When Liberals Attack!

At some point Sunday I slipped into the Twilight Zone. I learned why it's often said that politics and religion should never be discussed in polite company. To wit...

While at my friends Adam’s and Christie's yesterday (for their daughter’s 2nd birthday celebration, no less), I was introduced to their neighbor, “Glenn.” Glenn, a hardcore liberal Democrat, purportedly enjoyed a good political discussion so Adam thought it might be interesting to get us together and let hilarity ensue. You know, toss a couple of cats in a bag and let the fur fly, that sort of thing.

Now, for the most part, I’ve retired from political discussions at parties. For one thing, it’s not really appropriate. For another, I grew weary of being that guy at parties who won’t shut the hell up about Really Important Issues. That’s what this blog is for. So while I will politely discuss any issue at all, especially when prodded by friends who understand my perspectives, I attend parties to hang out and enjoy the company instead of engaging in wild-eyed, spittle-flecked fits of apoplexy. Anyway...

Our discussion started out amiably enough. I joked how Sunday should be a day of rest from the vitriol and Glenn agreed. The topic of Real Time With Bill Maher came up, and I proffered my complaints about the program, the greatest being that I wanted more perspectives represented. Instead of elevating the discourse about issues and ideas, the show often unravels into partisan bickering that’s only slightly funnier than the same crap that’s dished out on Fox News or CNN. My take was that both sides (left and right) were wrong and I wanted to hear somebody, anybody, challenge them. At this Glenn grimaced, gritted his teeth, and asked about my beliefs. Naturally, I described my aversion to the state and its coercion, depredations, and initiations of violence, and how I instead favored the voluntarist, market-based solutions of anarcho-capitalism.

Well, this guy nearly shit his pants.

What I hoped would be a polite and respectful exchange of ideas quickly escalated into a full-scale browbeating. Generously, let’s characterize his reactions to my beliefs as “paroxysms of incredulity.” Bulging eyes, furrowed brow, little vein at the temples twitching. Glenn pretty much wigged his shit: his behavior was boorish, disrespectful, and condescending. And he kept cutting me off! More than once I had to politely say, “Please let me finish.”

It quickly became apparent that a fruitful conversation would prove impossible, partly due to his attitude, but mostly because we had no basis for discussion. There is little sense in arguing normative or philosophical differences. I've arrived at my beliefs through a careful process of introspection and exploration. I even explained to the guy that I’d been where he was: throughout my ideological odyssey I'd flirted with left liberalism, right-wing conservatism, and big-L Libertarianism. Finally I realized that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism rang most consistently true with my morals and principles. If you think taxation is perfectly legitimate while I feel it's institutionalized theft, well, what's the point in continuing the conversation? We can't even agree on the moral basics here and frankly I'd rather not waste my time. I'm no evangelist. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

[Besides, Glenn's beliefs are the ones that have been deemed mainstream and "acceptable" while mine have been marginalized as "crackpot" or "extremist" (even though Glenn's ideas put into practice harm me a hell of a lot more than mine would do to him). Why bother getting worked up over a fringe ideology?]

Anyway, at one point he seemed to calm down and our conversation became temporarily civil. But the cease-fire was fleeting and, despite my efforts to defuse the situation, it wasn't long before Glenn was red-lining again. He challenged me to “name one anarchic society that’s worked,” while I countered by defying him to name one state that would gladly put itself out of business; it’s not like the state likes competition! At this he abruptly stood up, shook my hand with a “nice talking to you,” and stormed out.

Honestly, I don’t get this behavior, AT ALL. Liberals and anarcho-capitalists aren’t natural enemies in the wild. We both hold especially sneering contempt for the neoconservatives whose rumps so prominently occupy the seats of power, so his reluctance to seek common ground was somewhat baffling. And to act like a petulant child instead of engaging me in an honest, open exchange of ideas…well, what’s the point? Never in my life have I felt threatened by someone else’s convictions. Rather, it’s important to be challenged in order to examine your beliefs critically so that you are able to defend (or reassess) them. I’m honestly curious about what other people believe – why they believe the things they do. Isn't learning something the big reason for having a dialogue?

[Don't get me wrong: I do not extrapolate from this experience that most liberals are like this. Most of my friends lean to the left and they are all very bright, fun, and rational people. But that guy's behavior? Rife with douchebaggery.]

So that was the capper to an otherwise phenomenal weekend. If you ever want to debate me about political issues, please confine it to this forum, because after yesterday I am D-U-N done with that bullshit...

Wild Pitches: 5/24/06

Random baseball stuff I'm pondering...

• Jeremy Brown to scouts and skeptics: suck it. The "fat catcher" from Oakland's Moneyball draft of 2002, who polarized scouts and statheads and thus became the symbol of their discontent, is tearing up AAA to the tune of .314/.384/.570 in 24 games. I can't wait for this guy to get called up...
  
  
• Jeff Francoeur: swing hard in case you hit it. Much has been made of Francoeur's recent surge but let's not get carried away. With 2 walks on the season, he now boasts a lusty .273 OBP. Do you have any idea how hard it is to bat as often as Francoeur (193 ABs) and draw only 2 walks? Mark Mulder, a starting pitcher who used to toil in the American League, has already walked three times in 21 ABs this season. Hey Jeff, here's an idea: take a fucking pitch once in awhile.
  
  
• Josh Willingham: Ken Phelps All-Star, McKeon's Folly. Finally given the opportunity to prove his worth, rookie Josh Willingham is having a terrific season, posting numbers of .269/.364/.487 in 43 games so far. Yet another example of the predictive power of minor league statistics and component skills analysis.
  
  
• Question of the Day: Is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer? He's on the cusp of 200 wins, owns two World Championships, and has been a dominant (if not quite elite level) pitcher throughout his career. On the downside, he's never won a Cy Young award or an ERA title, and his lifetime totals are (for now) modest compared to those already enshrined. Still, on the strengths of his peak value, positive showing on most HOF evaluation methods, and the mythology of the bloody sock, I think he gets in.

Happy Birthday, Sweetheart!

Today -- May 9 -- is my lovely wife's birthday! So if you get a chance, please feel free to send thoughts, well wishes, or virtual toasts to: tracy5973 *at* yahoo *dot* com.

Honey, if you're reading: I'm thinking of you and hope you're having a wonderful day. I adore you and wish you a very happy birthday!

Donald Fagen's "Morph the Cat"

For the past month or so I've been listening nonstop to Donald Fagen's new CD, "Morph the Cat." In short, it's amazing.

Written in the wake of 9/11, Fagen's third solo effort completes a trilogy of sorts. And in Fagen's typically sardonic style, the album's mellifluous vibe and comforting melodies mask some seriously dark undercurrents.

Though the album lacks some of the initial hooks of Steely Dan's 2003 "Everything Must Go," or even Fagen's previous solo projects (1982's "The Nightfly" and 1993's "Kamakiriad") it is undeniably Fagen: vaguely humorous allusions and inscrutable lyrics set ironically against a backbeat of jazz, lush harmonies, tight grooves, and unparalleled craftmanship. The themes and arrangements unfold and develop in natural, deliberate rhythms. Donald describes it beautifully:

Musically, Morph The Cat blends jazz, soul and other musical influences - not unlike Brother Ray [Charles] once did - with extended grooves and ever changing textures and a sort of musical ambition rarely heard anymore - think Aja set in current day Manhattan. “I like it when songs develop in some way and four minutes isn’t usually enough time for something to develop musically usually,” says Fagen. “I’m still kind of plugged into the Duke Ellington model - something akin to classical music - where you start with something, you develop it a little bit and stick with it. And when you get a groove going, time flies.”

Personal highlights for me include the title track, "Morph the Cat," along with "H Gang," "Security Joan," and "Mary Shut the Garden Door." Donald displays an uncharacteristically political side in "Mary" as described by the liner notes: "Paranoia blooms when a thuggish cult gains control of the government" (Fagen confesses this song was written right after the Republican convention came to Manhattan). The song features a haunting melodica solo by Fagen and a vivid tableau of jackbooted terror set in the opening verses:

They came in under the radar
When our backs were turned around
In a fleet of Lincoln Town Cars
They rolled into our town
Confounded all six senses
Like an opiate in the brain
Mary shut the garden door
Looks a lot like rain

Mary shut the garden door
Mary shut the garden door

We pounded Rachel's radio
For reports about the bridge
There was nothing on but static
Nothing in the fridge
We lay there listening to the wind
Whistling through the pines
When we heard the engines idling
Saw the headlights through the blinds

This is a beautiful and intensely personal album. Do yourself a favor and check it out.

Joe Morgan Will Never Get 'Moneyball'

Fantastic work cutting down the latest Joe Morgan chat by Ken Tremendous of the supremely hilarious FIRE JOE MORGAN blog. Over the years I've found Joe's grating arrogance to be more a source of amusement than a firing offense, but he made several head-shakingly stupid comments in his latest chat. With apologies to KT, I'd like to pile on where I think he ladled out insufficient abuse:

Joe Morgan: The guy that wrote Moneyball can't teach me about the game. That is what I meant. If you haven't been on the field, why should I read your book? How can that person teach me about the game? I learn plenty about the game everyday. Every Sunday night I learn something. The game changes almost every day. But I'm still not going to read Moneyball or books written by people who haven't been on the field or really experienced what goes on in the game of baseball.

And later on...

I want to clarify the misunderstand [sic] about what I learn. Every Sunday I learn something new. But I'm going to stand by the fact that somebody who didn't play the game can't teach me about the game. I learned from the best, the legends who played the game. I played alongside so many great players. I'm just not going to read a book in hopes of learning how to play baseball. But this is an everchanging game and I do learn something almost every day. I'm just a former baseball player who is now an analyst. My thoughts are about the game and not medical technologies and such. Just because somebody writes a book doesn't mean they know the game.

These statements are so stupendously, forehead-slappingly moronic, it's hard to believe this guy is ever taken seriously. Let's parse, shall we?

But I'm going to stand by the fact that somebody who didn't play the game can't teach me about the game.

Bollocks. This whole premise is sheer bollocks. That's like Bill Clinton saying that political scientists who study polls, demographics, and voter trends can teach him nothing about predicting election results because they never ran for office. Geez, Joe, was it the sailors or the scientists who first realized that the earth was round?

I'm just not going to read a book in hopes of learning how to play baseball.

WTF? See, that's part of the problem, Joe. Moneyball is not an instructional pamphlet. If you want to learn how to play baseball, then I suggest you consult the Tom Emanski videos endorsed by Fred McGriff and his gigantic cap. If you want to learn about how Billy Beane outfoxes richer clubs through the creative application of basic economic concepts...never mind.

Just because somebody writes a book doesn't mean they know the game.

And, sadly, just because somebody is an Emmy-winning baseball analyst and Hall of Fame player doesn't mean they know the game, either.

John Schuerholz Still Doesn't Get "Moneyball"

This point-counterpoint comes courtesy of Braves GM John Schuerholz's new book, Built to Win. Perhaps I'll post a full review once I've finished reading it but, for now, it's Chapter 2 ("Gentlemen, Start Your Moneyball Arguments") that has me all fired up. With apologies to FIRE JOE MORGAN:

Moneyball contends that the low-budget A's, forced to play little checkbook baseball, were able to win their division in 2003 and contend during recent seasons by primarily cobbling together an economy roster of inexpensive kids and scrap heap vets on the basis of some trendy statistical analysis.

Gentlemen, start your strawman arguments! This "trendy statistical analysis" you speak of. Please, tell me more about your understanding of it.

This "revolutionary" formula virtually discards not only the trained eye of seasoned scouts, bunting and base stealing, but brands as meaningless the value of an effective closer.

No, no, NO. Nobody's discarding anything; the point of Moneyball was to reassess the traditional assumptions that have driven player evaluation and acquisition. So in rebuttal:

1) Seasoned scouts are fine but the Moneyball approach concedes that they are prone to subjective judgments and human biases. By combining a scout's observations with objective statistical measurements, you get a clearer picture of a player's true potential. Statistics are a tool best used in tandem with scouting and these tools should complement one another. This doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

2) Bunting and base stealing are fine in certain situations. You just have to understand the risks and rewards since you have a finite supply of outs to use each game -- 27 is all you get. Wasting them with sacrifices and poor baserunning is probably not the optimal way for your offense to operate.

3) Closers are "meaningless?" Says who? Not the A's, as evidenced by their employment of Jason Isringhausen, Keith Foulke, Octavio Dotel, and Huston Street. Next.

The basic Moneyball theory is, substantially, on-base percentage for position players and groundball outs for pitchers -- a pure statistical way to put a team together.

Well, sure, if you actually want to win. Bill James studied these issues years ago, and his regression analysis determined that on-base percentage was the highest correlate for scoring runs. Which should be the focal point of the offense. And groundballs are a laudable goal since they're tough to hit over the fence and even better for inducing double plays. But true Moneyballers will tell you to stock up on power pitchers since strikeouts remove nearly all the vagaries of balls in play. But whatever.

In fairness, Moneyball made for a good read, even though I feel the basic premise is terribly flawed.

In fairness to Schuerholz, at least he's read the book, unlike some of its less enlightened critics. But to reiterate: no, no, NO. Moneyball was not just about stats. The book explains a system for identifying and exploiting inefficiencies in the player marketplace. The premise is that it's possible to use statistics to identify undervalued or underappreciated commodities languishing in the minor leagues or on major league benches -- replacement players that are freely available and far cheaper than "established" major leaguers. The idea is to outflank your deep pocketed rivals by getting 75%+ of the production of a high-priced free agent at 25% (or less) of the cost. If anything, Moneyball is about the efficient employment of resources even more than statistical analysis.

And the application of economics, where Moneyball is concerned, is about more than money. To fully appreciate the lessons of Moneyball, the savvy reader needs to have a basic understanding of the principles of economics. For example, baseball GMs need to understand and appreciate concepts such as supply and demand, opportunity cost, and the idea of replacement level talent in order to succeed in a dynamic marketplace. Understanding and applying these concepts can mean the difference between being on the right or wrong side of a Brian Giles for Ricardo Rincon or Bobby Abreu for Kevin Stocker trade.

In a sense, Schuerholz is an unwitting proponent of Moneyball principles. The Braves have never overpaid for a closer, either in a trade or via free agency, throughout Schuerholz's tenure. And this is much to John's credit. Schuerholz intuitively understands that it's insane to pay relief pitchers tons of money because of some magical "closer" designation, where value is bound up in managerial usage patterns rather than some intrinsic skill set on the part of the pitcher. While the Mets overpay for Billy Wagner, Schuerholz acquires decent relievers at bargain basement prices, and any one of them could mature into the closer role. It makes little sense to overpay for a role when cheaper talent is there for the grooming. And when a guy gets too expensive, the Braves let him go and start the process anew. The formula has worked for 15 years, with such luminaries as Alejandro Pena, Mike Stanton, Greg McMichael, Mark Wohlers, Kerry Ligtenberg, John Rocker, and Kyle Farnsworth ably handling the job. Though Schuerholz might not acknowledge it, this is as much a Moneyball concept as anything, and it's surprising that more teams haven't tried to emulate this pattern.

It's infuriating that Schuerholz is so dismissive of a philosophy that, properly understood and deployed, might have made the Braves even better. Schuerholz is quick to crow about his successes, citing the good value he got from Julio Franco and Jaret Wright despite their questionable pedigrees. OK, fine. But he doesn't satisfactorily address the misses. Yes, he touches on the failed chance they took on Raul Mondesi, but the Schuerholz era is littered with bad decisions and contracts, failures that any Moneyballer could have anticipated, including: Rico Brogna, Albie Lopez, Vinny Castilla, Walt Weiss, Mike Hampton, Danny Kolb, B.J. Surhoff, Jose Hernandez, Rey Sanchez, etc.

It all comes back to the concept of opportunity cost. Doling out money and roster spots to mediocrities like those guys takes away resources that could be used on better players. We see that the Braves have won fourteen consecutive division crowns, but what we don't see (and can never know) is how much better they might have been (115 regular season wins? A couple more World Series titles?) with improved strategies, processes, player acquisitions, etc. And the whole point of Moneyball is that you don't have to break the bank to get better players. It just requires taking a chance on unproven talent, trusting your system, and having the courage to see it through rather than taking the safe, uncreative solution of wasting money on "proven" mediocrities.

Under John Schuerholz's stewardship, we'll never know how much better the Braves could be by integrating Moneyball concepts into their team building approach. That Schuerholz seems so hostile to the new thinking, rather than seeking to use it to reassess and complement his own methods, is the real flaw here.

Sometimes the Headlines Just Write Themselves

ATF rids Univ. of ninja threat
BY CAROLINE ERVIN
Published , April 12, 2006, 06:00:01 AM EDT

ATF agents are always on alert for anything suspicious — including ninjas.

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm agents, on campus Tuesday for Project Safe Neighborhoods training, detained a “suspicious individual” near the Georgia Center, University Police Chief Jimmy Williamson said.

Jeremiah Ransom, a sophomore from Macon, was leaving a Wesley Foundation pirate vs. ninja event when he was detained.

After being held in investigative detention, he was found to have violated no criminal laws and was not arrested.

Jeremiah Ransom unwittingly serves as a metaphor for the true nature of the relationship between the ATF and American citizens.

[...]

Ransom was wearing black sweatpants and an athletic T-shirt with one red bandanna covering the bottom half of his face and another covering the top of his head, Williamson said.

“Seeing someone with something across the face, from a federal standpoint — that’s not right,” McLemore said, explaining why agents believed something to be amiss.

Normally, this is where I would add snarky, outraged commentary. Is it even necessary in this case?

(h/t to deadspin)

Happy Birthday to Me!

I know, I know: this is a shameless and borderline outrageous act of self-promotion and attention-whoring, but today -- April 12, 2006 -- marks my 33rd birthday and I'm in the mood to celebrate. And, seriously, what better way to celebrate your birthday than by attending Passover seder at Dick and Harry's (yes, those are my actual plans tonight)? Who needs cake? Pass the karpas and the Manischewitz, man. We're partying HARD.

Eh. Anyway, check out the always enlightening Wikipedia for more information about this stellar day. It's how I discovered that the famed American poet Ogden Nash actually composed verse about today's date. The poem is titled, oddly enough, "Lines in Praise of a Date Made Praiseworthy Solely By Something Very Nice That Happened to It:"

Lines in Praise of a Date Made Praiseworthy Solely by Something Very Nice That Happened to It

As through the calendar I delve
I pause to rejoice in April twelve.

Yea, be I in sickness or be I in health
My favorite date is April twealth.

It comes upon us, as a rule,
Eleven days after April fool,

And eighteen days ahead of May Day
When spring is generally in its heyday.

Down in New Mexico the chapparal
Is doing nicely by the twelfth of Apparal,

And Bay State towns such as Lowell and Pepperell
Begin to bloom on the twelfth of Epperell.

But regardless of the matter of weather,
There isn't any question whether.

No, not till the trumpet is blown by Gabriel
Shall we have such a day as the twelfth of Abriel.

Post-Mortem on the 2005-2006 UConn Huskies

Sorry for the lack of updates lately, my lovelies. Time management has never been a strength and I'm still adjusting to my new reality. Anyway...

This should be my last UConn post for awhile. Several people gingerly offered consolation after UConn lost to George Mason in the regional final, and they even remarked on how well I handled it. Of course I was upset but, honestly, much relieved when it was all over. This team labored under intense pressure and scrutiny all season. They were anointed preseason co-favorites (along with Duke) and thus faced an uphill climb just to meet expectations every game.

And the pressure was only intensified by the transitory nature of the roster; with four seniors (Denham Brown, Hilton Armstrong, Rashad Anderson, and Ed Nelson) graduating and three more players (Marcus Williams, Rudy Gay, and Josh Boone) all but certain to leap to the NBA, the season would be judged by two agonizingly polar extremes: national championship or bust. Few teams can thrive under that kind of microscope and the Huskies seemed to sense it as the season progressed.

But what disappointed me was not the loss itself -- it's how they were ironically done in by the strengths they'd relied upon all season (defense, rebounding, and blocks). Here, check out the regular season numbers (30 games) vs. NCAA tournament games (4 games):

--Opponent FG%: regular season 37.3%; tournament 46.1%
--Rebound Margin: regular season +10.5; tournament +2.0
--Blocked Shots: regular season 9.3 per game; tournament 4.5 per game

Now, I realize that four tournament games represent a tiny sample size against (by definition) strong competition, but the numbers do tell a story. UConn's defense failed to execute in the tourney like it did during the regular season. George Mason shot 5 of 6 in overtime -- season over.

I'm disappointed that kids like Denham Brown and Hilton Armstrong ended their careers on such a low note. They won a national championship as sophomores and I hope people remember that as their legacy instead of the stunned #1 seed. They gave us four great years and I'll remember them fondly.

OK, now on to the look ahead. I like the composition of the 2006-2007 roster. They'll look more like a "traditional" UConn team -- a little smaller than recent teams but with better guard play and perimeter shooting. Jeff Adrien, Craig Austrie, and Marcus Johnson return and should be even better after a year of seasoning (although Johnson barely played in the season's second half). A.J. Price should finally take the court after two tumultuous years battling health and legal problems. The recruits look nasty: UConn's 2006 class is consistently ranked among the nation's best by most outlets. The Huskies will be very young but extremely athletic; the talented youngsters could contribute right away and the team might surprise some people.

Already I can't wait for next season!

The Problem With Unions, In a Nutshell

Philly Plumbers Upset by Waterless Urinals

PHILADELPHIA - This city's hoped-for bragging rights as home of America's
tallest environmentally friendly building could go down the toilet.

In a city where organized labor is a force to be reckoned with, the
plumbers union has been raising a stink about a developer's plans to install 116
waterless, no-flush urinals in what will be Philadelphia's biggest
skyscraper.

Developer Liberty Property Trust says the urinals would save 1.6
million gallons of water a year at the 57-story Comcast Center, expected to open
next year.

But the union put out the word it doesn't like the idea of waterless
urinals — fewer pipes mean less work.

There you go. Property rights, freedom of contract, and common sense must be cast aside to accommodate a bunch of whiny, overpaid, officious assholes. These jerks are subverting the market process (for labor and materials) as if they have some right to work at the expense of the property owner. That's criminal. And the city's licensing department can actually reward this childish, anti-market behavior by refusing to approve waterless urinals.

Do you think these guys might have a problem with the Water Dept. dictating to them what kind of fixtures they can install in their homes? "Sorry sir, but your low-flow toilet deprives us of increased usage and revenue. You'll have to install something more costly." That would piss off just about anyone, wouldn't it? So why do these union goons think it's OK to pull the same stunt?

h/t to Fark.com

Update Teaser

Overpromising and underdelivering seem to be a running theme here but I do have a few things rattling around in my noggin to share. It's way too late for me to blog at my preferred level but look soon for substantive posts covering the following:

• George Mason 86, UConn 84 (OT). I'll have a post-mortem on the 2005-2006 Huskies and a look ahead to next year.
• I saw "V for Vendetta" over the weekend. Although I was looking for more explicit voice to the themes and ideas of the amazing graphic novel, the film was excellent and I will post a thorough review shortly.
• Bill Maher's "Real Time" roundtable discussion program on HBO is generally good but its shortcomings may eclipse its virtues. I'll explain.
• You know them, you love them: it's another installment of the "Unfree Country Chronicles," this time starring the great state of Texas in an outrageous display of criminalizing a state of mind.

Until then...

Survive and Advance!

My apologies for the lack of updates lately. I started the new job this week and have lacked the usual time and energy normally reserved for blogging. Anywho...

UConn 98, Washington 92 (OT). Wow. I missed significant chunks of the second half thanks to the local CBS affiliate broadcasting Florida-G'town instead. I tried unsuccessfully to get the game through PPV via DirecTV and that proved to be a debacle worthy of its own post. Too tired to pick myself up to head to a smoky sports bar, I settled for monitoring the game's progress via the ticker in the upper-left hand corner of the screen. Keeping tabs on a game that way is not recommended.

Despite Rashad's miracle trey to send the game into OT, this game ranks fifth at best among the pantheon of all-time great UConn NCAA wins. For one thing, as the #1 seed, they were expected to win (that's the lousy thing about rooting for the consensus "best team in the country" -- since winning is expected, you don't enjoy it as much. It feels more like relief than joy). More importantly, it's hard to call that game a "classic" because UConn was downright lousy for significant stretches. Here are my Top 5 best/classic UConn tournament wins:

1. 1990 Regional Semi-Final: UConn 71, Clemson 70. "It's Late, it's Tate, it's Fate." The phone lines in CT were literally jammed after Tate George's turnaround baseline jumper beat the Tigers. Unbelievable game that presaged UConn's status as a tournament force. Everyone remembers Tate but UConn fans will forever love Scotty Burrell (who was then a freshman) for his perfect full-court pass in the ultimate pressure situation.

2. 1999 National Championship: UConn 77, Duke 74. Trajan Langdon travels against Ricky Moore's tenacious defense, Khalid El-Amin calmly sinks two free throws to ice the game, and the Huskies shock the nation's consensus best team (37-1 entering the game) for their first national championship. And I was there!

3. 2004 National Semi-Final: UConn 79, Duke 78. An instant classic. Calhoun masterfully outflanks Coach K by recognizing early the tightness of the officiating. Calhoun sat Emeka Okafor, who picked up two cheap fouls early, for much of the first half despite the team's early struggles. With Duke in foul trouble late (especially Shelden Williams), Calhoun unleashes Okafor in the second half, and the big guy responds with 18 second-half points and the decisive hoop in a furious 12-0 run that capped the winning rally.

4. 1998 Regional Semi-Final: UConn 75, Washington 74. Rip Hamilton grabs Jake Voskuhl's miss and swishes a fall-away shot in the paint as time expires. One of those classic, "I remember where I was" games (Jock's & Jills in Brookhaven -- the place went nuts when Rip scored). Though the Huskies would lose the Regional Final to a loaded North Carolina team (featuring Antawn Jamison and Vince Carter, and in Greensboro no less) the team showed the pluck and fortitude that would characterize 1999's championship squad.

5. 2004 National Championship: UConn 82, Georgia Tech 74. A classic payback ass-kicking that didn't show up in the final score. UConn avenged GT's 77-61 victory in November with a dominating performance. Tech had no answer for Okafor or Ben Gordon and the deadly inside-out tandem would go second and third respectively in that year's NBA draft.

5a. 2006 Regional Semi-Final: UConn 98, Washington 92 (OT). The epitome of winning ugly. People will recall Rashad's ridiculous 3 with 1.8 seconds left but the real story was Marcus Williams donning the Superman cape again. And Calhoun has no right to complain about officiating again for a long time: UConn went to the line 47 times (vs. 23 for Washington).

Sorry for the digression. Here is why I think they'll win it all -- UConn's margin for error is far greater than any other team's. All-American Rudy Gay was all but invisible (4-10 shooting, 3 rebounds, and 6 turnovers in 32 minutes). They shot a meager 12-21 from the line in the first half (but went 8-8 in OT). They gave up 17 offensive rebounds to a much smaller team. They trailed by double figures in the second half. And then there was the usual nemesis: the team committed 26 turnovers!

(In order to say "26 turnovers" properly, yell it in the same mix of outrage and disbelief as Dante in "Clerks" did when he found out how many, um, "tongue-lashings" (37) his girlfriend had performed in the past. Getting it out really makes you feel better)

All of these negatives, and yet I'm still waiting for them to put together a complete game in this tournament and just blow somebody away. A game where they minimize turnovers, make smart decisions, display focus and intensity, play ferocious defense (that had been missing until the second half last night), and crush the opposition on the glass. Whether it's against George Mason tomorrow or (assuming they get there) somewhere in the Final Four, I still believe it's coming.

Regional Final Fearless Predictions:

1. Atlanta: Texas 68, LSU 64
2. Oakland: Memphis 76, UCLA 73
3. Minneapolis: Florida 72, Villanova 71
4. Washington D.C.: UConn 80, George Mason 72

More to come after UConn-GM goes final tomorrow...

NCAA Tournament Bracket Musings: Worthless Opinion Edition

To those who prefer fevered anarchist rantings over fevered sports rantings, my apologies. Without further ado, my first ever Haphazardly Organized NCAA Tournament Bracket Musings:

Best First Round Matchup: Probably Arizona vs Wisconsin, Minneapolis Region. Runner-up: Alabama vs Marquette (Oakland Region) is an intriguing matchup.

First Round Upset Potential: Every year I pick one or two 11s over a 6 and it seems to be a sucker bet. I'm still taking UW-Milwaukee over Oklahoma (that's for you, Wayne) but I'm backing off my initial San Diego St. over Indiana pick. My bracket this year looks very conservative; I'm not picking nearly as many first round upsets as years past. This decision will probably look fantastically stupid by Friday morning. Anyway, bracket glory requires successfully picking a 12 seed over a 5, and Utah State over Washington seems the fashionable choice. But I also think Syracuse is vulnerable against Texas A&M; the Orange had a magical run through the Big East championship but teams sometimes leave their best efforts back in the conference tourneys. I can see a post-Big East title hangover setting in for the Orange. Syracuse advances if Gerry McNamara continues his stellar play. I'm going to pick them in the first round but it could be closer than many people think.

Best Potential Second Round Matchup: (Tie) 3-North Carolina vs. 6-Michigan State (Washington D.C.); 5-Pitt vs 4-Kansas (Oakland).

The First #1 Seed Out Will Be: (Tie) I have Memphis bowing out to Kansas in the Sweet Sixteen; Villanova falling just short against BC also in the Sweet Sixteen. If Villanova had a different draw (say, Duke's), I'd not hesitate to put them in the Final Four.

The First #2 Seed Out Will Be: Ohio State in the second round against Georgetown. (When Georgetown loses to Northern Iowa in the first round, I will ritualistically immolate my bracket and take down this post.)

My Final Four: UConn, Duke, BC, and Kansas.

National Champion: UConn over Duke (what, you thought I'd pick against my Huskies???)

A Couple More Random Thoughts:

1. I'm a Big East fan but their teams fuck up my brackets every single year. I'm constantly victimized by the "exposure effect." Pitt always falls short of where I think they can be (I finally wised up and picked them to lose to Pacific last year) but you pick against them at your own risk. I can see them knocking off Kansas even though I picked Kansas to go to the Final Four. Anyway, every year I overestimate Big East teams and my bracket ends up in tatters by the end of the tournament's first weekend. Despite boasting eight tournament teams (and it should be nine but Cincy got hosed) and the undisputed Best Conference belt, I'm not going crazy with Big East teams this time. I have just Georgetown, UConn, and Villanova in my Sweet Sixteen. So naturally, we'll probably see a repeat of 1985 (three Big East teams in the Final Four). I hate my bracket already.
2. The Pac-10, too, is completely unpredictable for me. I will freely admit to East Coast Bias, the bete noire of the Left Coast sports fan. UCLA is another one of those teams that fucks up my bracket annually. They tend to go the opposite of wherever I have them, so I apologize in advance to any UCLA fans who inadvertently stumbled here: I have the Bruins going to the Elite Eight this time, which means they're guaranteed to lose in the second round against the winner of Marquette-Alabama. Sorry.

My Team is the Consensus Pick for National Champion and I'm...Cautiously Optimistic? (Or, "I'm Ron Burgundy...?")

The national media is way too bullish on UConn's title chances. Maybe it's the salty, pessimistic New Englander in me, but I'm less sanguine about their chances. I have high hopes but it's clear this team is talented and flawed. Most talent in the country? I think so. Star players? Yep. Depth? Loads. Great coaching? Calhoun's a Hall of Famer and two-time national champion. So what's the problem? In no particular order: focus, intensity, and turnovers. They have all the traits of a national champion (experience, depth, great defense and rebounding, etc.) but too often their heads are up their asses for long periods. You can get away with that crap against South Florida in February but not against Illinois in March. UConn's seniors make too many freshman mistakes. I hold my breath every time Denham Brown dribbles the ball in the open court, begging for him not to lose control, get stripped, or get trapped. The next time Rashad Anderson fights through a screen to defend a shooter will be the first time. Plus, when Rash is cold, he's likely to shoot them right out of the game.

And on and on. How does a team with Marcus Williams running the point turn the ball over so damn much? They're just careless with the rock and it drives me batshit -- ill-conceived interior passes, home-run lobs that get deflected, not coming back to the ball to help a teammate being trapped or doubled, etc. When the Huskies play smart basketball, they can overwhelm even a talented opponent. But the way to beat them is to attack. This team should shred the press apart but they are way too tentative. Teams have some success attacking UConn's shotblockers on the interior; sure they'll get a few swatted, but the Huskies will go for head fakes, and their weakside help can lead to easy offensive rebounds and put-backs. Boone and Armstrong will also get into occasional foul trouble.

Without Boone and Armstrong in the lineup together, it's much harder for the team to establish its inside play, which is predicated on Williams spreading the floor, distributing to the big men, and getting easy baskets or kickouts for open jumpers from Brown or Anderson. That's it though; that's the offense. When the team struggles to establish its game in the paint and the jumpers aren't falling for the wing players, the half-court offense can wilt. Rudy Gay should be the guy to step up and lead the team with clutch baskets during these stretches but usually he disappears instead. Williams then takes it upon himself to make something happen, which he can do at times with dribble penetration and pull up floaters, but teams eventually stymie him and then the offense really goes into a funk.

I'm still picking UConn to win the national title because of their superior talent and myriad matchup problems for most teams. Nobody can match them on the interior. Their defense, rebounding, and shotblocking are unparalleled. Boone, Brown, Anderson, and Armstrong have championship experience. Calhoun is a master motivator. When UConn fires on all cylinders, like they did against Syracuse in the regular season (twice), the Villanova game at home, and the Seton Hall game, they're scary good.

The question is whether they can put it together for 6 consecutive tournament games -- I'm betting they can, because their best effort still outstrips the best anyone else can muster. But I'm worried about the unanimity with which the national experts have anointed UConn champion -- have all these experts watched as many UConn games as I have? The Huskies are plenty talented but will they be focused, smart, hungry, and tough enough?

The Unfree Country Chronicles, Vol II: Unpasteurized Milk Edition

State gets tough on drinking...milk
Fans of unpasteurized product create 'white market' to get raw goods

Sunday, March 05, 2006
John Horton
Plain Dealer Reporter

Pssst . . . got raw milk?

Christina Trecaso does; the unpasteurized product -- which is illegal to sell in Ohio -- is chilling in the refrigerator at her Copley Township home. Just don't ask Trecaso where she acquired the fresh-from-the-farm liquid. The underground doesn't share its secrets.

The Summit County mother of two oversees Northeast Ohio's "white market," a network that supplies raw milk to more than 120 local families. Drop-off points exist in Akron, Broadview Heights, Cuyahoga Falls, Copley Township, Gates Mills and Lakewood.

Similar cooperatives -- which involve participants pooling money to buy "herd shares" at dairy farms and circumvent the ban on raw milk sales -- exist around Columbus, Dayton and Toledo.

In essence, the setup works a legal loophole. A group buys the cows on the farm, not the milk, and pays the farmer a monthly boarding and management fee. State law does not prohibit individuals from drinking raw milk taken from their own cows.

"We know what we want," said Trecaso, 36. "And there are ways to get it."

Opening that barn door is drawing notice, however. The Ohio Department of Agriculture is investigating the legality of the herd-share arrangement, said LeeAnne Mizer, a spokeswoman for the agency. She said there are public health concerns about the growing number of people consuming raw milk products.

Ohio outlawed raw milk sales to consumers in 1997. In 2003, the last dairy farm grandfathered into selling unpasteurized milk to individuals relinquished its license following a salmonella outbreak.

Raw milk can carry disease-causing organisms that cause a host of foodborne illnesses, according to health officials.

"Is raw milk worth the risk?" asked Mizer. "This state doesn't think so."

Pardon the horrendous pun, but holy fucking cow!

It's incredibly naive to think this issue is about "public health concerns" and "salmonella outbreaks." For another perspective, read the whole story and some of the discussion about it here. And leave aside the debate about the alleged benefits and risks of drinking fresh vs. pasteurized milk; it's really beside the point. What's most interesting is the state's cavalier attitude (ding! Horrendous pun #2! Get it? Cleveland Cavaliers? OK, I'm a moron) toward Ohioans' right to self-ownership.

Listen to the arrogance oozing from LeeAnne fucking Mizer; what a typically snotty, officious bureaucrat: "Is raw milk worth the risk? This state doesn't think so." With those eleven little words, Mizer sums up tyranny and the nanny state's attitude toward its subjects, doesn't she? When the state's "judgment" supercedes that of its so-called free people, that is not freedom. When "free" people are not permitted to make informed choices and live with the risks and consequences thereof, that is tyranny.

And we're not talking about the "choice" of initiating violence or force against others so don't even bother trying that pathetic strawman with me. This is about what individuals choose to put in their bodies. If you are legally barred from making so fundamental choice on your own, then you are not free, you belong to whomever is legally empowered to make that decision for you. You are a ward of the state.

Self-ownership is the most basic property right imaginable. When are we going to stand up and tell the LeeAnne Mizers of the world to just shut the fuck up?

(h/t to Fark.com)

The Unfree Country Chronicles, Part I: When You Pay Down Your Debt, the Terrorists Win

If you ever want to see me choke on my own bile, then suggest to me, in all seriousness, that "it's a free country!" Seriously, just try it. Four little words, that's all. Four little words that make me want to break furniture with my bare hands or repeatedly kick an effigy of Sean Hannity where the naughty bits should be.

People who say such things are either profoundly, incurably ignorant, or colossal fucking morons. There's very little room for reasoned debate on this issue. Sorry. The anecdotal evidence of our unfree status is so bleedingly, indisputably apparent, that this is one of those issues where the devil's advocate can pretty much go fuck himself.

In a shockingly vainglorious attempt to make this truth abundantly clear, herewith I present the first installment of what I hope becomes an ongoing series: The Unfree Country Chronicles:

(Oh what, title not clever enough for you? YOU come up with something pithy and urbane, Socrates. Maybe then I'll use it.)

Walter and Deana Soehnge were recently red-flagged by the Department of Homeland Security. What heinous act of sedition alerted the state to the possible threat the Soehnges posed? Their credit card payment was too high:

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

It shouldn't take an anarchist smartass like me to point out that, when the state forces financial institutions to act as spying proxies, we've pretty much forfeited most reasonable claims to a 'free' society.

And the Kafka-esque nature of the Soehnges' predicament is stunning: send in no payment and their credit score suffers, harming their prospects for future loans. Send in too small a payment and accrue more interest and debt. Send in too large a payment and raise the suspicions of the feds despite not one scintilla of evidence of criminal activity. I'm just brimming with questions at this point:

• How are they to read the minds of bureaucrats to know how much is the "right" amount?
• Does a 'free country' freeze its citizens' assets until the unfairly applied label of 'threat alert' is lifted?
• Isn't that tantamount to being forced to prove your innocence, a concept pretty noxious to all notions of a free society?
• Had the Soehnges not called to find out why credit for their payment was delayed, would they have ever been notified that DHS had to vet the transaction?
• If not, how would the 'threat alert' ever have been lifted? Wouldn't this require some kind of DHS monitoring or investigation of the Soehnges without their knowledge?

This is a pretty heavy-handed way of dealing with people repaying a loan for things as innocuous as really high thread count sheets or perhaps a sweet retro stereo system with turntable. (I don't know what they actually bought. Just work with me here.) It is chilling that all the state has to do is invoke the specter of terrorism and presto! Innocent (even responsible) behavior becomes suspect, and outrageous state snooping and intrusions are justified on the flimsiest of pretexts.

And it hardly needs to be pointed out where all this will end up: less and less privacy and financial freedom for us all, more state spying, and not one act of terror prevented from any of it.

Free country, my arse.

(h/t to Lew Rockwell via newsalert)

Funny F***ing Clip

No, I didn't self-censor in the post title. It was intentional homage to this hilarious clip:

Best of Jimmy Kimmel's Unnecessary Censorship

(h/t to Fark.com)

Houston police chief wants you to stop worrying and learn to love Big Brother

Houston eyes cameras at apartment complexes

By PAM EASTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

HOUSTON -- Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

Fantastic idea, Chief Hurtt. May I make a suggestion? How about we place the very first private home surveillance camera right in your bedroom? After the smashing success this is certain to be, we can follow up by placing another one in your bathroom. And we could even webcast the results over the internet; call it the "ChiefCam" or something similarly catchy. C'mon chief, step up and lead by example. Because, you know, if you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?

Scott Henson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Police Accountability Project in Texas, called Hurtt's building-permit proposal "radical and extreme" and said it may violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Scott, please forgive me for saying this, but you are a milquetoast. Arguments like this highlight why I'm an anarchist and not a constitutionalist. Forget about the Fourth Amendment because the Constitution is a dead letter. Show me one ACLU lawyer who will argue the 4th Amendment case against these cameras and I'll show you hundreds more (plus G-d knows how many judges) who will gladly disagree if the agenda suits them. And once you lose in court, you've lost the argument for good. The whole principle of the police imposing surveillance cameras on private property is wrong no matter what the Constitution or the tea leaf reading courts have to say about it. Argue from the normative position, that true liberty can be rooted only in private property and the abolition of the state, and you will never go astray.

Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association said that although some would consider cameras an invasion of privacy, "I think a lot of people would appreciate the thought of extra eyes looking out for them."

Andy, I think you mis-spoke. I believe you meant to say:

"I think a lot of people would appreciate resent the thought of extra eyes looking out for at them."

There. Fixed that for ya.

Around the Blogosphere

A few interesting anti-state/anti-Bush tidbits from around the blogosphere:

Brad Spangler:
Update on Aurora, IL students sugar drug case
While the news that the poor kid is only facing misdemeanor charges rather than a felony is good news, this is still an episode that could be best explained by the police and school district officials being on drugs.

LRC Blog (Lew Rockwell):
If You're Not a High State Official
In Oregon, a young man who accidently shot a fellow hunter in the arm was just sentenced to twenty days on the sheriff's road crew, two years of probation (and no hunting), and $865 in costs, for "misdemenor assault and negligently wounding another."

[Assistant Emperor Cheney will of course face no such charges for the same "crime."]

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald
Do Bush followers have a political ideology?
That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) explosion of deficit spending under this Administration – and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.

[And lest you doubt the hypocrisy of Bush's most ardent supporters, check out...]

Battlepanda
Executive privilege watch
"Like all things that don't have the light of day shining on them, you can be sure that it is being twisted to suit the purposes of those who hold the power."

"Wonder how many terrorist plots they have stopped? Sounds like despite trampling Constitutional rights, this was ineffective."

"There is a certain element in law enforcement that truly deserves the descriptive term, "jack-booted thugs." They love kicking down doors and shoving loaded guns in the faces of startled people in their pajamas. Their newest excuse for continuing the steady destruction of the Fourth Amendment will be the War On Terrorism."

Are the quotes above decrying the Bush's latest oversteps in executive privilege in the NSA wiretapping scandal? They could be, couldn't they. But no, these are quotes pulled from the comment thread of an old post at the Free Republic blasting the Clinton Whitehouse's expansion of the FISA courts.

Incognito in the ATL

"We missed you."

With three simple words, Incognito's incomparable frontman J.P. "Bluey" Maunick reintroduced himself to Atlanta tonight. The venerable acid jazz collective had not performed here since 2001 but they warmed up the frigid evening with a sizzling show at the Coca Cola Roxy. This isn't so much a concert review as a celebration. Tonight marked the third time I'd seen them live and they never disappoint.

Tonight's setlist:

1. "Colibri"
2. "Roots (Back To A Way of Life)"
3. "Close My Eyes"
4. "Baby It's All Right"
5. "Talkin' Loud"
6. "We Got Music"
7. "Labour of Love"
8. "Don't Turn My Love Away"
9. "As Long As It's You"
10. Spirited piano/keyboard solo melting seamlessly into...
11. "This Thing Called Love"
12. "Who Needs Love"
13. "Don't You Worry 'Bout A Thing"
14. "Everyday"
15. Richard Bailey showing off his skills with a thundering drum solo, which poured into...
16. "Always There"
17. "Deep Waters"
18. "Still A Friend of Mine"

ENCORE:
19. "Listen to the Music"

Other highlights:
• Maysa changing the lyric of "Listen to the Music" from "Meet me in the country for a day" to "Meet me in Atlanta for a day."

• Bluey introducing the "musical United Nations" of the touring band, which included 12 members representing such far flung locales as Scotland, the UK, Jamaica, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Israel, and the U.S. (Maysa's from Baltimore). I might even have forgotten a place or two.

• The best part: Bluey promised a return trip to Atlanta for Incognito this summer.

We missed you, too, Bluey. Thank you for bringing the funk, soul, and spirit of Incognito back to Atlanta.

The Rick Tocchet Gambling Mess

Those of you who don't follow hockey probably know nothing about this story, but "Phoenix Coyotes assistant coach Rick Tocchet is under investigation in connection with a multimillion dollar gambling ring that allegedly took bets from NHL players and others." The news is generating the predictable response in hockey circles, with the requisite hand-wringing and tut-tutting from fans, media, and senior NHL officials.

You know what I think? Well, of course you do. I'm the anarchist fly in the ointment so you already know what I think. Fuck the state of New Jersey. What bothers me most is how cowed society has become -- cowed by the state, cowed by the media, and cowed by PR concerns. This situation is in no way analogous to the Pete Rose story -- there are no allegations that Tocchet or anyone else bet on hockey. But if hockey does have a problem with its integrity or competition, then the solution must come from in house. Let's not confuse this thing -- this issue has NOTHING to do with hockey's integrity and everything to do with the overbearing state.

NHL Commish Gary Bettman said in a statement: "We view the charges against Mr. Tocchet in the most serious terms. We have pledged our full cooperation to the New Jersey State Police and the New Jersey Attorney General's Office."

Shame on you, Mr. Bettman! Spoken like the smarmy, obsequious lawyer that you truly are. Bravo for standing up to the bully. Just once, I want someone in the public eye to grow a pair and tell the state to butt the fuck out of people's lives. I want someone to wield the concept of jury nullification preemptively, before a trial, and speak the truth about so-called consensual "crimes" -- to stand up and refuse to dignify police and prosecutorial overreach with serious pronouncements and full cooperation. Instead, everybody plays the game of grovelling before the government and pretending that the law means something other than the monopoly of force.

What, you think this is about morality? Or legislation designed to keep people safe? Please. This is about who's in charge. This is the state flexing its authoritarian muscle. Because the state of New Jersey doesn't give a shit about gambling as long as IT alone gets to be the house. See, New Jersey is all too happy for you to gamble away your dollars as long as those bucks find their way into state coffers. You can go to Atlantic City and lose a fortune as long as it's done under the auspices of the state-casino partnership. Tocchet's "crime" is running an operation that competes with the state of New Jersey's gambling monopoly -- a monopoly privilege the state grants to itself, of course. That New Jersey sees your money as its rightful property should tell you something about the nature of the state.

The state has to play the PR game, too. Competition is viewed as healthy and all-American; people tend to bristle over the term "monopoly." So the state can't portray Tocchet's "crime" that way -- it must use loaded terms like "gambling ring" and "ties to organized crime" in order to distract the public from what it is really doing. Thus do the names of respected people like Wayne Gretzky and his wife Janet Jones get dragged through the muck in order to bolster the state's case, which usually works since most people would rather cooperate than appear "guilty" or put their reputations at risk.

But there is nothing inherently wrong with the behavior of Rick Tocchet or anyone else implicated here -- what he and others choose to do with personal property, be it to buy things, invest, give away to charity, or otherwise gamble away, is their prerogative to decide. That is the very essence of private property.

So I'll say again what Rick Tocchet, Wayne Gretzky, and Janet Jones can't (and what Gary Bettman won't): fuck the state of New Jersey. Its strongarm tactics are the legal and socially approved versions of what some of New Jersey's other famous criminals do.