'Learning to Fly' . . . Still

GM,

Watching a wretched Monday Night Football game (which turned out to be incredible after we started this post), the only thing worth mentioning is that Mike Tirico's winter hat has done the impossible--made him look even nerdier. (Here's a shot I just found of Tirico explaining to Jon Gruden how to sexually harass a coworker without losing your job.) It's a good thing the game is boring, though, because two events from this weekend clearly stood out as the most relevant. (My Christmas-Day unwrapping of towels and bedsheets wasn't one of them.)

I wonder what went through Urban Meyer's mind in the 25 hours and 9 minutes between his decision to step down as Florida coach and his decision to stick around after a leave of absence. What is it about having two national championships and living in Gainesville that breeds such indecisiveness?! Meyer's similarities to Florida basketball coach Billy Donovan are great. Both won two titles, of course, but both were also leaving teams that were loaded but would soon be bereft of all their talent. And if you don't think that was at all a factor, well, you're less cynical and jaded than I. But both men thought about it a little while, decided that coaching an average team was still better than almost every other job in the country, and ultimately made the right decision.

Meanwhile, the federal government is having a change of heart before our eyes--through no choice of its own. You may recall its post-9/11 commitment to making air travel safer.

More frustrating? Sure. More invasive? You bet. More bureaucratic? We can only assume. But on the first- or second-most significant Christian and American holiday, were we capable of stopping a bomb-carrying Islamic extremist named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding a Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam? Not even close. And news like this makes that fact even piss poorer:

In November, Abdulmutallab had been placed in a database of more than 500,000 names of people suspected of terrorist ties. But officials say there was not enough information about his terror activity that would have placed him on a watch list that could have kept him from flying.

What could that possibly mean? We knew enough to figure he might be a terrorist, but we didn't know enough to watch out for him at airports?! While that doesn't make sense, here's a suggestion that does: We give a firmer frisk to anyone with any of these in his name.

Remember what people told us after 9/11? "Sometimes you have to trade freedom for safety." We seemed pretty divided on whether or not that was a worth-while trade. What's for damn sure, though, is that we should all be willing to trade political correctness for both.

-JW

JW,

I suppose it's not an accident that the hyperlinked hat with which you illustrated Tirico's was a woman's. For the record, his actual hat wasn't nearly that feminine. And you left off the propeller on top.

With that settled, let's move on to Urban Meyer, a story that resolved too quickly for me to predict its resolution, dammit. Nevertheless, I'm happy to report that I saw Meyer's "return" (Did he even physically leave his office during that retirement?) coming a mile away. As I wrote in a Sunday email, "There is absolutely no need for coaching to be life-threateningly stressful if you've already won two national championships and will never under any circumstances be fired. Just care slightly less."

And speaking of caring less, how about a prediction for the Abdulmutallab story? It disappears. Vanishes. Quicker, even, than the Fort Hood story. The media knows that a continued examination of Abdulmutallab's motives, strategies, and actions can only hurt an administration that prefers to eliminate the word "terrorism" from our vocabulary. Literally. Just like Afghanistan is now Obama's war, Abdulmutallab is Obama's bored, privileged Islamofascist. We need to stop talking about him before the President gets hurt.

-GM

'Tis the Season. What?!

JW,

The NBA season has started. Who knew?! Looking around the league this morning, I was startled by some occurences, reassured by others, and pleased as Punch by yet more. Here's a brief overview.

1) As an entire generation of fans has come to expect, the Eastern Conference stinks. Of its five teams with a winning record, one of them, Miami, is a humble one game over. Of its five (different) teams with a per-game average of more than one hundred points, two, New York and Toronto, are verifiably terrible, and one, Boston, is so old they're still pissed off about Dred Scott. Conversely, the Western Conference has eight teams over .500, nine with a positive point differential (as opposed to the Eastern's pathetic five), and a whopping ten with a PPG of more than one hundred. At the top of the conferences, the Lakers look simply incredible, whereas the Celtics look relieved that yet another jump shot fell. I'll let you guess which playoffs I'm more excited about.

2) At 2-26, the New Jersey Nets have the potential to be the worst team ever assembled. (Hell, they're already the worst; they're just searching for the worst record.) According to this handy ESPN chart, they're tied with the 97-98 Nuggets and a couple of pre-Cuban Mavericks teams for futility through twenty-eight games, and they're behind only the 70-71 Cavs for worst all-time. (No worries, though: the Cavs recovered in 71-72 with an impressive twenty-three wins!) A look at the Nets' starting five just made me go blind temporarily, but I'm pretty sure it was Josh Boone, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Brook Lopez, Devin Harris, and Courtney Lee. Yikes! You know things are bad when an entire fan base is anxiously awaiting the return from injury of Yi Jianlian--a thirty-eight percent shooter last year, by the way. In other news, Nets tickets are still available.

3) Despite Sports Illustrated's August claim that "no one in the West made as many direct hits in bringing in new players as the once-and-still contenders," the San Antonio Spurs may be getting a little too old for this. Sure, they're 15-10 and hanging on to the seventh seed, but their road record is a pitiful 3-6, and they've played fewer road games than any team in the league. Projecting their final record based on their performance thus far puts them at 44-38. Congratulations on missing the playoffs.

4) If we're going on the past few games alone, your 09-10 MVP is Zach Randolph. Since December 18th, he's averaged thirty-three points and nineteen rebounds. The Grizzlies are 3-0 during that stretch. Surely this is not the world.

-GM

GM,

1) Strangely enough, the Eastern and Western Conferences have been trading blows since 2003 when it comes to championships. Still, the generation you spoke of has every right to expect futility from the East. For a significant period of time, the Jason Kidd-led Nets and the Allen Iverson-led 76ers were the class of the conference, and Keith Van Horn contributed on every Atlantic Division team. In 2002-2003, there was only one 50-win team in the East--Detroit--and I do mean 50. The West had six teams with 50-plus wins that year. The next season, the 36-46 Celtics made the playoffs, and I'll pay for your Christmas ham if you can name me a player from that team besides Paul Pierce. (Hint: Antoine Walker was with the Mavericks that year; I checked.) Even when the Pistons and Heat won championships, we knew they were fraudulent, and Boston's 2008 title only came because an alumnus decided it was time to renew the dynasty.

2) What was Jay-Z thinking when he fired Lawrence Frank? I assume he's the key decision maker anyway. After losing Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson to free agency--from a team that stunk with them--the Nets were simply talentless. The fact that Frank had them shooting at the right basket almost every possession should have been enough to secure his job. By the way, I somehow managed to see the '97-'98 Nuggets twice in person! They won one of the games! But even they had players who could start for other teams. These Nets don't.

3) The Spurs' current road mark is no matter for concern. Those fossils could roll their wheelchairs into the playoffs and still annoy the piss out of any team that's too lazy to box out or play defense. Here's how old the Spurs are: Bruce Bowen played 80 games last year and shot 43 percent behind the arch (from that same spot in the corner, no doubt), and I saw him last night hosting NBA Fastbreak on ESPN2. These guys can still produce with one foot in the grave!

4) Congratulations to Memphis for trying so hard. I could see that team making a run with jumpshots and hustle, winning 44 games, and getting swept out of the first round of the playoffs for the fourth time in four franchise playoff appearances. In the pros, great effort doesn't win; stars do. This truism deserves its own post at a later date.

-JW

Brad Bench Brett? Bright, Bold, or Brainless?

GM,

If you watched Sunday night's game between the Panthers and Vikings, you know that Carolina owned the fourth quarter (20-0), that Matt Moore had the best game of his life (299 yards, 3 TDs, no INTs), that Steve Smith can still dominate a game despite his size deficiency (9 rec., 157 yards, TD), and that Adrian Peterson is very containable all of a sudden (12 rushes, 35 yards, TD). If you read anything after the game, you probably know that Brad Childress tried to bench Brett Favre and that Favre refused to leave the game. This didn't surprise me at all until I learned that Childress tried to take out his franchise, future-Hall-of-Fame, most-touchdown-passes-thrown, most-consecutive-games-started, can't-stay-retired-to-save-his-life, legendary, 2009 MVP candidate quarterback in the third quarter--when the Vikings were ahead 7-6!!!

I think we can safely say that Brett Favre enjoys the following:

- Accolades

- Locker-room comradery

- Fan adoration

- Money

- Winning

Those, however, are not why he came back. Brett Favre came back to playing football (drum roll)............... to play football. Not hold a clipboard and mentor the young guy. Not latch on to a team late in the season because he understands its offense. And certainly not to leave meaningful one-point games in the third quarter.

The Vikings had clinched the NFC North an hour earlier when Pittsburgh stunned Green Bay on the game's last play to take the Packers out of contention for the division crown. They no longer had to worry about that. But with New Orleans' loss Thursday, they were one more Saints loss away from getting home-field advantage throughout the playoffs. And if you think the difference between the No. 1 and No. 2 seed is big--and it is--consider that Minnesota is now just one loss away from losing its first-round bye to Philadelphia. In other words, that game was as big as a non-playoff game could get, and Childress wanted to rip the heart from his offense with the results hanging in the balance.

If he had gotten his way, we'd be talking about this much more, and Favre himself would be blaming Childress for a fourth-quarter beatdown. And Coach, Brett Favre's sh** list is not the best place to spend Christmas.

-JW

JW,

Well put, sir! While headlines like this one suggest that Favre is wrongly usurping Childress' authority, thoughtful fans understand that Minnesota would probably be better off if he were. Consider, for example, last night's Adrian Peterson line. Of Peterson's twelve carries, seven occurred on 1st and 10 and went for a total of twenty-five yards. His three receptions, on the other hand, went for seventy-three yards. Every Vikings game includes multiple comments about Peterson's open-field ability, but Childress is apparently going to be damned if he puts it to the test. Peterson is obviously a talented (though mildly overrated) guy. Why waste him on hopeless runs up the middle that my mother-in-law sees coming?

But forget Childress' predictability for a minute. Given that he characterized his in-game conversation with Favre by alluding to a literary technique popularized by James Joyce (not known for coaching), William Faulkner (not known for sober decision-making), and Virginia Woolf (not known for taking defeat reasonably), perhaps there are bigger issues here. How about the fact that a house built on Favre not screwing you will not long endure? The Vikings have proven--repeatedly, inexplicably--that when the game is on the line, a run is not on the menu. Only Indianapolis, New England, and New Orleans have more passing attempts in the red zone this season, and the Colts and Patriots barely dress running backs. If the last few weeks are any indication, Favre will end this season with a crucial interception--we're all waiting for it--and Childress will be sent packing. He'll deserve it, too. As John Travolta once said, he should have f-----g better known better.

-GM

Health Care Reform (My Ass, Still)

JW,

I'm watching a commercial right now for Education Connection, the online university database that matches deadbeats to their future diploma mill and advertises that fact with a po-faced white chick singing atonally. You asked me to talk a little more about tort reform. Here is my argument. The American medical malpractice system is a lottery for the slothful, the ill-bred, and the socially unacceptable. It's bankrupting the country, and it's doing so for the sake of people who can't read. And their lawyers.

Ingrained in the liberal imagination, though, is a different picture. Tiny Tim at the Christmas table, sobbing in his gravy because the doctors amputated the wrong leg. What liberals fail to imagine is the trailer-to-penthouse dream that has the Cletuses of the world praying for bad treatment. (It's either that or go back to college.) A lawyer friend of mine reports being asked to represent "victims" of such abuses as . . .

1) a medical receptionist losing files

2) a doctor refusing to prescribe antibiotics for a cold

3) a wait of more than three hours for a scheduled office visit

. . . and while these anecdotes prove nothing except that white people need to get their act together just as much as black people do, there's plenty of real evidence that the current system is broken.

Consider the following. While Tom Baker--the fellow you mentioned in your previous post--has lots of numbers at his disposal, he neglects to mention that medical liability premiums have gone up an estimated 2,000% since 1975. (My source? The same actuarial firm from which Baker got his numbers!) Furthermore,

"At 12 percent per year, the growth rate in medical malpractice premiums since 1975 is four times the rate of inflation and twice the rate of inflation in the cost of health care. Million-dollar verdicts are now the norm in jury trials: 52% of all awards exceed $1 million, while the average award now weighs in at $4.7 million."

Tackling health care "reform" without addressing the costs that doctors' insurance premiums add to the system is a fool's errand--it's nakedly, pitifully political--and I'm ashamed of the country for even thinking about it.

Convinced?

-GM

GM,

I am convinced. And this issue reminds me of an all-too-similar traveshamockery in this country--the reference check.

According to a Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) survey, 63 percent of employers have refused to provide references for former employees because they feared a lawsuit. See, if Manager A believes that a former employee is dishonest or lazy, he may be able to help Manager B from another company by conveying that belief in the form of a bad reference. These descriptions are so inherently subjective -- and potentially damanging -- that Manager A could be held liable in a civil suit.

To promote the public interest of not hiring horrible people, 32 states have given employers qualitative privilege, which is essentially leeway that helps them avoid civil litigation. This theoretically allows employers to give an opinion about a former employee as long as it's not given with malice or recklessness... and that's where the subjectivity and inconsistency of the courts come in:

1. Berg v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.: William Berg Jr. sued and was awarded $40,600 from his former employer because it forced him to resign amidst an investigation of theft. Let's go over that again. The company believed the guy was stealing, so it told him to quit or be fired, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that action was enough to impair his reputation--and pay for it. This is known as "defamation by conduct."

2. Tacket v. Delco Remy Division of General Motors Corporation: Thomas Tacket sued GM after a coworker painted "Tacket Tacket What a Racket" on the wall at its plant in Anderson, Indiana. He was originally awarded $100,000 for psychological damages because the company failed to remove the defamatory statement. This is known as "defamation by neglect." Fortunately a higher court overturned it on appeal.

3. Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Co. Soc. of U.S.: Four employees were fired for "gross insubordination." Sounds pretty bad, right. Well, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined they were victims of "compelled self publication," meaning that they had to reveal the reason for their termination to potential employers. Then the court determined that the whole "gross insubordination" thing was unsubstantiated and made the company pay up! Nobody from HR or anywhere else ever said a word!!!

Now, here's where the real parellel is between medical malpractice suits and reference defamation suits: the fear far outweighs the actual threat. Yet the fear is legitimate--especially for doctors--because one bad ruling could cripple the whole business. Unfortunately, there is no insurance to cover companies for reference defamation. This is the world we live in.

-JW

Health Care Reform (My Ass)

JW,

I came to a point of resignation about the health care bill some weeks ago. (I'd point you to it, but the hyperlink system can't handle a document that size.) Sadly, the groundswell of conservative and populist opposition that might have toppled it peaked too early and couldn't be sustained. The success of the bill depends upon conservative Democrats, and they seem to feel that they've done enough by shaping it into what it is.

Which is a monstrosity. As MSNBC reported on Friday afternoon (a story-killing maneuver called Taking Out the Trash by political operatives), the bill being considered by both legislative bodies will cause health care spending to "grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing." Their source isn't a Conservative think tank, mind you, but the Department of Health and Human Services. Obama promises to "root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program" to help pay for the new entitlement, but anyone who believes that Congress will allow a cut in services should probably worry about raising the ol' IQ a bit before Obama's death panels get cranking.

Despite all, I might be able to swallow this debacle of a bill as a run-of-the-mill political loss if it weren't for one thing. As Atul Gawande writes in a fascinating article in The New Yorker this week, the bill currently under consideration has a number of pilot programs that very well could provide models for huge savings down the line. The one idea left out? Tort reform.

That's right, America. Go f--k yourselves. Love, Democrats.

-GM

GM,

I once knew a girl, the extent of whose physical beauty was surpassed only by that of her liberal agenda. Tragic really, and she's not even alone in that regard--among women I know! While trying to convince me that we should socialize health care, she told me about a summer in Ireland in which she was given the free care she needed when she got sick. And by "sick," she meant pregnant. And by "care," she meant abortion.

Just kidding.

Let's talk about your last point--tort reform. Former NBA star and New Jersey democratic senator Bill Bradley wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times in late August, suggesting that tort reform should be included in the health care bill as a way to unite Republicans and Democrats on the issue. After all, frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits have terrible effects:

1. Doctors have to pay lawyers to defend them and insurance companies to cover them should they lose. This increases the cost of health care because doctors have to pass the costs along to the customer.

2. The cases themselves are costly to the American taxpayers. Experts must often be brought in and compensated for their time, as must juries and judges, who could probably be presiding over something more important.

3. Rather than pursuing practices for the right reasons (like wanting to fight certain medical conditions or having an interest in a particular field), doctors are now avoiding certain types of practices--even certain states in some instances--because the fear of being sued is so great.

But then there was this response from Tom Baker, a professor at Penn's law school who wrote The Medical Malpractice Myth, a book that claims that medical malpractice claims don't significantly add to the cost of health care. In his Times interview with Anne Underwood, Baker accuses people like you, GM, of trying to obstruct change in the system by using tort reform as a red herring. As a rare request for a two-parter, what is your rebuttal?

-JW

Brian Kelly Leaves Dead-End Job for New Dead-End Job

JW,

Any claim the Big East had to being a serious football conference disappeared yesterday when Cincinnati coach Brian Kelly agreed to leave the undefeated, Sugar Bowl-bound Bearcats for Notre Dame. Forget the fact that Kelly is a member of the Catholic church and that Notre Dame is the premiere Catholic university in America. Forget that the Irish offered him a reported three million a year. Kelly's move is about neither of those things. Deeper than sectarian loyalty, deeper than money is a truth that the Big East should have recognized with the departure of Rich Rodriguez. When it comes to controlling your own football destiny, you're just another Boise State.

Like any truth, this one has consequences. First and foremost, the national perception that the Big East has no destination jobs has been reinforced, perhaps permanently. If your undefeated conference champion isn't invited to play for the national championship--would that ever happen to Florida, Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, or (of course) Notre Dame?--your coaches will always move on. Second, the Sugar Bowl (and by extension the Fiesta, Rose, and Orange Bowls) has been further exposed as a meaningless joke of a game. Rather than coach in only the second BCS bowl in Cincinnati's history, Kelly prefers to spend the next few weeks recruiting. And who can blame him?! The real "prize" of the Sugar Bowl is the money and television exposure that goes equally to winner and loser. Hell, it goes equally to the winner's and loser's conferences. Kelly understands that in ten years' time--in ten months, really--no one will remember who won the 2010 Sugar Bowl. But they'll remember for decades if he takes the Irish to the national championship game. Which he will if he ever goes undefeated there. Bet your life on it.

Nevertheless, we're going to hear some anti-Kelly whining over the next few days. (We're already hearing it from Mardy Gilyard, who clearly fails to recognize the futility of Cincinnati's efforts.) Fans and journalists alike will likely slam Kelly's "opportunism," "greed," and "lack of loyalty." If our readers have been paying attention at all, though, they know exactly where those complaints should be sent. Not to Brian Kelly but to BCS boss Bill Hancock.

-GM

GM,

I only want to know if this is true. Did Kelly really tell the team he was there to stay? If so, did he do so before the Pittsburgh game just to motivate them?! I won't be rooting for Notre Dame anyway, but if we find out that happened, I'll make a special, concentrated effort to root against him. Nick Saban may have lied about staying with the Dolphins, but at least--as far as we know--he didn't use that lie to get the team up for a big game.

I hate many, many things about college football. Bad postseason, bad replay officiating, bad clock management, the Big Ten, and the coaching turnover. I don't necessarily think there's too much turnover, but it's a travesty that Brian Kelly, the guy who made the Cincinnati football program, the guy who players looked up to and wanted to play for and were able to go undefeated for, has ignored an invitation to a high-profile bowl game so that he can recruit for a program worse than his own. The fact that he's willing to leave--that it won't even matter that he doesn't coach in the Sugar Bowl or the practices preceding it--is the biggest incrimination on the sport.

It's possible that an undefeated Notre Dame wouldn't have played in the national championship game this year, but it's not worth thinking about. The program is destined for mediocrity regardless of its coach. Funny you should mention Rich Rodriguez; he's experiencing the same thing at Michigan. Both schools are excellent academic institutions, but the type of student they recruit hardly resembles the type of athlete all coaches want to recruit. There are only so many Tim Tebows, Colt McCoys, Jordan Shipleys, and Toby Gerharts to go around--if you catch my drift. Something tells me Notre Dame Heisman Trophy winner Paul Hornung does.

It's funny that so many coaches would kill to go to historically great programs. Too bad for them five-star 17-year-olds don't share the sentiment.

-JW

White Man's Burden, Black Man's Strategic Positioning

GM,

CNN anchor Lou Dobbs stepped down last month, and he's out to make new friends. The self-proclaimed populist used to be about ridding the nation of illegal immigrants. Now, out of nowhere, he seems pretty focused on letting them know just how much he cares about their incorporation into American society--particularly those of Latin-American heritage. It should be noted, of course, that he may run for a New Jersey State Senate seat or even the presidency as a third-party candidate in 2012. It may be important for him to shake the image of a "racist," the favorite word of the American Left.

Since we're on the subject, I need to ask you what's acceptable to think and say in this country these days. Maybe I should ask a more liberal-minded person. After all, they're the ones who would accuse me of being backwards if I were to break the "rules." Still, I'm hoping you have more insight than I do. Here's the question: Is it considered racist to oppose illegal immigration? Is is considered racist to support the illegality of some types of immigration? Is it considered racist to prefer my own language to others? Is is considered racist to want to limit the number of people who represent a protected class and therefore have an advantage in employment over me?

A Google search of "Lou Dobbs racist" brings fascinating results. Take, for instance, the remarks made by this mastermind. In case you didn't watch the whole video, the creator (well, editor) accuses Lou Dobbs of being racist because he almost used the term "cotton-pickin'." What obviously happened is that Dobbs began to say "cotton-pickin'," an adjective used to replace profanity in the South, in referring to politicians of no particular race or party. He then realized that there were simpletons out there who would assume that, because black slaves often picked cotton in this country, the term was racist. He then resisted. If you ask me, that's going the extra mile to accommodate those who don't deserve accommodation! The editor, whose homepage can be seen here, sees differently: "And some people still say he's not a Racist... LOL." As a lifelong Southerner, I know two people who've claimed to have picked cotton: my dad and his grandfather. It's unpleasant from what I hear.

Sure, Dobbs is a birther. He's from Texas. He might even be a xenophobe as his accusers say. But now he's having to "change his mind" on immigration so the woefully misled won't hate him. A cotton-pickin' shame, if you ask me.

-JW

JW,

Your questions would be sweet if they weren't almost certain to keep you from ever getting a job. Yes! Of course it's racist to oppose illegal immigration. National borders are discriminatory. Of course it's racist to prefer English to other languages. All cultures are morally equal. Of course it's racist to deny historically persecuted groups an advantage in today's marketplace. Your whiteness and that of your fathers must be atoned for.

Joking aside, it is absolutely true that the white male's tightrope walk is getting wobblier. Consider the following truths, internalized during my time at Famous Northern College:

1) To acknowledge, or even to be aware of (see Orwell: doublethink), a non-white person's race is racist, unless you are doing so for the purpose of giving that person positive race-based consideration.

2) To assert the superiority of American or pre-Muslim-invasion European culture is racist, as all cultures are equal. Paradoxically, however, any given white person is morally inferior to any given non-white person.

3) All white misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture. All black misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture. All hispanic misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture.

4) White people have an obligation to help non-white people. However, it is racist when they do so.

Can these "truths" endure the inevitable backlash? With the Lou Dobbses of the world being co-opted (and thus neutered) by the political system, I suspect they can, at least for a few more generations.

And yet here's Pulitzer Prize-winning writer David Mamet suggesting otherwise (and literally talking his way out of the Nobel):

"For just as personal advantage was derived by whites from the defense of slavery and its continuation as Jim Crow and segregation, so too personal advantage, political advantage and indeed expression of deeply held belief may lead nonwhites to defense of positions that, though they may be momentarily acceptable, will eventually be revealed as untenable."

Bold stuff. But we're unlikely to live to see it.

-GM

Bulls--t Championship Series: A Complaint

JW,

The Cowboys Stadium timekeeper had the right idea. Let that last second tick off the clock and watch as the BCS crumbles. It was a hopeful gesture--the kind of heroism that makes legends--and if the replay evidence hadn't incontrovertibly placed one second back on the board, we might be telling our grandchildren about the guy.

As it stands, we're set for another year of crowing from BCS apologists, whose rapture at a "clear" 1 vs. 2 in Pasadena (a bulls--t notion) hinged not just on a very close Texas field goal but on the mere milliseconds longer that Colt McCoy's insane third down pass needed to stay in the air to ensure bedlam. And that's before we get to Nebraska kicker Adi Kunalic's out-of-bounder that set up the game-winning drive in the first place. Even if you accept the premise that the unexplained, uncodified, and likely illegal hierarchy of BCS conferences places undefeated Texas over undefeated Cincinnati, you've got to admit that any system that requires year after year of miracles cannot forever endure.

As for McCoy, has any college athlete since Chris Webber displayed such a stunning lack of clutchness? Moments after watching him scramble to the very brink of losing, Musburger and Herbstreit speculated that McCoy was looking at the playclock rather than the game clock. I say he was having a flashforward to his future as the last man in a lonely NFL Draft green room. Take a look at last night's numbers and tell me if anybody's taking this guy with an early pick. Teams already know about the Heisman curse. The last thing they need is the I-Didn't-Deserve-the-Heisman curse.

And yet it will be McCoy rather than Tony Pike (whose fourth quarter performance Saturday defined clutchness) who advances, an injustice whose reversal would still leave out TCU and Boise State, teams for whom no amount of excellence, no matter how sustained, will ever be sufficient under the current rules. Like the annual season-ending injury for Greg Oden, the annual BCS debacle manages somehow to fulfill our worst expectations while still surprising us. I thought Auburn's 2004 screwing was the worst that could ever occur in a major sport. Now I know that 2004 was just a warm-up.

-GM

GM,

In 1997, the following was a novel concept--one met with great resistance.

"Let's match the two best teams against each other regardless of what conference they're in."

College football isn't run by normal, functioning people like you and me; it's run by unimaginative, unreasonable, traditionalist buffoons whose response to playoff talk is typically something as compelling as, "It just wouldn't work." A month ago, an SEC president looked me in the eye and said the SEC and Big Ten were "head and shoulders" above the rest of the football conferences. Not only do we allow these people to make decisions about college football; we allow them to breathe our air, eat our food, make way more money than we'll ever make, and decide what's in the best interest of America's youth!

Somehow, they were persuaded to go along with an idea called the Bowl Championship Series. Brilliantly, an actual committee was created to use already-existent bowls, already-existent polls, and already-existent computer formulas to select two teams to play in an actual national championship game. Well, sort of. The AP poll's voters could crown any national champion they wanted, but that could never be an issue, right? With the exception of this obvious mistake, this is the idea third graders would have come up with, and you wouldn't have to pay them to operate as an entire organization. If you were to ask someone what they did for a living, you might be astonished if they responded like this:

"I do a job anyone could do for a company no one wants, all the while blocking the progress of the entire industry."

If you meet that person, though, you've just met the most honest member of the BCS committee.

-JW

An Inconsistent 'Truth'

JW,

By far the most significant underreported story of the year is the leaked email exchange between scientists at Britain's East Anglia University. News of the leak broke in late November to about as much fanfare as my sock selection, and though the Internet has aided in the story's longevity, it's perfectly conceivable that most people aren't aware of it.

Nevertheless, this is big news. Here is The Wall Street Journal:

In [the leaked emails], scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Unified view. Common cause. Hide the decline. It's not Conservative obstructionism or pigheadedness. It's liberals describing their motives and actions in their own words, and it's almost comically grotesque. After all, we're only two days away from the famed Copenhagen U.N. Climate Change Conference, and Barack Obama has already made a provisional pledge regarding the United States' cooperation. Congress is considering nation-altering measures even as we write, and the "fact" of man-made climate change is now so ingrained in the American consciousness that a scandal ten times this size could hardly shake it.

But consider what we can say with certainty:

1. Liberals are far more likely than Conservatives to use words like "profit" and "corporation" pejoratively;

2. Solutions to global warming are anchored to rationing methods that will make profit far more difficult and increase government control over business;

3. Academics who depart from global warming orthodoxy are routinely disciplined or denigrated (here's a particularly funny example);

4. All of our global warming information comes from scientists, and whatever peer-review mechanisms they have can clearly be perverted.

What we can't know for certain is whether or not the entire global warming concept is a minor hiccup in the Earth's history hijacked for partisan and ideological reasons. But we now know that it's not impossible. And that's news.

-GM

GM,

The scientific community's semi-collaborated position on global warming reminds me of why we now have a Democratic president--a very liberal one at that. African-Americans, feminists, immigrants, Jews, college kids, people with white guilt, and actual liberals got together and said, "We may not all know what we want--or even agree about what we want, but we sure as hell don't want another Republican president."

In this case, it was a bunch of scientists who think they know what's best for the planet electing to get their story straight, whether they have matching data or not, for the greater good--as they see it. I suppose this is why conservatives reject utilitarianism. Lying is almost universally regarded as wrong, but if you really, really believe that conservative Americans are destroying our planet, I suppose a few white lies could only help matters. And to clarify, even lying about what you believe should be considered wrong.

This brings us to NBA Commissioner David Stern , who recently said he believes a woman will be playing in the NBA within the next 10 years. If I had my way--and if Stern were to make the best business decision--there wouldn't be a woman playing in the WNBA in 10 years! Stern knows without question that this could never happen. His statements actually prove the opposite of his conclusion:

"If you look at world records, let's say in track and field, you'll see how the women have moved up to what would have been records several decades ago for men," said Stern. "And you watch [the WNBA] and you see the shooting percentages, the passing and the like."

Need I point out the utter lack of logic? "Women may now be as good at basketball as men used to be!" Sure, Commish, but what does that have to do with their ability to compete now? Stern knows a woman will never play in the league unless the liberals really get their way and the legal concept of BFOQ (bona fide occupational quality, meaning in this case that you have to be good at basketball to avoid being discriminated against in the hiring process) loses adherence. He knows what we know, but he also knows that he'll be better off if even one more person watches a WNBA game now--even to make sure women wouldn't stand a chance in the Association. I, for one, won't give him the satisfaction.

-JW

Tiger Woods, We're Pretty Sure Your Wife Beats You

GM,

Kim Miller's 15 minutes of fame were as much about her as the Pistons' 2004 championship was about Darko Milicic. The nation was watching as Miller, on behalf of the Florida Highway Patrol, said in a press conference that Tiger Woods would be charged with careless driving and nothing else. Her follow-up rant about the dangers of careless driving was humorous, and it grieves me that I can't find it online. But check out this bit of breaking news--in the form of a quote from tigerwoods.com.

"I have let my family down, and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart."

Whoah! I wasn't personally ready to believe that no alcohol, affairs, or domestic disputes were involved in recent events, but many of Tiger's fans still were. Yet he led his statement with the above sentence. Now, anyone who believed he just happened to wreck his car twice at 2 in the morning can no longer do so. After several days of absolutely nothing, he's given us too much! I don't think it's an accident either.

I know you don't like Tiger, GM, and I can understand how he bothers you as a golfer. I can understand, too, how his attitude toward his adoring fans and putts that lip out could use some improvement. But the guy just admitted that he's made some mistakes in his personal life, and if you're Tiger Woods, "some" isn't nearly as many as you could make. I'm not saying we should congratulate the man, but he has surprised me by doing something that few athletes would do. That is, of course, unless there's more dirt under the rug that he knows will soon come out. Thoughts?

-JW

JW,

Who says I don't like Tiger Woods? Sure, he's joyless, robotic, pouty, uncharismatic, and famous largely for being "black," but that doesn't mean I don't like the guy. If I disliked him, I'd be jumping in the air in celebration of today's news that Tiger is planning to pay his wife to stay married to him ($5 million in cash and a generous revision of the pre-nup at last count). Instead, I'm doing quiet fist pumps at home while toasting Elin with Swedish vodka. Reports of my hatred have been greatly exaggerated.

As, it seems, have reports of Tiger's squareness. A 2002 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons lamented the fact that Tiger was once seen playing craps at a measly $25 a toss. We now know that he was probably being felated under the table by two cocktail waitresses. Throw in the fact that Phil and Amy Mickelson are notorious swingers, according to rumor, and we may have to rethink the entire golf world. (What's next? Fred Funk whacks 200-yard drive? John Daly makes charitable contribution?)

As to the Woods story, it's fairly obvious what happened if you're willing to put two and two together. Elin found out about Tiger's affairs, she beat the crap out of him, and he staged a car wreck to explain his injuries. The fact that the wreck was low-speed is evidence that Tiger's a p---y. The fact that Elin used a golf club to pry Tiger from the car is evidence that God likes irony. Frankly, I couldn't be happier!

So what's next for Woods? I predict a furious display of golfing at the Masters that falls just short of a fifth green jacket. Tiger still loses far more often than he wins, thank goodness, and a big win in Augusta would be far too predictable (and predicted) to actually happen. The only question is whether or not Elin will console him on the 18th green. I say yes. Clearly, the price is right.

-GM

Like Its Cheese, Swiss Logic Has Holes

JW,

If the sip of water you needed to stay alive would guarantee the extinction of, say, polar bears, would you take it? For the neo-pagan Left, the answer is no. For everyone else, it's yes. The instinct for self-preservation overrides the political symbolism.

As it happens, that very question was asked in Switzerland over the weekend, though in different terms. Presented with a referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets (the onion-shaped spires that dominate Muslim architecture and look vaguely like tits), 57% of voters agreed to do so. Muslims, the thinking seems to have gone, tend to avoid assimilation, preach our destruction on the street corner, and blow us up with bombs. Something should probably be done about them.

The problem, of course, is that taking away a mere architectural flourish is the equivalent not of drinking that water but of using it to wash your hands. The bear dies all the same--in this case, the Arab still rises against you--but you did nothing about your thirst. What the authors of the referendum (the nationalist Swiss People's Party) seem not to have understood is that the law's offending element is not the ban on spires but the assertion of non-Muslim will--the expression of a desire not to be converted. As every thinking person in the world now knows, the Swiss have brought jihad upon themselves. What they haven't done is halt in any meaningful way the spread of Islam by the sword.

Yet outrage--predictable, liberal, and disturbingly white--has followed the vote all the same. The referendum "ensured international embarrassment for Switzerland" according to the Times of London, as well as "a backlash in the Muslim world." The move "is a blow to freedom of religion" according to the Vatican (!), and it increases "the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures." Even apologists for the ban, such as Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, admit that it is "not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies." She's right, of course. How could it be?

Ironically, the fact that Muslim policy toward America seems to be unapologetic jihad may work in our favor, at least during my lifetime and yours. In Europe, the course has been set differently, and the spectre of Islamic government and Sharia law creeps ever forward. We already know that childless Europe will have to import their next generation. It seems that they've chosen poorly.

-GM

GM,

Speaking of Europeans, bad behavior, and decisions that make no sense, FIFA (translated to mean "International Soccer Association") is considering what punishment to give Thierry Henry, the French striker who committed an uncalled handball against Ireland. Soccer, if any part of you still wants to win Americans over, your effort is either pathetic or halfhearted.

GM, you recently impressed me when you said you've managed to avoid even seeing a replay of the obvious infraction. I, however, haven't been so lucky and am all too familiar with the history. It goes like this.

1. Player commits infraction; infraction not called; other team gets screwed.

2. Player admits to committing infraction but adds: "I'm not the ref. I played it; the refs allowed it. That's a question you should ask them."

3. Embarrassed by his team's unfair victory, player agrees with sore losers about how to resolve the miscarriage of justice.

4. Governing body discusses how to punish player.

How does that sit with you? Soccer fans, go back and read items 1-4 and apply it to Michael Jordan's push-off on Bryon Russell, or Reggie Bush's pushing Matt Leinart into the end zone against Notre Dame, or this strike call. In your world, the refs miss a call, and the player who benefited is to blame?! What was Henry supposed to do? Pick the ball up and hand it to the official?! Soccer fans act like he cheated in the same way that Sammy Sosa corked his bat! And if the act had been premeditated, isn't that an indictment of how bad the sport's officials must be? He actually took time to think that he could get away with blatantly touching the ball!

If the riots, oddball fans, and inescapable boringness of soccer hadn't already lost me, this horrible gesture would. Who's left to punish FIFA?

-JW

Turkey Day: Rehashing Mistakes and Memories

GM has taken the week off, and I came close. That's what I'm thankful for.

My Thanksgiving visit to my parents has left me with no quick Internet access, so don’t expect any links. The same visit, however (picture George Costanza hanging out with parents Frank and Estelle), has brought some holiday memories back into focus, and I’ll get to those later.

It’s a shame when college and NFL coaches make decisions so irrational that we’re forced to post about them, but if our irritation powers this blog (and it does), then we have to take our fuel where we can get it. Saturday afternoon, I watched my virtual wallet shrink (LSU got 4 ½ points at Ole Miss!) as Les Miles deprived his team of a chance to win outright—the outcome I depended upon. Sure, the fact that he tried to spike the ball in less than one second of clock time on the road was ludicrous, but others have already made that point. Also, there’s the obvious curiosity one would have about why he waited so long to call timeout before the 4th-and-forever conversion. There are a few more complaints on this stakeholder’s end, though:

1. You don’t try an onside kick with 6 minutes left in the first half after you just went up 8 thanks to a stadium-deflating 50-yard field goal. Really! When Ole Miss got the ball with incredible field position, the card-carrying Klan members at Vaught-Hemingway were somewhere between confused and uninterested. It wasn’t until the Rebels scored the ensuing touchdown that anyone cheered! Now that’s a deflated crowd.

2. You don’t give your sack-loving, slowest-fit-black-man-alive, ankle-hampered quarterback a chance to take a sack on second down when you’re already in field-goal range. I’m not saying don’t pass, but don’t let him drop back.

3. You don’t follow up the sack with a slow-developing play in the flat.

4. You don’t call the fade when going for two to tie it. I hate the fade when you’re inside the 10! Hate it. And thanks to a penalty the first time, he tried it twice.

5. Finally, I’ve watched an embarrassing amount of football at levels below NCAA Division I. Those teams are completely capable of switching out the offense for the field-goal unit in the time LSU was given. So… you don’t tell the CBS sideline reporter that you didn’t think you had time to do it. Some of us know better.

How’s this for a pro-style blunder? Down by 2 with more than 2 minutes remaining against the best team in the conference, Ravens coach John Harbaugh called a timeout so he could consider whether or not he wanted to challenge what was clearly and absolutely a correct first-down spot for the Colts. He then challenged and, of course, lost a second timeout—his last. When Baltimore got the ball back, Ed Reed turned it over on the punt return, but better clock management (or understanding of the rules) would have given them close to 2 minutes! You don’t call a timeout and then challenge—ever! Have I mentioned that it bothers me that guys who get paid heftily to make intelligent decisions can’t do so late in games?

Now for some Thanksgiving memories. This won’t take long because it was the same every year. My parents, brother, sister, and I would drive down to Ripley, Mississippi (population: our maternal extended family). If we were lucky, we wouldn’t beat the Lions’ kickoff there. We’d see Aunt Sarah (pronounced SAY-ruh ‘round those parts), the lady of the house, in the kitchen preparing the driest turkey you’ve ever had in your life. Then we’d pass a couple dozen people who looked familiar but whose names we couldn’t come up with even if everyone promised to quit walking in front of the TV. My brother and I could typically find ways to identify people. There were the blonde-haired brothers with mullets, the woman with Victorian-style/1970s glasses, the diabetic guy who clucks, the woman who wore the same pair of white Keds and a tacky Christmas sweater every year, the guy with the beard who didn’t like football, the chain-smoking couple with massive noses, the resentful teenage girl, the fat conspiracy theorist, and the guy who was obsessed with the newest television/speaker technology. We were related to every last one of these people, but if they came to my brother’s wedding, he sure didn’t know how they got there. After a remarkably cold potluck meal in which everything had the texture of Jell-O, we would avoid the crowd by making our way upstairs and inevitably digging into the 1974 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records.

“Can you believe this? A guy walked 27 miles while balancing a full milk bottle on his nose!”

“Cluck,” remarked the gentleman to my right.

-JW

Allen Iverson: He Wasn't Quite Good Enough, He's Not Quite Gone

JW,

Now that Allen Iverson has retired (note: signing with the Knicks doesn't count as a comeback), let's take a moment and put his career and inglorious exit in context. I'll start by saying that when future historians tell his story (and I know they will), I hope they include last Saturday's article in The Onion:

Memphis Grizzlies Continue To Insist They Have 5 Players Better Than Allen Iverson.

Has any story, satirical or not, ever captured a situation so perfectly? Take a look at some of its excerpts:

"We're really confident about the decision to put Mike Conley, Zach Randolph, Rudy Gay, O.J. Mayo, and Marc Gasol on the floor instead of Iverson," general manager Chris Wallace said of his starters, who combined have appeared in 10 fewer NBA All-Star games than the former No. 1 draft pick.

"[Marcus Williams has] been coming off the bench and putting up 4.4 points a game. He wowed us when he scored seven the other night."

Funny stuff, right? And yet the fictionalized (sort of) version of Chris Wallace has inadvertently hit upon a key truth. You really are better off playing crappy rookies and young guys, seeing what you've got, and getting a lottery pick than you are winning 41 meaningless games with A.I. and sneaking into the playoffs. Yeah, it's an NBA problem, but it's an Iverson problem, too. He's a ball hog. He's moody and ridiculous. He absolutely could never have won a championship without more help than Kobe had last year. Throw in the fact that his vaguely funny "practice" bit has become one of the all time most annoying pieces of self-referential fluff that ESPN anchors have ever filled air time with and you've got a career that, on balance, has got to be considered a waste.

But that's just me. Where do you rank the guy?

-GM

GM,

While you were writing, ESPN reported that the Knicks have decided not to offer Iverson a contract. GM Donnie Walsh said the decision "has nothing to do with Iverson." I don't see how a decision not to sign a player could have nothing to do with the player. I mean, certainly a 2-9 team would be willing to sign somebody if he were the right fit. The problem is that Allen Iverson isn't the right fit for anyone--not for anyone trying to win a championship, not for anyone trying to build its team into a contender. Not just now, but for his career, he's a remarkably talented athlete whose buckets are more entertaining than just about anyone's. His career field goal percentage of 41 percent is well below league average, as is his listed 6-foot height, which requires that a team's other guard be 6-foot-5 or better. What part of that sounds like a guy who really helps a team?

"He'll never win a championship," I said in 2001 after he won the MVP and took a completely mediocre team to the NBA Finals out of a historically weak Eastern Conference. "Neither will Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, or Stephon Marbury as long as they're the offensive focal points of their teams." It's just impossible to build teams around these guys. The 2004 Olympics showed us that you can't even win a gold medal with Iverson as your offensive leader.

My team committed two of the three worst trades I've seen in my lifetime--trades that smart fans knew were idiotic the moment they happened. In chronological order, they go:

1. Jason Kidd (to Nets) for Stephon Marbury (to Suns)
2. Shawn Marion (to Heat) for Shaq (to Suns)
3. Chauncey Billups (to Nuggets) for Allen Iverson (to Pistons)

Sure, Iverson could probably beat Billups in a one-on-one game, but everyone knew that Billups was one of the best team players in the game while Iverson destroyed team chemistry. The results were even more lopsided than I expected. Billups actually received some MVP talk while making the Nuggets one of the four best teams in the NBA. Iverson ended up on the bench--complaining--for a team that had been a dynasty and all of a sudden became a lame-duck eighth seed. He winds up in Memphis because no one else was dumb enough to sign him, and he starts complaining again. If the Grizzlies can realize it, maybe the whole league can. It's doubtful that he'll never play again, but it's certain he'll never see significant time in another playoff game. Teams finally know better.

-JW

Homelessness: A Smarter Look at the Last Social Cohort We Haven't Yet Insulted

GM,

Walking through the downtown streets yesterday evening, I was approached by two homeless gentlemen, the first of which--an unkempt white man--successfully drained me of my change. This was an unlucky break for the second guy, although I must say he seemed to be in better shape. It was sprinkling, and he had a windbreaker and an umbrella, plus his attitude was about as dynamic as a sorority girl's the night of a themed social. I truthfully told him I was out of cash, to which he replied, "I know how it is, brother." Then his cell phone rang.

I'm no authority on personal finances, but do homeless people really need cell phones. You're a homeowner, GM, and you don't even have a cell phone! And if homeless people are to buy cell phones, shouldn't they turn them on silent while begging? A guy from New York once told me that many of the beggars there aren't even homeless--that they wake up in their downtown lofts, walk to a busy spot, and make $200-300 tax-free dollars a day before returning home. If that's true, perhaps panhandling should be more highly prioritized when making career choices.

I have mixed views on the homeless. There are stories of triumph, stories of gloom, and stories that flat-out prove the theory that it's mostly the result of laziness. I think the proper outlook is this: There will be losers in any capitalist society, but to be a complete loser in this capitalist society, you have to be pretty damn lazy.

Got any stories for me?

-JW

JW,

I keep waiting for the Obama administration to make a policy announcement that goes something like this: "We need to encourage home sales, we don't like homelessness, and we're totally comfortable printing money that's backed up by nothing. From now on, every homeless person in America gets a free house."

But seriously, I love the homeless! From whom else can you hear stories like "My wife was kidnapped and I'm two bucks short of the ransom" (actually heard), "Today's National Homeless Day and the city is matching all contributions" (actually heard), and "I know I look twenty years older than you, but I'm actually your illegitimate child" (okay, I made that one up)? Without homelessness, my already low self-esteem would be totally shot to hell. After all, I often go days at a time without eating garbage, groveling, or being outside. Why shouldn't my obvious superiority make me feel great?

I wonder, by the way, if that wasn't the mindset of the guy featured in your last link--the guy who started out with $25 and the clothes on his back and worked his way toward an apartment and some modest savings. Sure, he had some philosophical questions about the feasability of the American Dream, but he also wanted the ego boost (not to mention the royalties from his inevitable New York Times bestseller). Yeah, he was interested in an adventure, but the real truth is that feigning homelessness was the best-paying job his bachelors-degreed ass could find.

The deeper truth, of course, is that nothing anyone says or does will ever put an end to homelessness, poverty, racism, income inequality, or the tendency of Americans to make meaningless, guilt-induced gestures. As long as that's the case, I don't mind that your cell-phone carrying buddy is making a profit.

-GM

The Call: An Apology

GM,

I emotionally hedged the Patriots/Colts game last night, and the payout was huge. Huge! After watching my Dolphins try their best to give away a game against the Buccaneers but pull it out in the end, I decided I was willing to pay for a New England loss. I took the Pats +2.5, which is very similar to what I did in the 2007 (2006 season) AFC championship game. And while that historic playoff collapse was perhaps my favorite of all time, it cost me money. Last night's result, a one-point win for Indianapolis, helped my wallet, helped the Dolphins' playoff chances, and gave the media a full week to criticize Bill Belichick's coaching decision. What's funny, though, is that I almost always agree with the evil emperor's 4th-down/clock management; I even agreed with that call--the one to go for it on 4th-and-2 from his own 30 with two minutes left and a six-point lead. I'll admit, though, that his burning of two timeouts prior to that was unjustifiable.

Before we get into that, let's rewind a few hours to the end of the Jets/Jaguars affair. Down a point with just under two minutes to go, Maurice Jones-Drew downed himself at the Jets' 1-yard line when he easily could have scored. First of all, why was it so easy? It was easy because Rex Ryan, who also seems to have a more functional brain than most head coaches, instructed his defense to let the Jags score as quickly as possible. Jones-Drew took the knee (on the advice of RB coach Kennedy Polu if you believe this nonsensical tweet from ESPN's Chris Mortensen) so that his team could kneel the ball three times, exhaust clock and the Jets' timeouts, and kick a game-winning field goal with no time left. It worked perfectly.

ESPN's Tom Jackson was infuriated--with both teams. I'm paraphrasing, but the complaint went something like this: "I wouldn't trust my kicking unit in that situation. When you can score, you score. The Jaguars were behind in the game, and when you're behind, you shouldn't get all cute with your strategy. I'm even more irritated with the Jets for trying to let them score a touchdown. Anything can happen if you play defense."

Well, Tom, welcome to 2009. In fact, welcome to math. Which is more likely: a 20-yard field goal going wrong or a two-minute drill resulting in a touchdown? Both coaches knew that it was the latter, so both coaches played accordingly. In late-game situations, you should never do what your opponents' smart fans want you to do. And of course, if I were a Jets fan, I would have been screaming, "Score now!" at the television.

If I were a Colts fan, I would have been thinking: "Perfect. Punt it to us with two minutes left. We'll start from our own 25, and Peyton will march down the field and score with no time left for Brady." Belichick didn't trust his defense--and with good reason. I still love the fact that all the analysts will kill Belichick for this. Sure, he's the only current NFL coach with three rings and endless job security, and he's the only one who would have made that decision. But if you think Tom Jackson was mad before...

-JW

JW,

You stole my thunder. Yes, Belichick made the right call, and yes, he'll be killed for it. As I've argued before, giving Peyton Manning more than fifteen seconds to gyrate, squeal, and rinky-dink his way down the field is a recipe for disaster, be it eighty yards or eighteen. The fact of the matter is that the Pats weren't winning that game unless they converted the fourth down, and their inability to challenge the play was just bad luck.

What I fail to understand is why New England didn't employ the aforementioned New York Jets strategy after turning the ball over on downs. Look at the play-by-play again. From 1st and 10 at their own 14, the Pats allowed Joseph Addai to run all the way to the one yard line before inexplicably tackling him. On 1st and Goal from the 1, they tackled him again. Let him score on either of those and you've got a chance. Stop him and you've got none. I'm so impressed by Manning at this point (damn him), I can't help wondering if that run from the 1 was mere strategy. It was Joseph Addai, after all, and now that Larry Johnson has retired, no back in the league gives you a better chance at no gain. Short yardage to Wayne is pretty much automatic, so why not intentionally waste a down?

Looking back, I think I'll remember my certainty more than anything. Down two touchdowns with four minutes to play, I knew for a fact that Indianapolis was winning that game. The last time I felt that way about them was during the 2006 season. We should probably be expecting the same result.

-GM

I Wanted the NFL. I WENT to the NFL. And the NFL Sucked.

JW,

Last night, those of us (un)lucky enough to get the NFL Network witnessed one of the all-time lousy performances by a quarterback. Five interceptions, zero touchdowns, seventeen completely unwarranted sneers and sniffles, and one entirely avoidable loss. Cutler's play was so bad that I considered the alternate titles "Cutler: An Evisceration" and "Cutler: Stop Throwing Picks, You Weak-Chinned Bitch" before settling on what you just read. And while I'm sure that the coming weeks will give us some tempting lines, I'm ready to declare that I will never, ever wager on #6 again.

The really perverse thing, when you think about it, is that the general level of excitement for Chicago's season as recently as two months ago was notably higher than it was for Denver's. Kyle Orton was a career backup--a guy who couldn't take Rex Grossman's job, for heaven's sake--and Cutler was the Pro Bowler ready to break out on a team that wanted him. (A side note: Enough with the Cutler Pro Bowl thing. Not since Zack, Slater, and Screech spent an eight-episode arc in Maui has so much been made over one trip to Hawaii.) Now? Orton's the ultimate game manager and the guy who helped bring Brandon Marshall back into the fold. Denver wouldn't trade Orton back to Chicago for a deal twice as good as the original, and Cutler's heading for numbers that would get Jake Delhomme benched. (According to Wikipedia, Cutler does volunteer work with mentally challenged young people. And copies their throwing motions, apparently.)

Strangely enough, though, I found myself believing that Cutler would pull off the win last night even while knowing everything I just wrote. When he marched the Bears down the field at the end of the fourth quarter (Perhaps "marched" is the wrong word--we haven't seen a two-minute drill this ugly since the last time JaMarcus Russell went three-and-out against his practice squad), I allowed myself to hope that he'd make a miracle happen. I was actually a bit surprised when he threw that final pick.

JW, I'm going out on a limb and guessing you didn't watch this disaster of a football game. Any sports related idiocy you'd like to talk about?

-GM

GM,

Honestly, no.

I have, however, recently come across some information that completely shook the foundation of my mentality! (It surprised me.)

1. The Colts' coach is black?! I was sure it was this guy! I remember some ESPN guys talking about how they had been planning on promoting him as soon as Dungy retired, and I've seen that guy (offensive coordinator Tom Moore) on the sidelines many times. Turns out it's Jim Caldwell who's the head man in Indy--well, behind Peyton, of course.

2. Adam Morrison plays for the Lakers?! OK, it didn't surprise me that the Bobcats wanted to get rid of this schmohawk, but why would the Lakers sign him?! He's a 37-percent career shooter whose only strength is shooting!

3. Twenty-year-old Corey Zickefoose said that the three Tennessee football players who allegedly (shouldn't he know?) held him at gunpoint should remain on the football team and that he has no plans to press charges. He's such a UT fan that he only wants what's best for the team! I don't want to insult a recently traumatized die-hard fan, but he should revisit his list of priorities.

4. Lou Holtz's entire gimmick (assuming it's not having distracting dentures) is being the biggest homer on the planet. He picked his two former teams (Notre Dame and South Carolina) to upset No. 12 Pittsburgh and No. 1 Florida this weekend. What's the point of even watching the ESPN "experts" predict if they're going to be like that?

-JW

Some Tricky Questions

GM,

I just answered 230 questions from a personality survey that was required just to apply for a job I won’t get. You know the type. It's one of those that makes about eight statements in 30 different ways and asks you to rate your level of agreement from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Just so the outside world can know the reason for my fleeting sanity, I’ve copied and pasted some of my favorites from the survey. Notice the numbers next to each, which represents the order in which I was asked them.

The Annoying:

213. Business decisions must be based on the assessment of facts.

215. The assessment of facts must serve as the basis for business decisions.

The Streaky Annoying:

128. In almost all situations, proven processes should not be changed.

129. It is important to experiment with new ideas in the workplace.

130. I adapt quickly to changing work situations.

131. Coworkers would describe me as someone who prefers a frequently changing work environment.

132. I have always adapted fairly easily to changes at work.

133. I adapt quickly to new work environments.

The "We don't mind insulting your intelligence" Annoying:

180. I like to see other people get ahead in the workplace.

211. I like to see other people succeed in the workplace.

The "There is no God" Annoying:

205. I feel hurt when I receive criticisms of my performance.

206. I am hurt by criticisms of my performance.

If this company actually hires me, nothing will stop me from completely wasting two hours in the first week--perhaps to blog. I want my survey time back.

-JW

JW,

As a member of a field (higher education) whose job-seeker to job ratio engenders emotions that can best be described as "Kafka-esque," I sympathize with your troubles. Clearly, someone in HR is having a laugh at your expense right now, and if that joker is reading this blog, let me join the long line of people who undoubtedly hope that he'll go f--k himself. 230 questions? For every applicant? Are they trying to weed out anyone who isn't desperate?

Actually, that's exactly what they're trying to do, if my thinking is correct. We've all taken these tests, after all, but no one's ever heard the psychological validation for this kind of thing. I'm not even sure what they're looking for. Consistency? Inconsistency? The ability to finish the test while all of your instincts are shouting "stop"? And what would happen if an applicant took careful notes and managed perfect consistency, on the molecular level? While that sounds impressive, I'd be hesitant to hire someone so unphased by subtlety. What a drag around the office!

The underlying issue, of course, is that in a job market this bad, employers have way too much power to nitpick. I've been to lots of businesses, and I've interacted with several corporations, and I'm here to tell you that whatever skill this test supposedly measures is not one that is possessed by the average person in corporate America. (Don't get me started on the people to whom we outsource jobs. Yikes.)

The point is, if you don't like this test, just wait awhile. In fifty years or so, you'll be giving it out to people who want to hire you. That'll be the day.

-GM

Hasan Was a Terrorist, Dammit. We Refuse to Stop Saying So.

JW,

When I came across this article on MSN.com (via MSNBC.com and first appearing in the New York Times--and they say the Right is well-organized), I was immediately drawn to its title: Muslims at Fort Hood voice outrage. My first thought (well, my first thought after "outraged Muslims = bad news for commercial airline passengers") was that the outrage in question had to be directed toward murderer and obvious terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan. Right? It couldn't possibly be directed at the army, the West, or any other jihad-inducing Straw Man. Could it?

In fact, the article's first paragraph seems to lean in the direction of reasonableness. "Leaders of the vibrant Muslim community here," we read, "expressed outrage on Friday at the shooting rampage being laid to one of their members, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who had become a regular attendee of prayers at the local mosque."

I could do without "vibrant"--a word used solely by white liberals to describe communities of color--but this is good stuff, right? It's exactly what we want to hear from the Muslim community right now. The problem occurs with the article's first two quotes. I'll let you decide if they sufficiently fulfill the first graph's promises.

"When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal," said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. "But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad."

. . . and . . .

"Ultimately it was Brother Nidal’s doing, but the command should be held accountable," Mr. Benjamin said.

Some outrage.

As you can imagine, the rest of the article is more of the same. Muslims fear retribution; Muslims have always "lived peacefully" with their Christian neighbors. All the way down in paragraph eleven, we get some decent condemnation ("The Islamic community strongly condemns this cowardly attack, which was particularly heinous in that it was directed at the all-volunteer army that protects our nation."), but the general thrust of the article has little to do with Hasan's actions and much to do with Islam's perceived grievances.

Looking again at the first paragraph, in fact, I can't help wondering what the phrase "being laid to" is all about. It's syntactically unfamiliar--unidiomatic, even--and it reads very much like "being blamed on." It wouldn't be a problem if we were dealing with a situation in which blame was at all negotiable, but Hasan clearly shot those people. He was himself shot while doing so. The idea--a mere rhetorical seed, but a potent one--that, looking around for some place to lay blame, we settled on a Muslim is an absurdity. This is the guy! He did it!

Nevertheless, the "coverage" of the shootings has been dominated by breathless concern for soldiers' breaking points (try here and here for two examples among many), as if Hasan is in any way the moral or factual equivalent of actual veterans (he never saw combat) returning from actual wars (he was never deployed).

Of course, that's nothing compared to the morally bankrupt ending of our original article:

"[Muslims] do have the right to retaliate," [Victor Benjamin] said, "but he who does not is twice blessed."

Chilling.

-GM

GM,

According to the article, yes, the outrage was directed toward Hasan with a very quick "but" to follow. The fact that a guy named Victor Benjamin II is sharing in their sentiment--that Hasan's action may be a product of extreme burnout or trauma--would seem strange to me if I didn't already know so many Americans who seek to apologize for everyone else first. I realize that people can't be expected to produce off-the-cuff statements that completely reflect their actual views, but I would like to explore this Benjamin quote simply because it seems so misguided:

“G.I.’s are like any equipment in the Army. When it breaks, those who were in charge of keeping it fit should be held responsible for it.”

I've heard some poor analogies in my time, but this one belongs on the short list. If a tank or helicopter breaks, it doesn't go on a killing spree. You also usually know when it's broken. Hasan's homicidal demeanor probably wasn't as easy to detect. Is Benjamin suggesting that the military is somehow responsible for knowing the psychological state of its entire personnel? Should we really spend more tax dollars on Army psychiatrists, especially considering that Hasan was just that?! It seems like the easier solution would be to make it clear on the front end that killing sprees are frowned upon. After all, if it was just a matter of "going postal," then Hasan's urges could have been prevented with a little therapy, maybe some morale-boosting videos or messages of caution. But, of course, if the guy who attended church at the same Virginia mosque as two 9/11 hijackers happened to be acting on religious beliefs, maybe we shouldn't let those types of people into the military. Here in America, though, even practical "discrimination" is an ugly word.

-JW

JW,

I'm writing a one-time-only follow-up due to your suggestion that "If a tank or helicopter breaks, it doesn't go on a killing spree. You also usually know when it's broken."

In fact, the Times reported today, U.S. Intelligence Agencies (no doubt crippled by Obama's Don't Make Muslims Look Bad policies) did know that Hasan was broken. They intercepted communications between him and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American cleric who has already praised Hasan's attacks, and they did nothing.

But hey, it's a big army. Maybe the CIA thought Hasan was talking to the guy undercover.

-GM

Mean Girls, Mean Boy

GM,

It occurred to me this morning that we don't discuss women enough and that we've never given any attention to soccer. New Mexico junior defender Elizabeth Lambert has given us reason to touch on both. Thanks to play so unsportsmanlike that ESPN gave it 90 seconds of highlights, Lambert will open the eyes of many to the unnecessary brutality of women's soccer. Hair-pull takedowns, kicks to the head, punches to the back--apparently all part of the game and not even worthy of an ejection in her case.

This type of behavior really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Take Rachel McAdams's character in Mean Girls--a movie liked by an astonishing number of guys and somehow tolerated by me. She's deceitful, manipulative, arrogant, conniving, and hyper-competitive. Attribute those characteristics to a butch college athlete (I don't care what her sexual orientation is; that chick is butch), and you could understand how she would play "with no regard for human life" (Kevin Harlan voice)!

I don't know what's so attractive about violence in our society. These UFC and MMA matches bore me worse than an August baseball game between the Royals and Orioles. I haven't been in a fight in well over a decade, and I'm thrilled about it. Who has the energy?! Even the winner of a fight comes out a little worse off than he was going in. Right, Tom Cable?

-JW

JW,

Speaking of Cable, it's not just assistant Randy Hanson who's been on the receiving end of his rage. Reports have been leaking in the last few days that Cable was also abusive to the women he dated (or all women if the title bar of this article is to be believed). My only question is whether or not Cable shouted "Allahu akbar" as he hit them. The Fort Hood gunman did (fast-forward to 3:20), and that's being equally underreported.

I'll be honest. If Smarter Than Y'all weren't such a great name, I'd be happy with Too Lazy For Violence. We've written before about MMA and its attendant silliness, but it's worth restating that only sociopaths (both functional and non-) can watch this s--t without getting sleepy. Women soccer players are biting each other's tits off? Of course they are! They saw it on TV!

I'll close with a warning and some mockery. The inevitable by-product of society's comfort with violence occurred yesterday. Nidal Hassan (nickname: I'm Obviously a Terrorist) may have been evil, but he wasn't an evil genius. He got his plan the same place they all do: every video game, movie, and television program released in the last decade.

Too bad he couldn't have been satisfied with Mean Girls.

-GM

An Attack the San Antonio Spurs Probably Deserved

JW,

Like many sports fans, I find it difficult to pay attention to the NBA while football season is still in full swing. Teams are still finding themselves, the best players aren't really trying, Shaq is still seventy games away from playing himself into shape, and individual wins and losses mean relatively little. Truth be told, I can think of only three reasons why an NBA fan would start paying attention before January:

1) You're a Wizards fan and you want to see Gilbert Arenas play a few games before his inevitable season-ending injury;

2) You're a Grizzlies fan and you enjoy the annual season-opening 0-10 streak;

3) You're a compulsive gambler, to the extent that you're willing to bet on the NBA (!) before anyone really knows anything (!!).

That's it.

Sadly, though, this perfectly reasonable attitude has its consequences--namely, you risk missing moments like this one, in which San Antonio Spurs guard Manu Ginobili killed a bat with his bare hands, midgame. Let me repeat that. A bat was flying around the arena annoying people, and Ginobili killed it with his bare hands! I don't know what's more impressive: Ginobili's perfect swing or the fact that he got an arena attendant (or just a random fan???) to take the bat from him without gloves. Yikes.

Tempting though it is to use the scene as a metaphor (Ginobili is Maine voters, the bat is gay marriage; Ginobili is Christopher Christie and Robert McDonnell, the bat is Obama's chances to hold the House next year.), I'm going to refrain from doing so. No, the bat-killing refers only to itself. It's the pure thing, the real deal. This, I'm ready to declare, is why the regular season still matters.

-GM

GM,

It had to be a tough international player who swatted that bat, and there aren't too many of those in the NBA. If you watch the video more closely, you'll see Tim Duncan clutching Gregg Popovich and shrieking. While Americans fear bats and the diseases they may carry, it turns out Argentina is riddled with the flying mammals. This leads me to my next point.

I showed the video to a more liberal friend of mine, and he immediately said, "I don't know if we should be killing bats; it's not like they're insects." Decent point on the surface, I suppose. I might not be so accepting of Manu if he had gone on a bat hunt with no intention of eating what he killed. Honestly, it wouldn't bother me at all, but Wikipedia just informed me that bats serve "vital ecological roles." Certainly, though, if a furry, flying creature enters an arena and threatens the peace of mind of thousands, it deserves to die.

Speaking of vital roles, I just received a phone call about a job I applied to yesterday. That's the first bad sign. No company that calls me back this quickly could be worth getting on with. Also, the fact that the job description started out like this was far from appealing:

If you are self-motivated (I'm not), have amazing people skills (I make at least one enemy per week) and pride yourself on hard work (Does anyone actually do that?!), you might be exactly who we are looking for.

Still, I answered Leslie's (real name) call. You know it's never a good thing when you find yourself saying, "I'm not trying to start an argument or anything." Apparently, one should refrain from telling an HR person that a job description is "vague"--just in case she's the one who wrote it.

-JW