Vegas?

Somehow I ended up with a ticket to Vegas today, so it won't be a quiet spring break after all. Two days in Vegas followed by three days in Palm Springs... that'll do just fine. So there will be radio silence in this space for a little while. Happy Spring Break, everyone!

Best concert ever

Last night I went to the Palace at Auburn Hills to see Coldplay. After winning a ticket lottery from the Coldplay website, I ended up with seats on the floor, in the second row. I was 20 feet from the band. It was awesome. I took pictures with my phone, but I can't figure out how to upload them without paying Sprint an extra $5 a month. Anyway, what a great time. We were so close, we could hear Chris Martin apologize to the band off mic when he messed up the lyrics. Every time the drummer pressed the bass pedal, my rib cage rattled. So cool.

The new court

My girl Dahlia has a report from the first oral argument without Sandra Day O'Connor and with Samuel Alito. Seems like an interesting case on several fronts. It deals primarily with the scope of the Clean Water Act, which gives the feds control over "navigable waters." The question is whether wetlands that may eventually drain into navigable waters qualify under those terms.

This part of the argument stuck out:

Carabell's lawyer, Timothy Stoepker, urges that there is just "no connection between these wetlands and navigable water of the United States." Justice John Paul Stevens inquires whether the government can at least step in when "there is no hydrological connection today, but after you've built your project there will be a hydrological connection?" Scalia says that test is wrong: "Is this a water of the United States or not. It either is or it isn't." Souter disagrees, rephrasing Stevens' question such that "if a project will result in a polluted discharge later, it is water of the United States now," otherwise, "Congress will have passed a statute that says it will lock the barn door after the horse is gone."

The only reason it sticks out is because I like horse/barn analogies. I recall one time when my dad used three different horse/barn analogies in 5 minutes, without realizing it. You know, putting the horse before the cart; the horse is already out of the barn; and another one I can't remember. I like Souter's, too, and will add it to the list.

"Bla bla bla"

If there was any question about it before, there certainly isn't now: you can't be an idiot over email any more. If you say the wrong thing to the wrong person, it could eventually wind up in everybody's inbox.

Here's the latest example (the link to the actual email is in the "Related Stories" on the left). I got the email forwarded to me for the first time last week, and I've seen it a couple times since. This poor girl, who certainly was an idiot, may have trouble getting a job anytime soon.

Ever wonder why my blog is so harmless? There ya go.

Brrrrrrrrrr

Yesterday it was 33. Today it's 1 (wind chill of -16). Damn it's cold!

Hell week is over

Phew. That turned out to be a pretty tough week. I turned in the bench memo late last night -- it's about a current Supreme Court case called Hartman v. Moore, where Moore has filed a claim against the government for retaliatory prosecution (he claims that he was prosecuted by the Postal Inspectors after he mounted an aggressive, and ultimately successful, lobbying effort against a US Postal Service policy). The question before the court is whether the Postal Inspectors can be sued when they actually had probable cause for the prosecution. One might think that the Inspectors should be immune if they have probable cause, but I ended up concluding that in a rare case like Moore's, probable cause shouldn't justify an unconstitutional prosecution. It's actually a pretty interesting case.

Evidence midterm was this afternoon. Glad it's over.

And I received a request all the way from Paradise, CA, that I resume reporting of my bowling exploits. Okay, I do what the readers want. Last night, I was very average: 125, 127, 135. My early season magic has disappeared. Again.

Spring break is one week away. Unfortunately, I won't be going anywhere. I had planned to go to Tahoe to ski with my old ultimate team, but time and money have made it so it would be better if I stayed here. I'm still working on a paper for a class from last semester (due at graduation), and I'd like to get that done before too long. So, boring spring break for me.

What? I'm still in law school?

After all the Super Bowl craziness, it's probably easy to forget that I'm still in school. But surprise, I'm still here. And this week is reminding me that it can still be pretty brutal. I have a midterm and a bench memo due Friday. So for a week at least, it feels like 1L year again. Man, I don't miss those times. Being a 3L is the easy life.

Sonics wake from slumber to realize they suck

The Sonics traded Vlade Radmanovic today for Chris Wilcox. Oy. Vlade wasn't doing anything for them this year anyway, and the team is heading for a top-5 lottery pick, so it's not a big loss. He was gone at the end of the year anyway. Wilcox was a beast in college, but he's done nothing in the pros. I don't know if they're planning to keep him after this year or not. It sounds like he dogs it, and if that's the case, he can't stay long.

It's been nice to check the box scores lately and see that Robert Swift and Johan Petro are getting some minutes. It looks like they're not so bad, but I haven't actually seen them play. We've spent the past two drafts on these guys -- I hope they pan out.

I wonder what the plan is for the Sonics right now.

N-I-T!

With tonight's loss to Gonzaga, Stanford pretty much loses any shot at the NCAA tourney. It's too bad, because right now they're playing well enough to be in it. All those horrible losses in the non-conference season are killing them.

They played well tonight, and only lost because Adam Morrison is a really good basketball player. I have no idea what he'll be like in the pros, but he is a fantastic college player -- one of the best I've seen in a while.

A new game

It's been a while since I've suggested a game, but here's a new one: Gravity. Enjoy.

Active Liberty

For those interested in an alternative to the easy-to-swallow judicial philosophies championed by Justice Scalia and that legal wizard George W. Bush, the New York Times has a nice review (written by the former dean of Stanford Law School, Kathleen Sullivan) of Stephen Breyer's book, Active Liberty. I think it's an interesting and exciting philosophy; unlike Scalia's Textualism, which is both cold-hearted and stubbornly short-sighted, Breyer's Active Liberty has a better chance of finding what the judiciary (and the law in general) really strives to create: justice. (And no, Dubya, that doesn't mean he "legislates from the bench." Jackass.) I haven't read the book yet, but I will when school's out.

"I feel like the Seattle Seahawks"

So says Steve Nash, after his Phoenix Suns were victim to some bad calls in a game against the T-Wolves.

Good job, NFL. Way to create a new catchphrase. That's a keeper.

The Day After

As Teddy KGB said in Rounders, "I feel so unsatisfied." As I'm sure every Seahawk player and fan feels today, I'm sure that we should have won that game. The Hawks had the better game plan, quarterback, running back, offensive line, and run defense (except for one play). The Steelers had the better punter, receivers, health, home-field advantage, and game management. Everything else was a wash.

Oh, except for the officiating. The Internet is full of griping about the refs today, so I don't have to spend too many words on it. And I don't mean to suggest that the refs determined the outcome, but they definitely contributed to it. Every borderline call went the Steelers way. Four calls stand out: the Jackson "offensive pass interference," the Roethlisberger "touchdown," the Locklear "holding," and the Hasselbeck "block below the waste." Hasselbeck's penalty wasn't a game-turner, but it was the most bizarre. The others were at best a coin flip, at worst completely wrong, and all went against the Seahawks. I can't think of a single tough call going against the Steelers (the Stevens "fumble" would have been recovered exactly where the Steelers received the eventual punt, so no harm done there). The point is that you always expect the refs to make some mistakes, but you only hope that they even out in the end. In this game, every call went the Steelers' way, and almost all of them were huge momentum-changing or drive-killing calls. It's just a shame the refs would be such a factor.

The determining factor, though, was the Hawks' own inability to finish drives. They've been doing it all season, but couldn't do it today. Stevens had a terrible game, and I feel bad for him. He was undeservedly beaten up by Porter and the media all week, and now he's the Super Bowl goat. Tough business. Tom Rouen had an even worse game, I think, putting at least four punts in the endzone for touchbacks. Josh Brown missed two long field goals. Mike Holmgren mismanaged the ends of both halves. The lack of depth in the secondary turned out to be a huge problem when Manuel and Dyson got hurt. Manuel's backup, third-stringer Etric Pruitt, got burned on both the Parker and Ward TDs. Ouch.

The Hawks outgained the Steelers, and won the turnover battle, and still lost. There were many plays that were just unlucky: Mack Strong missing the first down by an inch, Jackson catching long balls just barely out of bounds, Roethlisberger's "touchdown" by an invisible inch, Wistrom tripping before Roethlisberger threw that Hail Mary to Ward at the 1. Ouch.

So a long offseason awaits. A game we should have won, but a combination of bad luck, bad calls, and bad mistakes at bad times gave the game to the Steelers. It was great to have the Hawks in the Super Bowl; I wasn't sure it would ever happen, and I'm glad I got to see it. It gives me a little hope that some day the breaks will go our way, we'll come up big, and in the big game, the Seahawks, Sonics, or Mariners might give us a championship. Six months ago I thought it could never happen. Now, I have a glimmer of hope.

The Super Bowl

I'm leaving town for a couple days, heading up to Boyne Mountain in northern Michigan. By "mountain" they mean a hill, apparently. You can ski on it, but it takes about ten minutes to get from top to bottom. So, I think we're going sledding/tubing instead. For me, I'll take the time to ease my addled brain, relieve it from Super Bowl stress. But before I get there, here's my breakdown.

In the comments from my previous post, my analysis is accused of not being fair and balanced. I am shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that I might have a slight Seahawks slant to my coverage. I don't know how that might have happened. Maybe it was from growing up a mile from Seahawks headquarters, and spending many a summer day there as a kid houndind the players for autographs as they came and left. Maybe it was from my obsessive love for Seahawks games in person and on TV (any punishment that included a "week with no TV" was only painful on Sunday afternoons, when I was confined to my room and Pete Gross on the radio). Maybe that's it.

So I'll do my best to stay fair and balanced with the analysis. Sorry, everyone.

My analysis is actually pretty simple. It all comes down to the quarterbacks. When the Hawks have the ball, Hasselbeck will have to help the line recognize the blitz, make the hot reads, and deliver the ball accurately. If he can do that, the Hawks will move the ball. They've always used the pass to set up the run, so if he's playing well, it will open up running opportunities for Shaun. I expect Matt to play well; he won't be fazed by the big stage, and he'll enjoy every minute of it. Just watch out for Polamalu. That guy is scary-good. It helps having already played against Sean Taylor this post-season, who is a very similar player. But Polamalu might be better. I expect the Hawks' O to move the ball well.

On defense, it depends how well the front seven contains the run, and if they can, how well Big Ben does against a type of defense he hasn't seen yet this postseason. The Hawks won't blitz as much as the other AFC teams do; he'll have to find holes in the zone. This is the part of the game I am most worried about. The Hawks' secondary has been playing well lately, but they have been known to give up yards in big chunks. So they're going to need the D-line to keep some pressure on Big Ben. I don't know if they will. The Steelers receivers are very good, so it's going to take a big game for the defense to keep the Steelers out of the endzone. They also have to watch out for trick/gimmick plays featuring Randle El. That guy scares me.

It's very hard to predict this game. I really don't understand how all the experts can come down on the Pittsburgh side when the matchups are so close. As I've mentioned earlier, I know the Hawks will have a chip on their shoulders because of all the media picks and that ass Joey Porter.

So there's the fair and balanced part. I think it's almost a toss-up. I don't buy the argument that the Steelers are the hotter team, and even if it were true, I don't know how it will matter. Turnovers will probably decide this game, but if the turnover battle is even, I'm going to surprise no one and pick the Hawks, 31-21. Just like every other media observor, I have no logic. Just a hunch. Go Seahawks!

Motivations

I imagine that the Seahawks players are just about fed up with how they're perceived right now. I have seen only one national commentator (and that was only Cris Carter) pick them to win this game. So again I ask why Vegas has them as only four-point dogs if the entire world expects them to lose. The answer, I think, is illogical Steeler love and Seahawk animus. When you break it down, the teams are very similar. So people pick the Steelers merely out of some gut feeling that the Steelers, all but one of whom have never played in a Super Bowl, are somehow more capable of handling the situation than the Seahawks are. Whether that turns out to be true or not, if I'm a Seahawk player, that is firing me up right now.

And then this Joey Porter jackass. He went off again today about Jerramy Stevens, which makes no sense at all. Stevens has said nothing pejorative about Porter, only saying that Joey will have a tougher time against Walter Jones than he did against whatever stiff the Broncos had at left tackle. Nobody would argue with that statement, I think. And then the thing about Bettis wasn't a personal attack on Jerome at all. I acknowledge that logic plays no part in this, but dude, if you're going to get angry about something, make it worthwhile. He only makes himself look like an even bigger jackass with all this.

For some reason, though, the Steeler-loving media is blaming Stevens for all this. Whatever you do, don't say anything to make Joey mad. Apparently it doesn't take much to do that, so what's the point? And meanwhile, as Joey continues to blather on, you know Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, and Mack Strong are listening. Those guys don't need contrived verbal wars to get up for games, but if Porter is going to talk shit, they'll hit him that much harder. The media says Stevens erred by getting Porter fired up; okay, whatever. They don't say anything about what Porter is doing for the Hawks right now. When Porter is looking around to hit Stevens, he better keep his head on a swivel or else big #71 is going to knock him silly.

Last point on this: as the geniuses at ESPN were "analyzing" this dispute, and blaming Stevens and praising Porter, Sean Salisbury actually said something about how Stevens (a relative nobody) shouldn't mess with an established vet like Porter. "Porter has been there before. Stevens has played in zero Super Bowls." For some reason, Sean thinks Porter has played in a Super Bowl before. An impressive display of WRONG. Keep this in mind when Salisbury picks the Steelers to win the game.

I hate that groundhog

Not that this winter is so bad, but that damned thing always see its shadow. Even when it's cloudy. And now, as I should have guessed, I see that he's a Steeler fan. Oooh, I hate that groundhog.

Seahawks-Steelers

This Joey Porter character is a real ass. He's a fantastic player, no doubt, but this crap he raised about a relatively harmless statement from Jerramy Stevens just so stupid. It's clearly a motivational tool, and it has very little to do with Stevens at all. But does he really need to raise such a ruckus to get himself fired up for the Super Bowl? Why does he need anything like that to get fired up for the Super Bowl?

And the stupid, stupid media here. They call it a "near-guarantee," whatever that means. I didn't know a guarantee was a matter of degree. I kinda guarantee that your car will last 100,000 miles. What? For some reason, a guarantee in sports has become a big deal. It all starts with Joe Namath, I guess. But why? Don't all athletes think they're going to win? Any Super Bowl player who isn't confident enough to guarantee victory shouldn't be on the field. Do we really want Matt Hasselbeck thinking, yeah, I think we're going to win, but I wouldn't guarantee it? Hell no. But for whatever reason, any time someone actually guarantees a win, the media goes crazy and SportsCenter shows the Top 10 Guarantees of All Time. Now, apparently, you don't even have to guarantee something; all you have to do is exhibit confidence in your chances of victory, and you've given a near-guarantee. I mean, what the hell.

So all this just makes me want to see Walter Jones and Mack Strong knock the snot out of Joey Porter on Sunday.