and I agree; they were pretty damned dull. They want to engage him in some controversial topics, but he's smart enough to know how to talk about those topics in the most boring way possible. As long as the nominee is smart enough to avoid trouble, these hearings are a joke; they serve no purpose. I challenge you to find one thing that we learn in these hearings that we didn't know before. It would have been a lot more fun to watch Harriet Miers go through this. She would have said stupid stuff.

Back in Ann Arbor

Winter break is over, and classes start tomorrow. Always exciting, the first day of classes. I never seem to sleep well the night before classes start. And then you add this Seahawks anxiety, and I probably won't sleep a wink tonight.

The 'Hawks are favored by NINE points!? Wow. Seems awful high to me.

There is no snow on the ground here, which is very unusual. It has been in the upper 30s and 40s here; usually we have a nice layer of crusty snow on the ground by now. And meanwhile, it is still raining in Seattle. It rained every day I was there, and now has rained 23 days in a row. The record is 33, or something... go Seattle, you can do it!

Now that I'm back in school, blogging should be more active. Sorry for the lack of activity lately.

Seahawks-Redskins

It occurs to me, since it has been so long since the Seahawks last won a playoff game, that this week's game against the Redskins is the biggest Seahawks game since 1984. I might have a coronary.

Letterman, and the War on Christmas

It would take all my time if I wanted to discuss every dopey thing Bill O'Reilly says, so I avoid the topic altogether. But as you know, I will talk about good TV, and last night's Letterman show was good TV. O'Reilly was a guest, and the interview was rather combative. The video clip is here. My favorite line was about the so-called war on Christmas. Letterman says: "Isn't this the kind of thing that comes around every 20 years or so where someone wants to put horses in diapers? Won't this just go away? Isn't this just nothing?"

Horses in diapers? Is that a popular saying that I've missed? Either way... awesome.

Then there was this: "I am not smart enough to debate you point by point on this, but I have a feeling about 60% of what you say is crap." Heh.

A few items

A couple random thoughts today:

First, good move by the Sonics to fire Bob Weiss. The players liked him, probably because he didn't make them play defense. They have the worst D in the league -- hopefully Bob Hill will make 'em play.

Second, now Notre Dame has lost 8 bowl games in a row. Nobody seems to understand that this is because ND is always underqualified for its bowls, and is always outmanned by superior teams, because bowl organizers love to have ND play if at all possible. The Irish didn't deserve to be in the Fiesta Bowl this year, and they didn't deserve to be in whatever bowl they were in last year, and they won't deserve to be in their bowl next year. They are the Harriet Miers of college football -- underqualified, but somebody important loves them.

Last, I hope this Jack Abramoff thing wipes a lot of people out of congress. A poll says half of all people thinks congress is corrupt, yet incumbants continue to get re-elected (e.g., is there any question that Tom DeLay will be back for another term?). The voters, it seems, are unable to keep the government clean by themselves. It'll be interesting to see what happens.