The Law-Talking Guy 'Blog

Chapter 8:You Don't Know What You're DO-ing!

2011-03-19T15:38:00.000-07:00

Our last day of vacation was the one I was most looking forward to, the Premier League match. We were able to get up at a reasonable time, have breakfast, and make our way to the Underground to make our way to Euston Station for the Virgin train to Birmingham.

We arrived without incident, although the trip did allow me to see more of the English countryside than our Eurostar trip to Paris. Birmingham is definitely a more industrial city than London, at least the parts of London we saw, and you could tell the difference in the landscape. What we saw of Birmingham was definitely grittier than London.

We made our way to Villa Park, Aston Villa's home ground. We had to ask directions as to where we picked up our tickets that I ordered online. Unfortunately, we got three different answers from three different people, and we ended up making about two or three laps around the stadium before we could get the tickets and get inside. Keep in mind, it's not a tiny little yard, and this is day eight of a pretty ambitious trip. Mary Beth was quite a trooper.

Even more so when we were taking pictures, and an official from the team came up to us. They were from the marketing department, and wanted pictures of fans taking pictures outside Villa Park. Sounds simple, right? Nah. They wanted something a little more involved, and we ended up getting moved around and posed for about five minutes. Remember, this is AFTER the wild goose chases we were sent on to get the tickets in the first place. Mary Beth was QUITE a trooper. Is my ego big enough to think it was all worth it to have my picture in some marketing brochure I'll never see? Well, I'll let you come up with your own conclusion.

(Hint. The answer is yes.)

We ultimately did get our tickets and get inside the ground. The steward inspecting our bags was incredibly kind. Apparently, SLR cameras of any kind aren't allowed in the ground. Of course, I had a ginormous bag with one inside. He just smiled, and said "you're not going to be using this in here, right, mate?" He checked with his boss, and they let us in. He also made sure we knew that we couldn't take pictures of any kind during the game, so we wouldn't get into trouble later on. Thank God we must just look like dumb, harmless Americans.

Of course, he also recommended the cheeseburgers. More on that later.

We went up to order lunch, and discovered they are cash-only, and there are no money machines in Villa Park (!). Mary Beth and I pooled our coins, and ended up buying two cheeseburgers and a water. We got to our seats, which were just phenomenal, and settled in and ate our lunch.

Worst. Cheeseburgers. Ever.

Seriously, I don't think a cheeseburger is supposed to crunch when you bite into it. I thought about going "authentic" and getting a steak and kidney pie, but thought I'd play it safe with the cheeseburger. Bad plan.

We sat and soaked up the atmosphere before the match kicked off (well, in all fairness, I stood in the main area watching the Tottenham-West Ham match until the TVs in the stadium cut away to the internal TV). We were about an hour early, so we had plenty of time to get ready and enjoy the sights before the kickoff.

I've seen Premier League matches on television all the time. But seeing it in person, less than 20 feet from the pitch, is a completely different animal. The speed, the skill, and the strength of both teams in playing the game was just amazing. And hearing the hum of the crowd, the songs of the home and away fans during the game, was incredible.

A word has to be said about the crowd. Villa Park holds less than 40,000 people, less than half the size of Memorial Stadium in Lincoln. But the stadium is basically a box, and most of it is made of metal. It is LOUD. It is intimidating, to see the wall of people all around you, singing songs and chanting chants. And because the clock runs for the whole half, the game feels like a single, organic beast as opposed to a series of individual plays. It's just different, and I was hooked.

And, keep in mind, this was for a game that was, objectively, an awful game to watch. Aston Villa only had one shot on target in the first half, Wolves took a 1-0 lead towards the end of the first half, and that ended up to be the final score. Still, Villa had a few good chances, including Darren Bent bouncing a shot off the crossbar that could have made things interesting.

At halftime, we struck up a conversation with an older gentleman sitting in front of us. He turned around, smiled, and said "you're not English, are you?" We smiled, and said we were American. Mary Beth made the mistake of saying we were at our first soccer game, which made him recoil like we had stepped on his hand. She caught herself and said "football, not soccer," which made him smile. He was awfully sweet, telling us about his grandkids getting to see a game down close for the first time, how much he loved living in Birmingham, and how he was pleased to have visitors at his beloved Villa Park.

It was interesting to see the Aston Villa crowd turn on their manager, Gerard Houllier. Villa is having a very disappointing season, and most of the fans are starting to think that Houllier isn't the right guy for the job. In the second half, Houllier took off fan favorite Marc Albrighton, who was one of the few players having a good game. The crowd went mental, the loudest they were the entire game, singing "you don't know what you're doing" to Houllier. Once that starts happening, it's usually the kiss of death for a manager.

Phil Down (the referee) blew the final whistle, and Wolverhampton's fans were drowned out by the furious boos of the Villa supporters. Mary Beth and I went down a row to get a picture of ourselves, which was apparently a bad idea. Two or three fans were rushing down to get as close to the pitch as possible were screaming and swearing at their own team as they left the pitch.

I mean, seriously, red-faced screaming. I've been at a bunch of contentious games. I have never seen craziness like that. And that was just after the stewards stopped another kid from rushing onto the stadium.

It made some of the other things make more sense. There are "home" and "away" tickets sold, meaning that the fans are completely segregated by the teams they support. The area where the Wolves fans sat was ringed by easily 100 police officers. And even after that, when the crowd was leaving and they mingled, there were two or three fights that just about broke out. One guy was on his phone and, at the top of his lungs, told his mate that the game was a "f***ing w**k, total s**t." Mary Beth, thankfully, hid her face in her scarf to conceal the unabashed giggling that provoked from her.

Keep in mind, Wolverhampton is not far from Birmingham, where Aston Villa is located. A game between teams that are close to each other is called a derby (pronounced darby), and usually the fans of those teams don't care much for each other. That explains a lot of the venom we saw during and after the game. In the photo album is a video with the Wolves fans turning the screw on the Villa fans after the game. You get an idea of why there could be some hard feelings.

We got back to the train, and had lunch at the station. We were in line trying to get information about what platform to use, and another fight almost broke out when a kid of Middle Eastern descent stepped out of line to look at a toteboard. A larger-statured (OK, fat) Englishman behind me started going after this guy for cutting in line, then talking about how this was HIS country, and how dare this guy try to get something over on him in HIS country. Apparently that attitude wasn't something that we left behind in the United States.

I made up for my cheeseburger by having a sausage and mash pasty (basically a calzone). Apparently between the pasty and the Villa kit, I passed for English enough that I had people coming up to me and asking how the match went -- at least until I opened my mouth and answered them. Still, that was fun.

On the train ride home, I listened to a Villa fan, an Arsenal fan, and a West Brom fan talk football all the way home. I have to admit, I was a little jealous. Getting a chance to talk football for an hour with anyone, much less life-long fans like that, would have been a lot of fun. But it was interesting just to eavesdrop and listen in.

We headed back to the hotel and packed up the bags, as we've got to get up at 3:45 a.m. to catch the coach for Heathrow tomorrow. I'm going to turn in listening to Match of the Day and the Football League Show on the BBC to complete my authentic London experience. I'll have a summary of the trip tomorrow, once we get home.

Photos of the football adventure can be found here.

Chapter 7:The Alpha Geek

2011-03-18T14:58:00.000-07:00

Don't worry, my moment of high geekery will come soon enough. If you can't wait, skim down and look for the ***GEEK ALERT*** later in the 'blog post.

We slept in this morning, recovering from our late night return from Paris. After breakfast, we went back to the room and Mary Beth decided she needed to lie down for a little while. I had some time to myself, and (based on a suggestion from a friend, thanks Adam) decided to take an excursion on my own to see a football stadium.

A little background. I've been a soccer fan for a while, but I've never really found a Premier League team to get behind. Right now, all I do is pull for teams that have American players on them. That's kinda fun, but nowhere near as fun as having a team to pull for.

My friend Adam is a massive Arsenal fan (called a "supporter" over here), and I told him that I would give it a try this year. So, basically, Arsenal and I have been dating this year, to see how it goes. Arsenal is located in north London, so I thought I would take the opportunity to head over and at least see the grounds. I stopped off to pick up a 20p tabloid and a Union Jack umbrella to fight off the rain.

It was a different experience riding the Underground on my own, without Mary Beth around. In all honesty, it was kinda fun, much easier to imagine myself as a Londoner on his way to a match before going back to work on Monday.

I arrived at the proper station (cleverly named "Arsenal") and made my way to Emirates Stadium. It was a quick walk through a nice little neighborhood, and I crossed a bridge and took a walk around the stadium. It's a gorgeous structure, although it's weird to see a huge (70,000+ seat) stadium nestled in a residential neighborhood. It felt more like a baseball stadium than a football one.

I went through the two gift shops, one of the very few people shopping on a rainy Friday afternoon. Amazingly enough, none of the employees said a word to me as I shopped. It was work to get someone to break away from talking with each other to take my money for the postcard I bought. Maybe that's a British thing, but it was definitely noticeable. It's definitely odd to have been treated better by the people in Paris than the people from Arsenal. If Arsenal and I are dating, then meeting Arsenal's family certainly didn't do the relationship any favors.

It's not like the performance of the team has been helpful. Arsenal is known as a team that plays amazingly skilled, technically proficient football but never quite get around to, you know, winning anything. They're second in the Premier League, and have been eliminated from the Champions League and the two domestic competitions they were in this year.

(Translation for American readers. Most professional soccer teams (known as "clubs") play in their domestic league, and also in a separate tournament with other teams in their countries. England has two of those tournaments, the FA Cup and the Carling Cup, which no one cares about unless your team loses, at which point supporters get upset at their team. In addition to the league and the domestic competitions, there is the UEFA Champions League which pits the best clubs from around Europe in a tournament to crown the best club in Europe. The Champions League is the real big deal, at least as big if not bigger than the Premier League. Got it?)

So it's fair to say the relationship between Arsenal and I isn't going well. Still, I've been following them all year, and being on the grounds, I have to admit a sense of connection with the club. Maybe there is something there, we'll see.

***GEEK ALERT***

(No, the soccer stuff wasn't the geeky part. That's how bad it is.)

I got back to the hotel room, Mary Beth and I cleaned up, and we headed back to the Underground for the one planned activity we had for the evening.

The Doctor Who Experience.

For those of you not familiar, Doctor Who is a British science fiction show about a time-traveling adventurer that saves space and time from monsters. It started in 1964, and it still going strong after a ten-year hiatus. I got hooked on it in junior high, when a friend of mine introduced it to me on a sleepover. I loved the campy action, the threadbare storylines, and the sheer British-ness of it. When I was sick and lost my hair as a kid, my folks bought me a curly-hair wig so I could look like Tom Baker, the Fourth Doctor. The long scarf I have on my topcoat to this day is an homage to the Doctor.

Quite honestly, Doctor Who (along with Monty Python and the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy) was a fixture of my childhood, and ultimately one of the reasons I wanted to come to London in the first place.

I wasn't disappointed. The "experience" itself was very similar to the dearly-departed Star Trek Experience at the Las Vegas Hilton. You go through an interactive "story" where the Doctor takes you on an adventure. We got to see a fully-working replica of the TARDIS control panel (don't ask, it'll take too long to explain), be threatened by Daleks (ditto), and generally save all of space and time.

I'm not embarrassed to say I ate it up. God bless Mary Beth for going through the whole thing with me without laughing or rolling her eyes one. Or filing for divorce. She's truly an amazing woman.

After the Experience, we went through a display showing props and costumes from the show, interactive displays about some of the effects (so THAT'S how they got that Dalek voice!) and told some of the stories about how the show was made. And then, of course, there was the obligatory gift shop that I had to peruse.

Once we left the hall, we went and had lunch at Pizza Express, a far more upscale place than the name indicated. We came back to Bayswater, shopped a little, and came back to the hotel to relax. We watched TV for a while, including the Red Nose Day telethon, which is analogous to the Jerry Lewis Telethon, except that it's not just for one charity. And, of course, Jerry Lewis isn't there. But, heck, they even had a mini-Doctor Who episode on it. Winning!

We then went out for dinner at Bella Italia, which apparently is the European version of Olive Garden, as we saw one just about everywhere we went. The food certainly would suggest that, as it was adequate Italian food, but nowhere near as good as the place we ate in last night. We did a little more shopping on the walk back, then went back to the room to turn in for the night.

Tomorrow, we head to Birmingham for the Aston Villa-Wolverhampton Premier League soccer game. Settle down, Arsenal and I aren't yet at the stage where we're exclusive, so there shouldn't be any heartbreak involved with little Aston Villa tryst.

The London photo album has been updated, you can see it in it's full geeky glory here.

Chapter 6:How Do You Say "Exhausted" In French?

2011-03-18T01:44:00.000-07:00

Apologies for how long it took to get this installment out. As you read on, you'll understand why.

Thursday we woke up at 4:30 a.m. (!) to get ready and over to the Underground. We opened up the Bayswater station so we could get to the international rail station and catch the Eurostar train to Paris. We were able to buy a day-pass for the Metro, the Paris subway, and get a map of the Metro at the Eurostar station. That turned out to be very helpful.

The train was a pretty slick way to travel, although getting on the international trip was a lot like boarding a plane in terms of the security. Going through the chunnel was kind of a non-event, as I fell asleep pretty quickly after sitting down in the coach.

Once we arrived in Paris, we had to make our way to the Metro, which meant finding our way through a train station without speaking the language. With some help from one of the security guards, we got at least to the platform.

The Metro, in some ways, is very different from the Underground, besides the obvious "everything's in French" bit. It's nowhere near as clean, and the trains as they arrive don't have any indication of what line they are or where they are going. Still, subways all have the same basic components -- colored lines, circles indicating stops, and final destinations. It didn't take us too long to get our bearings.

Our first stop was Notre Dame. The original one, not the one in Indiana, although the football stadium in South Bend is way cooler than the one in Paris. We got out of the Metro and had to take a bridge across the Siene River to get to the church, and it was walking across that bridge that the reality of being in Paris really struck me. Even more than in London, the feeling of being a foreign visitor really hit home.

We perused the grounds, including standing on the marker that signified the "center of Paris" before heading in. Notre Dame is really stunning, not only for the artwork inside (particularly the Rose Window and Michaelangelo's Pieta at the back of the sanctuary), but for the sheer age and presence of the building. Everything in the building is spectacular. We lit candles for the loved ones we've lost recently, and explored for a while.

It was back to the Metro and off to the Eiffel Tower next. We found the proper station (after one mis-step of getting on the wrong train and having to backtrack) and headed over, with a detour to utilize (or attempt to utilize) the somewhat space-age self-cleaning restroom on the streets. The grey sky didn't really do the tower justice, in terms of both its' size and its' beauty.

The natural inclination when you go to see a monument is to go TO the monument. That's not the way to handle the Eiffel Tower. We had to walk back almost two blocks, across the Siene, to really get an ability to see the Tower in its' glory.

We then walked a good distance along the Siene towards the next Metro station and for our next stop, the Arc de Triomphe and the Champs-Elysees. The Arc is really impressive, sitting in the middle of a huge roundabout in the middle of an incredibly busy street. Underneath the Arc, with all kinds of names and monuments facing it, is an eternal flame with flowers ringing it.

The French roundabouts are as crazy as you hear, five cars wide with no real lanes to speak of. There are six or seven different streets that spill into this roundabout, and people dart from one to the next with no real rhyme or reason that I could tell. All of a sudden, the Metro's problems didn't seem so bad.

We stopped for an incredible lunch at a sidewalk sandwich shop, did a little souvenir shopping, then headed back to the Metro to see the Louvre.

From the Metro, you come into the Louvre from underneath, which is a little surreal. But the sight of the inverted pyramid is really impressive (even if you hadn't seen "The DaVinci Code") and a great way to start the trip.

(As an aside, there's a number of shops underneath the Louvre we walked by. There's an Apple store right in the entrance, in which you can see the reflection of the inverted pyramid in the store's facade. Is it possible to make an Apple store MORE pretentious? Sure! Put it in the entryway of the Louvre!)

Getting into the main lobby, the Louvre presents some wonderful decisions to make in terms of what to see. We didn't have a lot of time or energy left, so we budgeted both with our plans. We did see Winged Victory, the Venus de Milo, and the Mona Lisa, as well as hundreds of other masterpieces.

The Louvre is an overwhelming place. The building itself is so beautiful that you catch yourself marveling at the building rather than the artwork the building is intended to house. Nowhere is that distraction more stark than in the room holding the Mona Lisa. Of course, there is a huge crush of people trying to get close enough to get a picture of the famous smile. But the walls of the entire room (and it's not a small room) are jam-packed with stunning masterpieces as well. In some ways, I feel sorry for those pieces of art. They're reduced to the artistic version of background singers behind the spotlight-grabbing Mona Lisa.

We sent some postcards, bought some souveniers, and headed back to the train station for our return to London. During my trip to paris, I have to admit I was waiting to be treated by the famous Parisian contempt for foreigners. Nothing could have been further from the truth. During our entire trip to date, the two biggest acts of kindness we've received were from Parisians.

First, one of the shopkeepers on the Champs-Elysess put the credit card I left behind (winning!) under his desk and returned it to me without incident or snark when I returned, red-faced, for it. Second, an elderly woman walking with a cane could see that Mary Beth and I were struggling to find our way back to the train station. Even though she did not speak a word of English, she figured out where we were going and walked along with us, making sure that we took the right staircase to get to our train. Good thing she did, too, as we would have certainly taken the wrong train had she not shown us the way. She and Mary Beth hugged and kissed as we thanked her profusely as we parted. Sometimes angels walk slowly and speak French. I'm glad we had the presence of mind to slow down and let her help us.

We slept most of the way back to London, although I did break down and buy a cheeseburger. The travel back to the Phoenix Hotel was uneventful, although we had both forgotten it was St. Patrick's Day. There were some revelers out and about, and although I would ever hesitate to refer to the English as "amateurs" when it comes to drinking alcohol, it did appear that St. Patrick's Day is "Amateur Night" in the UK as well. It was amusing to see a Japanese tourist taking a picture of a man in a arge Guinnes St. Patrick's Day hat sitting on a bench in the train station, either drunk or otherwise affected such that he had no idea what was going on.

Today's a rest day, although we do have a few activites planned. I will tell you more later, but suffice it to say that any questions about my Alpha Geek status will be put to rest tonight.

Photos from Paris can be found here.

Chapter 5:Kilts and Klingons

2011-03-16T15:24:00.000-07:00

This morning was another sleep-in morning, which was good given that we stayed our one night in the George with its' king-size bed and Sky Sports on the television. We did have some problems with the computer, requiring Martin (and his kilt) to come up to the room to get things working. He was a little put off by my Alienware keyboard, asking if the keys were in Klingon. You haven't lived until you've had a man in a kilt and a thick Scottish accent say the word "Klingon" to you.

We went downstairs to have breakfast, and I was able to have my first "proper" British hot breakfast. In this case, "proper" means "complimentary," as we're hemmoraging cash as it is. Poached eggs on toast, bacon (which, in the UK, is way more Canadian bacon than Hormel), tomatoes, baked beans, pork sausage, and porridge. For the most part, it was good to have once, but I will stick with my Weetabix.

We got some help from Vanessa, quite possibly the friendliest person I've ever encountered, and made some plans for the day. We walked a few blocks (and past about eight statues or monuments -- stuff like that happens in a city that's 1300 years old) to St. James Center. No culture or history here, we just shopped for souvenirs and gifts. The best part of the trip was going into the official club store for the Hearts of Midlothian Football Club, a Scottish soccer team that isn't Celtic or Rangers, so even fewer people have heard of them. Of course, now they're my adopted SPL side, particularly after listening to the clerk and a patron attempt to explain the difference between a "kit" and a "uniform." I'm still not sure I understand, and I knew before they started talking.

Once we got done at St. James Center, we did more shopping along Princes Street, including me looking in some of the other sports stores (JJB Sports and JD Sports) for more gear. We stopped in one of the tourist shops, bought a few knick-knacks and learned about Greyfriars Bobbie, and looked around for a while, ultimately going upstairs to their tea room for lunch. (Hey, you can't turn down free tea with any purchase -- very Scottish of us!)

It was a small room, filled with grey-haired ladies wearing cashmere sweaters of every color. Evidently it was the place to be seen for the over-60 Scottish women crowd. We ordered tea, Mary Beth had a scone, and I had shortbread. Both were incredibly good, and held us the rest of the day.

After lunch, we meandered through Edinburgh back to the hotel to get our luggage and send postcards. We left the George and headed to the bus station. At least we thought we were heading to the bus station, until the bus we needed to take us to the airport sped right by. We stopped someone who looked local, who informed us we were heading in the wrong direction and put us right.

Thankfully, we left plenty of goof-up time, and still made the bus (including a stop to enjoy a busking bagpiper) comfortably. We got back to Edinburgh Airport, got through security without quite the drama we had arriving (although we both did get the "TSA treatment" this time). We ended up getting on an earlier flight and got back to London over an hour ahead of schedule.

We took the Underground back to the Phoenix, made a quick stop at Boots Pharmacy for athletes foot ointment for yours truly (that could be a developing situation) and got our new room. After the large and luxurious George, the convenient but closet-like rooms at the Phoenix were put in starker relief. I mean, for heaven's sake, our new room even has a tube television instead of a flat screen. Savages!

We spruced up a little and went for dinner at the inauspiciously-named Ristorante Italiano. The simplicity of the name belied the quality of the meal. I had an incredible pasta carbonara, and Mary Beth had an exquisite chicken and asparagus dish. Throw in the fact that Mary Beth was convinced one of the waiters was my Italian doppelganger, and the evening was both delicious and a little peculiar.

We got back to the room and hit the sack. Tomorrow we get up at 4:30 a.m. to catch the chunnel to Paris. If you'd care to help us get ready for the trip, please feel free to be condescending and arrogant in your comments.

More photos from Edinburgh can be found here.

Chapter 4:No, THAT'S The Castle

2011-03-15T14:31:00.000-07:00

I don’t care what continent you’re in, 4:30 in the morning is early. That’s what time we had to get up to catch our transport to the airport for our trip to Edinburgh, Scotland. We made it (with time to spare) and took the short flight, enjoying a few of the British tabloids along the way.

Getting on the flight, though, was another story. I was wearing slacks with a second “hidden” pocket to keep my passport, which seemed like a great idea when traveling. Unfortunately, even the minute amount of metal in the zipper was throwing off the security checks. I went through one check. Then another. Then the full-body x-ray. I’m pretty sure I was one step away from a “turn your head and cough” security check, but thankfully they passed me through before I had to take off my Oscar Goldman pants.

Once we arrived, we took the bus to the George Hotel in the City Centre (no, spell check, here that’s correct) and checked in. We could tell very quickly we were in a nicer hotel than the Phoenix in London. A bath. A king-sized bed. Washcloths. A television with an all-sports channel. Life is truly good in Scotland.

We had lunch first, quesadillas at a Cuban restaurant (because, really, what’s more authentically Scottish than a chorizo quesadilla? At least it was two-for-one). We then decided to walk over to Edinburg Castle, the main attraction in the city. We walked out of the hotel and looked over Princes Street Gardens, trying to get our bearings. Mary Beth pointed out one of the bigger and more ostentatious buildings in the green, asking if that was the castle.

“No, I think that’s the castle,” I said, pointing to the right and seeing the huge – well, castle, on top of the large hill.

Without missing a beat, Mary Beth turned around.

“We’re taking a cab,” she said, hailing one before I had much input in the matter.

If Nebraska means “flat water,” then it’s pretty clear Edinburg translates into “steep and hilly with slick cobblestones when it rains.” It’s very nice, and the people are incredibly friendly, but you’re going to get a workout walking around the place.

We took the cab into the castle, paid our way in, and began exploring. It was a chilly, misty day, which seemed very authentically Scottish as we explored the royal home. We saw the cannons that guarded the castle, the spectacular views of the surrounding countryside, and the very impressive war memorial built after the Great War with the 1920’s architecture and spectacular statue of the archangel Michael to match. We even got to see the Scottish Crown Jewels and the Stone of Destiny on display. Scotland’s Crown Jewels weren’t quite as amazing as England’s, but they were impressive nonetheless.

As we left the castle, the rain had turned from a quaintly-authentic drizzle to a just-plain-cold-and-miserable rain, so we headed back to the hotel. On the way back, we reflected that Scotland really had a lot in common with Native American tribes back home. Both Scottish people and Native Americans have their own, unique culture outside of the dominant culture in which they live, both were occupied and conquered by a larger nation, and both continue to have one foot in both worlds.

We recouped at the hotel, then went back out for dinner and for me to watch the Champions League match between Manchester United and Marseilles. That’s football, which we in America call soccer, for those of you unaware. On the recommendation of the concierge, we went to a “proper pub” on Hanover Street called Milnes, and the atmosphere was everything you would expect in a Scottish pub.

Except, of course, they weren’t showing the game. Although coming from a sports bar culture like America it was hard to fathom, the barkeep said that football games “cause too much trouble” and there’s only one in the area that shows the games. So, after I finished my pies (yes, I had a steak and kidney pie, but I drew the line at haggas), we went down Rose Street (a cool little alley filled with shops and restaurants) to a place called Elements.

When we got there, it’s clear it wasn’t a sports bar. The furniture and clientele were far from sports bar, with plush gold couches to sit in and raspberry pavlova to eat. The game was on an HDTV, which was inside a gold picture frame. The sound of the game wasn’t on, so instead of hearing the commentary, we listened to what can only be described as a folk cover of “Disturbia.”

Surreal doesn’t even begin to describe it.

We watched the first half and headed back to the hotel, to prepare for our last day in Edinburgh. I’m not sure what exactly we’re going to do, but it likely won’t be as weird as tonight.

Pictures from today are in a new album here.

Chapter 3:Big Clocks, Big Wheels, and Front Doors

2011-03-14T13:51:00.000-07:00

The last of the late mornings, as we woke up, had our continental breakfast (God bless Weetabix and Nutella), and got ready for the day. We bought a Big Bus Tour day pass, allowing us to ride a tour bus wherever we wanted, and get a chance to get a guided tour of the city.

And avoid Underground construction. That was a plus, too.

The London Eye was mission one, and between a long walk to the nearest bus stop and the glacial speed of a tour bus, it took some time before we arrived. But arrive we did, and the wait was worth it. Just before you disembark, you go by the House of Parlaiment, Big Ben, and Westminster Abbey. Turning the corner and seeing Big Ben (well, technically the clock in which Big Ben, the bell in the clock, is housed) is a sight rivaled only by Liberty Island when you first see the Statue of Liberty in New York.

We got in the queue (got it right the first time!) for the Eye, which is basically a giant ferris wheel built for the millennium. Before you get into the Eye, you go through a 4D London Eye experience. What is 4D, you ask? It's a 3D show, adding in little smoke clouds from the floor when you go through the clouds, drops of water on your head when there is rain, and other "you are there" moments. Not entirely sure what the point of the show was, but it wasn't optional.

We got in the Eye and took the ride, about 30 minutes, which did provide some spectacular views of the city. We managed to get there in the two-hour window of sunny weather we've had since we arrived, so we got some pretty spectacular views. We also got a pretty spectacularly hot capsule full of people from all around the globe with all different types of ideas about how frequently you should shower.

Once the Eye was done, we decided to walk over and see Big Ben, Parliament, and Westminster Abbey up close. Nothing short of amazing, particularly as we went from one seat of government (the Tower of London) to another. In the course of 24 hours, we covered about nine hundred years of British power. You don't get that kind of efficiency many other places.

Buckingham Palace was next, but we were both tired and hungry, so on the recommendations of a local police officer we went to a little cafe underneath the Methodist Church across the street from Westminster Abbey. It is refreshing to learn that church basements are pretty much the same around the world, although the marble tables and groovy chairs did make for a nice escape from the tourist throng.

Refreshed, we headed out and were greeted by a serenade from the Westminster belltower. Seriously, this was loud and prolonged. Apparently, it was Commonwealth Day today, and the Queen had just arrived at Westminster Abbey. It felt, though, like the bells were welcoming us back to the London streets after lunch. I'm going with the latter.

We walked along the edge of St. James's Park to Buckingham Palace, which wasn't quite as close as the friendly Bobbies told us it would be. But got there we did, and it was worth the hike. Holy cats, talk about the best front door in the world. We walked along the front gate, marveling at the intricate designs in gold along the black wrought-iron bars. There's no question you're at the ultimate gated community. It's still a little surreal to think about being in front of an actual palace, where actual kings and queens have lived for hundreds of years.

Once we were done at the palace, we got back on the bus with the intent of taking a "Ghosts of London" walking tour. The tour involved walking along, hearing stories of haunted placed around London (usually involving people being beheaded or hung, which is way more prevalent in London than just about anyplace else I've ever been. Even San Diego). Unfortunately for the "walking tour" part, the temperature had dropped to about 40 degrees, and there was a gaggle of high-school kids that were tagging along the tour. We lasted for one pub stop (the Sherlock Holmes, where a Diet Coke and a bag of cream cheese and bacon crisps hit the spot) and two ghost stories (one about Ben Franklin, and one about Jane Grey and Anne Boleyn just before their execution) before we punted and ate at a delightful Mexican restaurant called Lupita. Fried cheese rocks. There's only so much English food one can tolerate.

We were close to Trafalgar Square, and the city was unveiling their countdown clock to the 2012 Olympics. We stayed to watch a little of the ceremony, just long enough to see one of the bizarre and oddly creepy mascots. We both decided another 30 minutes of "aren't we wonderful in London" shilling wasn't for us, so we hopped on the Underground and headed back home.

Early night tonight, as we have to catch a BMI plane tomorrow morning for Edinburgh. Hopefully the Scottish hotel will cooperate with a daily update tomorrow.

The photo album has been updated, and can be found here.

Chapter 2:Orf Wif Der 'Eads!

2011-03-13T11:33:00.000-07:00

Before I get to the day's activities, I have to make an amendment to an observation from last night. With my sleep cycles still off, I stayed up and watched a LOT of television. I have to retract at least some of my previous observations about the state of British TV. While there is still an episode of Friends on all ... the ... time ... there are also shows like Celebrity Naked Ambition. If you're wondering what it's about, you don't have to wonder too hard. Let's just say it's not a show you'd see in the USA.

We got up this morning, had the English version of a continental breakfast (juice, toast, and cereal -- and let me tell you, the English don't believe in skim milk) and made our plans to see the Tower of London. With the Underground station being out, and us not yet being comfortable with the bus routes, we decided to walk to the nearest Underground terminal.

And walk. And walk. And walk. Cardio exercise for the day (the week?) accomplished.

Once we got there (and walked some more, including some amazingly-steep stairs) we were on our way to the Tower. We got in, and were smart enough to get the tickets from a shop ahead of time to avoid the line (sorry, the queue) and get right in.

We went along on a guided tour with Steve, the Yeoman Warden, who was quite the showman. Steve showed us where the queens and other prisoners were beheaded, where they came in to the tower to be beheaded, where they walked to be beheaded, where their heads were put on the end of pikes after they were beheaded, and where the bodies were buried after they were beheaded.

Sensing a theme here?

After the tour, we walked around the grounds for a little while, including walking through the White Tower, the center of the grounds and where the center of the government (and, for quite a while, the center of the Western World) was seated. Being American, you really don't get a feel for history any place you go. When you stand in a room that was built in the fifteenth century, and in front of a wall that was constructed in the tenth century, you realize how hard it is to have a historical perspective. Churches and other buildings in Nebraska that were built in the nineteenth century have Federal protection as historic landmarks in the US. In Europe, they're considered "the new wing."

We stopped for scones and jelly babies at the Tower's cafe, checked out the Tower Bridge, then headed back for the Underground. We went to Harrod's, an amazing cathedral of consumerism. Harrod's is what Von Maur wants to be when it grows up. We briefly went through the four stories of stores, marveling at the goods (and the prices -- there was a small round end-table that went for over 1,200 pounds. I was afraid to look at it). We also saw the Egyptian-themed escalator leading to the basement with the memorial for Princess Diana.

We took the bus from Harrod's back to Bayswater, and (hopefully not jinxing myself) I think we've got the bus/Underground transit system somewhat under control. I was asked twice -- including once by a lady in a British accent -- for help in navigating the system. I'll work on keeping my head from getting too swollen.

We went back to the Bayswater Arms for chips and fizzy pop (I tried calling it soda and got a blank, "oh, great, another bloody Yank" look from the barmaid), shopped a little, then came back to the hotel. We may grab some dinner at one of the local restaurants, or just call it a night.

Tomorrow, the London Eye. Hopefully the sun and the Underground construction will cooperate.

More photos added to the online album, which can be found here.

Chapter 1a:So THAT'S What Jet Lag Feels Like

2011-03-12T12:35:00.000-08:00

I neglected earlier to mention that we're staying at the Phoenix Hotel, a very nice (if not entirely spacious) hotel across the street from Kensington Gardens. When arriving, one of the real attractions to the hotel was that it is very close to an Underground station, meaning we could hop on the tube and get just about anywhere we want to go.

Which is a great plan. Except for the part about the Underground station nearest the hotel being "under service" for the weekend.

So, we were a little limited in what we were able to do. Because neither of our smartphones are global, we've both (and by we, I really mean me) realized how dependent on smartphones we've become to get around. Actually having to read a map to figure out how to get around? How quaint! How's that work again?

We ended up just exploring the neighborhood around the hotel, called Bayswater. It's a little touristy, but seeing that we're tourists, it seemed to work out well. We had fish and chips for our first meal at the Bayswater Arms, which really was better there than anyplace I've had it back home. We did a little shopping, involving Mary Beth diving into gift-purchasing and me buying a new wallet that will actually hold British currency. I think I was in high school the last time I had a nylon wallet with a velcro closure, but at least it was cheap. And it has an Arsenal logo on it.

We got back to the hotel room with great plans to walk through Kensington Gardens, and maybe over to Harrod's. That's when the jet lag kicked in. Mary Beth pretty quickly fell asleep after a "quick lie down," and I wasn't far behind. I did watch the first half of the FA Cup semi-final between Manchester United and Arsenal, but fell asleep after Manchester United went up 2-0.

(Insert your own joke about soccer putting you to sleep even without jet lag here)

We pretty much spent the rest of the evening in the hotel room, watching British television, which is spectacularly awful in a completely different way than American television is awful. The plan for the evening was to make plans for tomorrow, which didn't happen. So, tomorrow's chapter will be a surprise!

Your first batch of pictures are here, you lucky people. I'll update this album as we accumulate pictures and videos. You're welcome.

Chapter 1: The Eagles Have Landed!

2011-03-12T06:16:00.000-08:00

Well, we're here. Just a few quick observations.

Flying coach, even on an international flight, ain't the Ritz. It doesn't help, when, after your flight, you walk through business class and see their seats which recline into beds and their quilted blankets. And that's only business class. I can't image what first class is like, but I expect it includes some form of massage.

Heathrow is a very old airport, and very much had a feel like Laguardia in New York. Getting through customs was a breeze (stamp one on the new passport!) and we eventually made our way to the Underground. Before that, though, we stopped for snacks and to get British pounds from the ATM. Apparently I'm going to need a new wallet for this trip, as the pound notes are a tad fatter than dollars.

The Underground was slick, although of course the line that went to our hotel was out of service. We had to wander around for a bit, before punting and taking a taxi to the hotel. For the first time, we had a cabbie who refused to talk, apart from getting directions and taking our money. Welcome to London.

We're making our plans for the rest of the day, although with our Underground stop being out of commission, our plans might be a little complicated.

More to come, including pictures. Thanks for joining us on the adventure!

European Vacation (sans Chevy Chase)

2011-03-08T10:20:00.000-08:00

For those of you not aware, Mary Beth and I are heading "over the pond" to England, Scotland, and France. We leave March 11, and get back on March 20.

I will be attempting to post a daily "travel-blog" of our adventures, including pictures. You can follow along here, which will make the tedious "let's see your travel slides" get-together once we get back much shorter.

Any advice on our trip is welcome, although I would ask you to refrain from the "can't you guys just stay over there?" gags. You're better than that.

For those of you who would like a preview to whet your appetite, or if you're the type who just reads a book synopsis off the dust jacket and pretends to your friends that you've read the whole book, here's the places we will be going and the things we will be seeing:

FRIDAY, 03/11
Leave Omaha for Chicago. Wait three hours in O'Hare. Have positive, humane interactions with thoughtful TSA workers. Fly from O'Hare to Heathrow. Watch "Jersey Shore" marathon on flight to ensure the maximum ugly-American-ness when arriving on foreign soil.

SATURDAY, 03/12
Unstructured day in London. Enjoy wonderful British cuisine. Alternatively, view British cuisine as the best weight loss plan we've seen in months.

SUNDAY, 03/13
Check out the London Eye, Tower of London, Big Ben, and other stereotypical touristy things. Complain loudly that the BBC isn't running a three-hour analysis of the March Madness brackets.

MONDAY, 03/14
Spend most of the day in the hotel room filling out brackets. Alternatively, explore one of the great cities on Earth. But probably spend most of the day filling out brackets.

TUESDAY, 03/15
Fly from London to Edinburgh to experience first-hand my Scottish heritage.

WEDNESDAY, 03/16
Fly from Edinburgh to London, with a full understanding of why my ancestors left Scotland.

THURSDAY, 03/17
Finish up seeing all the sights in London, because, really, there can't be that much to see there, right?

FRIDAY, 03/18
Ride a train under the English Channel (which is only slightly more insane than riding a metal tube thousands of feet over the ocean) to Paris, go to the Louvre, risk getting arrested by trying to re-enact scenes from "The Da Vinci Code." Return to London, and be pleasantly reminded how nice it is to deal with people who do not treat you with open contempt.

SATURDAY, 03/19
Take a train from London to Birmingham for Premier League soccer game between Aston Villa and Wolverhampton. Prepare for indignant fans, after hearing my accent, to insist that I refer to the game as football instead of "sah-ker." Avoid urge to get into a fight, as British football fans have WAY more experience with fighting than I do.

SUNDAY, 03/20
Return to Omaha, assuming the looming Federal government shutdown doesn't strand us in London and force us to extend our vacation. Guys, if you want to take a few extra days to make sure you get the whole budget thing right, we're cool with that.

NU Pre-View:Happy-Sad, Western Kentucky

2010-09-02T09:04:00.001-07:00

For fans of the Nebraska Cornhuskers looking ahead to the game against the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers (September 04, 2010, Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, NE, 6:00 p.m. CDT, PPV) ...

YOU'LL BE HAPPY IF ...

NUMBER 5 IS NUMBER 1: Perhaps throwing a bone to the media he locked out of practice in August, Bo Pelini has refused to name a starting quarterback going into the first game of the season. This has certainly made for good copy, but it seems pretty clear that Pelini knows who he's handing the keys to at the start. For 'Husker fans, they should be rooting for Zac Lee, the senior and returning starter. If the starting nod goes to either sophomore Cody Green or redshirt freshman Taylor Martinez, it's hard to see that decision as anything other than an indictment of Lee's ability to win the job. It also makes it very hard to go back to Lee and have any confidence in his ability to lead the team.

IT'S A HALFTIME COVER: The sooner Nebraska gets the game under control, the sooner the contest can be treated less like an actual game and more like a pre-season NFL contest. It's incumbent, then, on the first-teamers to get the job done early and remove any doubt from the outcome. If they're able to get that done by the end of the first half, NU will not only get a confidence boost but be able to get some preparation work in for the rest of the season.

THE BENCH CLEARS: No, this isn't a reference to a baseball fight (or, more accurately, the slapfest that passes for a fight in baseball). If NU is able to get ahead early in the contest, Pelini should be able to get a number of second- and third-team players into the game in the second half, giving those players valuable experience and protecting the starters from injury.

YOU'LL BE SAD IF ...

THE BLACKSHIRTS STRUGGLE WITH THE SLIPPERY: The Hilltoppers' quarterback, Kawaun Jakes, is an effective runner as well as having a serviceable arm. Nebraska fans are all aware of the struggles Pelini's teams have had in the past with mobile quarterbacks. Factor in WKU's diminutive Bobby Rainey (5'8") at running back, and the Hilltoppers will present at least a little elusiveness. If the Blackshirts struggle with WKU's slipperiness, it could be a bad omen for things to come.

THE ROCK IS NOT POUNDED: More than likely, Nebraska is planning to shuttle all three quarterbacks into the mix, and wants to keep the offense vanilla to minimize the preparation time needed and to keep the meatier opponents on the schedule guessing. That means we should see a heavy dose of running backs Roy Helu, Jr., Rex Burkhead, Dontrayveous Robinson, and the rest of the crew. Anything less than a 60/40 run-pass ratio will unnecessarily lengthen the game and expose the squad to more injury risk.

NU FANS GET TOO EXCITED: Remember, 'Husker fans, this is Western Kentucky that is coming to town. WKU was 0-12 last year, and is in only their third season as an FBS school. It is likely that Nebraska will roll, and that just about everyone wearing scarlet and cream will look good. Don't read too much into that. Remember how dominant NU's offense looked against Florida Atlantic and Louisiana last year? Ultimately, we are not going to learn very much that's positive about the 2010 Cornhuskers in this game. It's possible we could learn some negatives if NU struggles, but the concrete positives will be tough to come by.

FEARLESS FORECAST

NU, as Barry Switzer would say, just has better players than WKU, and should be able to name their score. Given that NU will want to give all three quarterbacks a chance to shine, there's less likelihood that the 'Huskers will call the dogs off if the score gets out of hand, meaning a real lopsided number is entirely possible. Nebraska 66, Western Kentucky 10.

NU Pre-View:Pros and Cons of Nebraska's Big 10 Division

2010-09-02T07:54:00.001-07:00

Ever since Nebraska's move to the Big Ten was finalized, NU fans have been anxiously awaiting news as to how the 12-team Big Ten will divide into divisions. On Wednesday, the waiting was ended as the conference formally announced "Division X" and "Division O" to the fans. Nebraska was placed in a division with Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Northwestern, and Minnesota. So what are the pros and cons of these new divisions for Nebraska?

PROS

BIRTH OF A RIVALRY: This was probably the biggest no-brainer, but having Nebraska and Iowa being in the same division means the 'Huskers and the Hawkeyes will be meeting every year. Ever since Nebraska's conference move, the two fan bases have been sharpening their swords waiting to go at each other on the field. Particularly with both teams on the rise, this series has the potential to be a significant and heated rivalry.

OUT WITH THE BUFFS, IN WITH THE HAWKS: Starting in 2011, Iowa will replace Colorado as Nebraska's traditional day-after-Thanksgiving rivalry game. If this budding rivalry needed any gasoline poured on it, having this game played in late November over a leftover turkey-and-stuffing sandwich should push it over the edge.

EARLY SUCCESS: It's important for Nebraska to start well in their new conference affiliation. It was clear that there were four "major" powers in the conference - Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. Right now, it's pretty clear that Michigan is the weakest of the Big Four, so pairing NU with the Wolverines means the schedule on paper looks at least a little softer than it would if Nebraska had to face Ohio State and Penn State as divisional rivals.

TRAVELING BANDS: One of the things NU will lose in leaving the Big XII is the ability to have easy road trips to away games like Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State. Thankfully, the Big Ten brass have given NU divisional foes that are easier trips for the 'Husker faithful, such as Chicago, Minneapolis, and Iowa City. It might be a little more arduous, but the road trip still lives for NU fans.

CONS

ALVAREZ-LESS: Nebraska fans have a special place in their hearts for Barry Alvarez, Wisconsin's athletic director. Right from the announcement, Wisconsin made it clear that they wanted to play Nebraska regularly. Given that Penn State was announced as Nebraska's "protected" cross-division rival, that isn't going to happen, and both 'Husker and Badger fans should be disappointed about that development.

BASKETBALL DISPARITY: Sure, men's hoops isn't a consideration in these conference realignment discussions, but these divisions are incredibly disparate in basketball. Of the twelve conference members, there's an argument to be made that four of the top five basketball schools are in one division (hint - it's not the one that contains Nebraska). That's probably bad for the conference as a whole. But if the schedule is unbalanced and teams get more games against division rivals, Doc Sadler may end up finding this a pro.

RECYCLING: Networks and the public as a whole have pretty well decided that rematches are not good television. But with the decision to leave the Ohio State-Michigan game at the end of the season means that the conference has the potential to have a marquee rematch a week later in the conference championship game. Nebraska fans will remember very well getting Oklahoma in an Orange Bowl rematch, and will likely want little to do with such a game in the Big Ten championship game.

NU ISN'T IN KANSAS ANYMORE, TOTO: At Wisconsin. Home to Ohio State. At Penn State. At Michigan. Home to Iowa. That's what the meat of Nebraska's 2011 conference schedule looks like. There's a little more weight to that schedule than visits from Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas State. While the new conference schedule is exciting, Nebraska's run to a divisional or conference title in 2011 just got a lot more arduous.

THE BIG PICTURE

Before today, Nebraska's move to the Big Ten was a little abstract. Now that we have divisions announced, and schedules for 2011 and 2012 set, the full reality of the change settles in. Teams like Michigan, Penn State, and Iowa will be coming to Memorial Stadium in October and November to play conference games, ones that really count. Having these concrete future plans in place, and the excitement those plans will generate, should help to ameliorate the melancholy of Nebraska's final trip through the Big XII.

NU Pre-View: Overrated and Underrated 'Husker Storylines

2010-08-12T18:14:00.000-07:00

September 04 isn't too far away, and 'Husker fans at this point pretty well know all of the storylines and questions that surround the 2010 NU squad. But, I've noticed that some of the popular storylines really aren't central to the end result of NU's 2010 campaign. Moreover, some of the storylines that aren't really being talked about are much more crucial to NU's goals. So, which storylines are overrated and underrated? Let's take a look.

OVERRATED: THE QUARTERBACK RACE.
Now, don't jump to conclusions. The lack of production from the quarterback last year was one of the primary reasons that Nebraska struggled and ultimately came up short when it counted. Improved quarterback play is the primary thing NU will need to take the next step 'Husker fans are craving, a return to national prominence.

But the 2010 QB situation is far different than the 2009 situation. Last year, Nebraska had to choose between an untested starter and a true freshman. Injuries and defections required NU to convert a linebacker to quarterback, which tells you all you need to know about the dearth of QB options NU had in 2009.

2010 is a very different story. Zac Lee is coming back after a year of adversity, and is in competition with Cody Green, who had a year in the system to mature, as well as wunderkind Taylor Martinez. Rather than having no options, Bo Pelini is almost spoiled for choice with his signal-caller decision this year.

Ultimately, I think Lee will take control of the job. Remember, after the season we learned that Lee was hurt early on in the campaign - not surprisingly, about the same time NU's offense went into a nosedive. A healthy and experienced Lee suggests that NU's offense will look more like the Holiday Bowl team that dominated Arizona and less like the turtles that couldn't score against Iowa State.

But even if Lee struggles, Pelini has other levers to pull at QB. Yes, getting good quarterback play is important, but the options NU has means that finding that good play is far more likely than not.

UNDERRATED: OFFENSIVE LINE DEPTH.
Nebraska lost Mike Smith to season-ending surgery, meaning that NU will lose a critical and versatile player who provided depth to the offensive line rotation. The fact that Smith is a senior means that NU will also lose the maturity and experience Smith brought to the rotation.

It's not clear if Smith would have been a starter at the end of fall camp. And NU will still have plenty of senior leadership across the line. But NU's offensive success starts with the line, and the loss of a key component of that line is always an area of concern.

OVERRATED: NEBRASKA VS. TEXAS, OCTOBER 16
Blasphemy, I know. October 16 is the date for Armageddon, the battle of good versus evil on FieldTurf, the chance to settle on the field all of the ugliness from the conference realignment soap opera over the summer.

But if Nebraska wants to win the Big XII, the first goal is to win the Big XII North. If the unthinkable happens and Texas beats NU, but the 'Huskers run the table against their North foes, NU will still likely be in the Big XII title game in December with a chance to win the conference title and go to a BCS bowl.

Believe me, the game against Texas is a big deal for any number of reasons. But 'Husker fans should keep in mind the ultimate goals for the team - division title, conference title, BCS bowl - are all achievable regardless of the outcome on October 16.

UNDERRATED: KANSAS STATE VS. NEBRASKA, OCTOBER 07.
Just before Bevo comes rolling into Lincoln, NU has to head to the Little Apple for the final time. Kansas State, as much as any team, has a deep and primal loathing for Nebraska, and would love to hand NU a loss in what is almost certainly their final game against each other. Plus, the game against the Purples is a Thursday nighter on ESPN, at the miserable little bandbox that is Bill Snyder Family Stadium. All of this sets up what should be a snake pit environment for NU, with the crowd well-lubricated and loaded for bear.

Oh, and Daniel Thomas plays for the Purples. A solid argument can be made that Thomas is the best running back in the Big XII this year. Not in the North. In the conference. With Bill Snyder in his second year back at the helm, a weapon like Thomas at Snyder's disposal, a prime-time ESPN night game to send the Purple faithful into a lather, and NU in danger of looking ahead to October 16, K-State will have the table set for an upset. This has trap game written all over it, and if NU drops their conference opener to a North division rival, things get very dicey for Nebraska making a return trip to Dallas in December.

OVERRATED: 2009'S 10-4 RECORD
It's not just 'Husker fans that are looking at 2009's record and predicting a top-10 finish and a possible national title run for this year's squad. Nebraska's undressing of Arizona in the Holiday Bowl, on the heels of their near-miss against Texas in the Big XII Championship, have led most national college football pundits to anoint the 'Huskers as one of college football's elite programs again.

But, as the great Lee Corso would say, not so fast, my friend. Take a look at that record. Who, exactly, did NU beat? Their best win was over a tailspinning Oklahoma team that ended up outside of the top 25. For heaven's sake, the 2009 squad lost to Iowa State. At home.

Yes, NU almost beat Virginia Tech on the road. Yes, they almost beat Texas in the Big XII title game. But almost beating a team means you lost to that team. A closer inspection of NU's 2009 record reveals a lot of good wins, a lot of close games, but no real signature win that NU can hang their collective hat on and declare their return to the elite of college football.

UNDERRATED: THE LACK OF A SIGNATURE WIN
These two go hand in glove with each other. Since 2001, Nebraska has zero wins over a top-15 team. Zero, as in none. In the BCS era, only Nebraska and Duke boast such a record. Yes, that Duke.

Again, don't get me wrong. I think Nebraska has a legitimate potential this year to run the table and play for a national title. But the feeling in 'Husker Nation is, as Pelini put it after the Holiday Bowl, "Nebraska's back, and we're here to stay."

I love the confidence of the man, and I think an attitude like that is critical to create the culture of winning that was crushed out of Nebraska by the Buffaloes on Black Friday in 2001. But until you do something, you haven't done it, and as of yet Nebraska hasn't done it on the field with a signature win.

NU will have a phenomenal opportunity on October 16, against a Texas team with a rookie and relatively immobile quarterback, in front of a Nebraska crowd with a frenzy that hasn't been seen at Memorial Stadium - maybe ever. If Nebraska can avoid the trap in Manhattan, the table will be set for the signature win and for Nebraska to take that mythical "next step" into the upper echelon of college football.

But that step hasn't been taken yet, and it's still a very big step to take. 'Husker fans would be wise to remember that and not assume that the journey back to the promised land is complete.

GBR, baby.

Nebraska's new abortion bill is stillborn

2010-07-15T10:46:00.000-07:00

Well, that didn’t take long.

On Wednesday, Federal District Court Judge Laurie Smith-Camp granted a temporary injunction preventing a Nebraska abortion bill from taking effect. In granting the injunction requested by Planned Parenthood, Judge Smith-Camp found that Planned Parenthood would likely be successful in declaring enforcement of the new law prohibited by the Constitution, and therefore granted a temporary injunction blocking Nebraska officials from putting the law into effect.

So, what is the law that got blocked? The fundamental basis of the law is that an abortion provider would be required by law to go through a number of detailed procedures which the state claimed were to ensure that the woman obtaining the abortion was doing so freely and voluntarily, without any threat or duress and with a full understanding of the potential negative impacts of the procedure.

Sounds pretty innocuous, right? The statute is merely requiring informed consent before a medical procedure, just like any other medical procedure, right?

Well, not exactly. LB 594, the bill in question, has twelve paragraphs of requirements and regulations which abortion providers would be mandated to review with women seeking abortions, including determining if the procedure was being done under duress, whether there were risk factors in the procedure, and a “material” discussion of any risk factors that might be present. The physician would also have to certify in writing that the risk of continuing the pregnancy is greater than the risk of the abortion procedure, if there was anything other than a “negligible” risk involved.

Whew. I don’t recall getting a grilling like that when I got my wisdom teeth out, or when my wife had her gall bladder removed. The requirements of LB 594 are informed consent on steroids.

Or, perhaps they’re not really about informed consent at all. Judge Smith-Camp described the requirements as “requiring medical providers to make risk assessments and disclosures that, if the bill is read literally, would be impossible or nearly impossible to perform.” Is it possible that the Legislature, rather than being concerned about informed consent, was trying to just stop abortions altogether through a back-door technique?

Judge Smith-Camp had to be suspicious of that when she observed that “[n]o such legislative concern for the health of women, or of men, has given rise to any remotely similar informed-consent statutes applicable to other medical procedures.” The Legislature didn’t do itself any favors in this regard when they outlined the purposes of LB 594, which included in part stating that the Legislature disagreed with the logic behind Roe v. Wade and would do everything possible to protect the life of an unborn child. Putting those two things together was a big reason why Judge Smith-Camp found that Planned Parenthood would be “likely to succeed” in declaring LB 594 unconstitutional and entering the temporary injunction.

This isn’t new ground for pro-life legislation. Roe has been law in the United States since 1973, and the basic premise for Roe is pretty well accepted by the majority of Americans. For some time, the pro-life strategy has been one of incremental reduction. They have been unsuccessful at the big goal – making abortions illegal – so they have been forced to work around the margins of abortion, trying to at least make some of them harder to get or limiting access to the procedure.

This incremental reduction strategy has achieved a number of successes for the pro-life movement. It appears that LB 594 was another salvo in the incremental reduction arsenal. Unfortunately for the pro-life community, it appears that they over-reached in their attempt and ran afoul of the constitution.

One final observation about LB 594 that I found interesting. One provision of the bill authorized lawsuits against physicians who did not provide women with the byzantine notices required by LB 594. Those lawsuits would expose physicians to significant financial liability – and the law would allow damages against the physicians to be presumed unless the notification requirements (the ones Judge Smith-Camp called “impossible or nearly impossible to perform”) were satisfied.

The lawsuit angle was one of the reasons Judge Smith-Camp granted the temporary injunction, and she used some pretty strong language to demonstrate her concern that LB 594 was a Trojan horse in an attempt to outlaw abortions. Here’s what she wrote about the lawsuit provision:

“LB 594 effectively cloaks such plaintiffs as private attorneys general … with the apparent object of turning them into quasiprosecutors, dedicated to eliminating the activity the Legislature has found to be objectionable.”

Ouch.

Using lawsuits to help enforce conservative-supported legislation isn’t new. Remember Arizona’s new immigration law, requiring police to stop and ask people about their immigration status? There is a provision in that law that allowed private citizens to sue police departments if they don’t think they were being vigorous enough in enforcing the law. Sound at all familiar to the lawsuit language in LB 594?

It appears that conservatives have learned a new trick when passing laws designed to enforce their particular brand of social policy – authorize private lawsuits against individuals who might not be fully and lustily complying with the policy. The intent of the lawsuit provisions can only be to intimidate service providers who have to carry the conservative policies out (police in Arizona, doctors in Nebraska) to err on the side of the conservative social policy or risk a big lawsuit.

But, wait, you say. Isn’t part of the conservative mantra tort reform? Isn’t part of the conservative ethos that slimy trial lawyers are dragging the economy down with frivolous lawsuits, so we need to change the tort system to loser-pays or put a damage cap to make sure that trial lawyers and rogue juries don’t devastate American businesses and ruin the economy?

So, here’s my understanding of the conservative position on the tort system. Using civil courts to compensate people injured by businesses is a terrible idea that needs to be severely limited. Using civil courts as “quasiprosecutors” to enforce conservative social policy is a great idea that needs to be expanded.

Sounds a little like their position on the Department of Education – abolish the Department of Education altogether, except for the part where we prevent schools from teaching sex ed or distributing condoms.

NU Re-View: Realignment Watch

2010-06-09T10:33:00.001-07:00

OK, my World Cup preparations are being disturbed by this noisy conference realignment story. I had intended to put my 'Husker coverage on the back burner until mid-July, but it doesn't seem like things are going to wait.

As it sits now, NU has been presented with an ultimatum by Texas - declare your commitment to the Big XII or we're leaving for the Pac-10 and taking the South Division with us. I understand the logic behind the move from Texas. The Big XII is very good to Texas, as they pretty well control the conference and still have the option to start their own television network. Losing Nebraska would significantly damage the viability of the conference, simply because the rest of the North teams don't carry enough football attraction nationally. If, as it appears, Nebraska does not yet have a Big Ten invite in the pocket of its' scarlet blazer, then it's smart for Texas to make a power play to force NU to make its' decision now.

At least, in the short term, it's smart. Whether this kind of hardball will ultimately spell the end of the awkward coupling that has been the Big XII remains to be seen. The question right now remains, what is Nebraska's best option? Here's my thoughts, in order of preference.

1) STAY IN A MODIFIED BIG XII
I know that's a surprise to a lot of people, as I have been excited about getting out of the Big Longhorn conference ever since the Big Ten first announced expansion plans. But the more I think about it, the more I think cutting a new deal with our "friends" to the south makes sense.

As insufferable as they may be, Texas is the single most powerful force in college athletics. While they've made a huge bluff (they don't call it TEXAS Hold 'em poker for nothing) about going to the Pac-10, Texas would much rather stay put where they are and put the finishing touches on a Longhorn Sports Network. For the first time since the inception of the league, Nebraska is in a position of power to dictate terms.

So what should Nebraska get to stay in the league? First of all, they would need an iron-clad guarantee that ALL members of the conference are staying put. Texas columnists are already pinning the black hat on Tom Osborne for NU's flirting with the Big Ten, but the truth is that Texas was doing just as much flirting with the hussy from up north. Texas has shown repeatedly that it will do what is in Texas' best interest, and if that means bolting for the Pac-10 in two years after the Big Ten expansion has completed, don't doubt for a second they'd go. If NU is going to give up going to the Big Ten, then the poison pill to keep NU in the Big XII needs to be big enough to keep Texas on the farm for the foreseeable future as well.

There's other things that should happen, including returning the football championship to a North Division site every other year, and modifications for the decision-making process to give northern teams more of an equal footing.

I'm also at least a little sympathetic to the plight of Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State. The death of the Big XII would spell big trouble for those schools. Kansas and Kansas State could end up in a geographically-unwieldy expansion into the Big East if they want to remain in a BCS conference, or in the up-and-coming Mountain West. Iowa State looks almost certain to end up in a non-BCS conference such as the MAC or Conference USA. While the marriage between Nebraska and Texas is far from healthy, there's a little argument to be made for staying together for the sake of the kids. I don't think 116 years of history is something to be thrown away lightly.

2) HEAD TO THE BIG TEN
IF Nebraska doesn't get what it wants from Texas, and IF the Big Ten makes an offer, Nebraska should go. The extra dollars Nebraska would receive from the Big Ten Network would make an immediate impact, and Nebraska would be a good fit geographically in the conference.

It's not a perfect match, though. Gone would be the day-trip road games to KU, KSU, and ISU, and it would be more of a strain on the smaller sports. And, 'Husker fans, if you think you're sick of Texas arrogance, wait until you get a load of Big Ten administration arrogance. Really, the main difference between the two is the size of their belt buckles.

Still, if the offer is on the table, Nebraska almost has to go. Given the ultimatum that's been laid down, if Nebraska knuckles under without getting anything in return, then Nebraska will officially cede all authority in the conference to Texas. Kiss the basketball tournament in KC goodbye after the current deal expires. Kiss goodbye any thought of moving the football championship game from Dallas. The only thing left would be to add longhorns to the side of the conference logo.

3) NOTHING.
No, it's not a Monty Python "there is no third thing" reference. IF Nebraska doesn't get the concessions from Texas, and IF there is no offer from the Big Ten, Nebraska should ignore the ultimatum and do nothing. If Texas follows through on its' threat to leave and take the division with them, the results will be catastrophic for the Big XII North schools.

Except for Nebraska. Of all those schools, Nebraska is the only one with the ability to generate viewers nationwide to make itself an attractive target for a big-time conference. I would ultimately be stunned if the Big Ten did not invite NU, although a "no other team" deal to get Notre Dame in could potentially block that move. NU could end up in the Big East. NU could also lead the North into a resurgent Mountain West conference. Currently the Mountain West is not a automatic BCS qualifier. But they're on the doorstep as things sit currently. If the BCS adds a national marquee team like Nebraska, plus the rest of the North, plus Boise State, all of a sudden the Mountain West Network (yes, Virginia, there is such a thing already) becomes a much more attractive prospect.

I really have no idea how this is all going to sort out. I suspect there's stuff going on behind the scenes we can't see and don't know about that will ultimately decide everyone's fate. If I had to guess, I would say that Nebraska will be in the Big Ten as of next week. But until we know, we don't know.

All I know is that just about my entire family on my wife's side are crazy Hawkeye fans. If NU goes to the Big Ten, and the Nebraska-Iowa game becomes the day after Thanksgiving traditional matchup, there's going to be some tense conversation over mashed potatoes and gravy over the next few years.

GBR, baby.

The LTG on ESPN.com

2010-06-08T08:44:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Paul Lukas at uniwatchblog.com for letting me be a part of his critique of the World Cup uniforms. Links are below:

Groups A & B: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/100607_world_cup_uniforms

Groups C & D: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/100608_world_cup_uniforms

And this is why you don't directly elect judges

2010-06-02T05:40:00.000-07:00

Look, there's plenty of problems with appointing judges, don't get me wrong. But whatever problems they are, they pale in comparison to this. What an embarassment. From AlterNet (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/01/conservative-attorneys-on-mission-from-god-to-impose-religious-agenda-on-courts/)

------

New reports out of Afghanistan point to a province where Taliban followers hope to become judges, so they can apply their religious beliefs to court rulings, rather than the secular tenets of the law.

Wait, did I say the Taliban in Afghanistan? I meant Christian conservatives in California.

A group of conservative attorneys say they are on a mission from God to unseat four California judges in a rare challenge that is turning a traditionally snooze-button election into what both sides call a battle for the integrity of U.S. courts.

Vowing to be God’s ambassadors on the bench, the four San Diego Superior Court candidates are backed by pastors, gun enthusiasts, and opponents of abortion and same-sex marriages.

“We believe our country is under assault and needs Christian values,” said Craig Candelore, a family law attorney who is one of the group’s candidates. “Unfortunately, God has called upon us to do this only with the judiciary.”

I suppose the obvious observation here is that the direct election of judges — the law in 33 states — may not be the best idea.

But there’s far more to this particular problem, called the “Better Courts Now” initiative. Here we have a series of far-right attorneys who are running on a fairly specific platform — they promise to be biased, partial jurists, basing their decisions on a religious agenda. The difference between these kinds of judges and those found in Iran and Saudi Arabia is … well, there really isn’t a difference.

In other words, these judicial candidates want to turn their courtrooms into a position consistent with a theocracy. Indeed, the initiative was launched by two pastors.

“Any organization that wants judges to subscribe to a certain political party or certain value system or certain way of ruling to me threatens the independence of the judiciary,” San Diego County’s District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis told the AP.”Judges should be evaluated based on their qualifications and their duty to follow the law.”

Except that is apparently old-school thinking, which some elements of the right have no use for.

Why elect a judge who will provide a legitimate forum for a fair trial when you can elect a right-wing religious activist who believes he’s following instructions from above?

And given that voters don’t often turn out for down-ballot races like these, and that the candidates themselves are generally not well known to the public, organizers of this effort believe they have a reasonably good chance at pulling it off — and they may very well be right.

The "opt in" Constitution?

2010-06-01T19:31:00.000-07:00

If you want to remain silent, you’d better speak up.

That’s what the United States Supreme Court has told criminal defendants who want to invoke their Constitutional right to remain silent. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Court ruled on June 01 that police can continue to question an arrested suspect as long as the suspect doesn’t explicitly tell the police he doesn’t want to talk.

The Berghuis ruling limits the rule in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which requires police to advise criminal suspects of a number of their Constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent. (Bonus Constitutional fact – the right to remain silent comes from the Fifth Amendment’s protection against being compelled to testify against yourself).

Berghuis doesn’t change the rule that police have to read Miranda rights to a criminal suspect. What it does is allow the police to continue to question a suspect until he “affirmatively invokes” his Constitutional right to remain silent. Before Berghuis, police would have to wait until the suspect waived his right to remain silent before they could interrogate him.

In Berghuis, the police were investigating a murder. They were questioning a suspect under arrest, Van Chester Thompkins. They had Mirandized Thompkins (although he refused to sign a form acknowledging he understood his rights) and continued to interrogate him. Thompkins never told the police to stop the interrogation, so the police continued. They asked Thompkins if he believed in God, if he prayed to God, and then (start the tape recorder) whether he prayed to God for forgiveness for “shooting that boy down.” Thompkins said yes, and that “yes” can and was used against him in a court of law.

Thompkins was convicted of murder, and appealed, saying that his “yes” was a violation of his right to remain silent and should not have been used against him. The lower court agreed with Thompkins. The Supreme Court did not.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a majority that (unsurprisingly) consisted of Kennedy and the Conservative Four, said that a suspect’s waiver of his Miranda rights can be presumed when the suspect has been advised of his rights and chooses not to exercise them. The Berghuis decision significantly limits language in Miranda that said “a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.”

Not anymore. In Berghuis, the Court cut that portion of Miranda out, and fundamentally changed how a suspect’s Constitutional rights are understood. Before Berghuis, there was a presumption that a suspect will invoke his Constitutional rights (such as the right to remain silent), and the police would need the suspect to actually waive those rights before proceeding with an interrogation. Now, police can assume that a suspect is waiving his rights during an interrogation unless the suspect specifically says he is invoking those rights.

In other words, the Supreme Court changed the right to remain silent from an “opt out” to an “opt in.” It shifted the presumption from protecting the accused to assisting the government. It is, as Vice President Joe Biden would say, a big (SNIP) deal.

In the majority opinion, Kennedy said that Thompkins understood his rights when he chose not to invoke them. But how did Kennedy know that? After all, Thompkins didn’t sign the form saying he understood his right to remain silent. What if he didn’t?

Kennedy said that nothing has changed about the Miranda rule requiring a suspect to be advised of his rights in such a way that he understands them. But how can an officer tell if a suspect understands his rights if that suspect doesn’t say anything? In addition to allowing the police to assume a suspect is waiving his right to remain silent, Berghuis also allows the police to assume that the suspect understood his right in the first place and question a suspect who may not understand his Constitutionally-guaranteed right to remain silent – which was exactly the concern the Miranda court had when it made the advisement requirement back in 1966.

Strangely enough, we haven’t heard a peep from conservatives who get very upset about “activist judges” imposing their own policy views on the country. We haven’t seen a mis-spelled sign from the Tea Parties around the country who shout about their fears of the Constitution being destroyed by the socialist-communist-Marxist-Nazi-Klingon-liberal President Barack Hussein Obama. Berghuis seems to be a radical change in the law, and a significant limitation on Constitutional protections. And yet, a very strange silence from both parties.

Rookie Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, pointing out how the Berghuis decision “flatly contradicts” previous decisions from the Court, sets up “an unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions,” and “at worst, it overrules sub silentio an essential aspect of the protections Miranda has long provided.”

I know that’s a lot of quotes, but it’s a pretty impressive dissenting opinion from a first-timer. Although I do think she’s showing off a little with the whole “sub silentio” (meaning, basically, I’m not saying, I’m just saying) reference.

Given that Miranda has been called into question even by current Attorney General Eric Holder, I suppose civil libertarians should be pleased that the Court didn’t just outright overrule the decision in its’ entirety. But the underlying rationale of Berghuis is definitely concerning. Will the Court make other Constitutional rights “opt in” for suspects? Will the right to a jury trial be presumed waived? How about the right to an attorney?

In other words, how much more will the scales tip towards the government and away from the accused as the years go on?

Is Holder ruining "Law and Order?"

2010-05-13T12:54:00.001-07:00

But, what’s going to happen to the police dramas on television we all love?

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his support for a limitation on a suspect’s Miranda rights in a terrorism case. This comes on the heels of Republican criticism of Times Square bombing suspect Faisel Shahzad being read his Miranda rights during questioning.

Just so we’re clear, “Miranda rights” come from a Supreme Court case called Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required a criminal defendant be advised of his constitutional right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning by law enforcement. The rationale behind the decision was to ensure that suspects were aware of their constitutional rights and prevent confessions from being made due to force or deception.

It also made dialogue for TV police dramas much easier to write. But I doubt that was the main intent of the decision.

During the Bush administration, the “war on terror” was used to ignore a whole swath of constitutional rights. We were introduced to the concept of unchecked Presidential power, indefinite detentions, warrantless wiretaps, trials without lawyers or juries, confessions obtained from torture, and a whole host of other “techniques” that sound a lot more Soviet Russia than Uncle Sam.

At first blush, the Obama administration seems to be reigning in some of these practices. They do seem to view attacks like Shahzad and the Christmas Day airplane bomb attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as crimes and treat them accordingly.

But not completely. The Supreme Court created a public safety exception to Miranda, and the Obama administration has been aggressively using that exception to question suspects like Shahzad and Abdulmutallab before they get a Miranda advisement.

Wait a minute, you say. Cops don’t always have to read a suspect’s Miranda rights immediately upon arrest?

Nope. In New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court said that a suspect can be questioned without a lawyer and without a Miranda advisement when public safety concerns are “paramount.” The Obama administration has used Quarles as the camel’s nose under the Miranda tent. Now, Holder has announced he wants to expand law enforcement’s ability to suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and question terrorism suspects without lawyers or Miranda advisements.

I’m of two minds about Holder’s proposal. On the positive, it is reassuring to see that there is at least an acknowledgment of the Bill of Rights and the necessity of ensuring that due process is provided even to terrorism suspects. I’ve written for years about how the difference between a free society and a dictatorship is the Bill of Rights and its’ limitations on the government’s ability to use its’ power against the government’s own people. The Obama administration, far more than the Bush administration, appears to understand the need for such limitations to maintain a free society.

And, it could be worse. Senator Joe Lieberman recently put forward a bill that would strip American citizenship for someone that was accused – accused, not convicted – of a crime of terrorism. Lieberman has taken the lead in police-state-like proposals cloaked in a “war on terror” sheath, but his citizenship-stripping idea has taken his contempt for the Bill of Rights to eleven. The fact that this guy was one Supreme Court justice’s vote away from being the vice president in 2000 is, in hindsight, terrifying. Who would have thought that Lieberman could have made Dick Cheney look like a civil-libertarian vice president?

But Obama has shown that he has a little authoritarian in him as well. The “public safety” exception to Miranda could end up being an exception that swallows up the rule if written too broadly. Obama has yet to close Guantanamo Bay and is still allowing a Guantanamo-style prison to be operated in Afghanistan where people are being detained indefinitely. He’s even staked out a position that a President has the authority to order the assassination of specific individuals if he feels it necessary.

He’s not Bush, but there’s a lot of Bush in Obama when it comes to national security and constitutional rights issues.

It’s really ironic. The Tea Party folks make hysterical “unconstitutional!” shrieks about things that are completely constitutional, such as health care reform and Obama’s eligibility to be President. They accuse him of violating the Second Amendment and “wanting to take guns away” when he has done nothing of the sort and has taken an extraordinarily expansive view of the Second Amendment. Yet they are completely silent about breaches of actual Constitutional freedoms, like the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

Apparently, amendments four through six don’t move the needle in BeckPalinStan.

Why does Arizona hate police officers?

2010-04-29T12:32:00.001-07:00

Just because you’ve identified a problem, doesn’t mean your solution is a good idea. Arizona, in response to an issue of illegal immigration that pretty much everyone agrees has not been properly handled by the federal government, has passed a controversial new law. Whether that law makes things better or worse is up for debate.

First of all, let’s lock down exactly what the new law does. Under the new law, Arizona law enforcement officers are required (that word becomes important later) to check the immigration status of any person they have a “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country unlawfully. The law also gives citizens the right to sue a local government agent or agency if that citizen believes the new law is not being enforced to “less than the full extent.”

OK, buckle up, because there’s a lot of problems in this law to go over.

The first legal problem the bill faces is the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. This is the one that is very rarely discussed amongst right-wing Constitutional lovers, because it holds that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

You never see that one a sign in a “states’ rights” rally, do you?

Immigration is, by definition, federal law. States like Arizona don’t get to have their own rules about who can come in or out of the country. We tried that once, with the Articles of Confederation back in 1776, and it didn’t work out so well. And the “preemption doctrine” says that when an area of law is so inherently federal (like immigration), the Supremacy Clause prevents states from passing laws in that area.

So does Arizona’s law violate the Supremacy Clause? Maybe. The law isn’t adding new rules, just mandating that state officers attempt to enforce already-existing federal rules. It’s a grey area that will certainly have to be hashed out in federal courts.

Legal problem number two is vagueness. Any law has to clearly define what is or is not prohibited and how it is to be enforced. The “reasonable suspicion” part of the law is going to be troublesome. What exactly is “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the country illegally? The answer to that question suggests one of the biggest practical problems with the bill, in that it invites racial profiling of Hispanics.

The bill does say that race cannot be the sole grounds for reasonable suspicion – meaning that it can be part of the grounds, just not the whole thing. But even if that’s the case, what non-racial basis can be used to justify a check of a person’s immigration status? So far, that’s a question that no one – including the proponents and authors of the bill – can adequately answer. And that makes it subject to a vagueness attack.

One reason to strike down vague laws is to prevent selective enforcement. The theory goes that if a law is so vague that it’s not clear how it should be enforced, then the authorities are given leeway to abuse that law selectively against a group of people. They could get away with that selective enforcement because the law is so vague that it isn’t clear what that official is and is not supposed to do. That’s exactly what Hispanics in Arizona and those around the country interested in civil rights are afraid of.

Those are the two legal problems with the law, which will almost assuredly be vigorously litigated. I’m all for making sure lawyers get more money, but the legal bill the state of Arizona’s taxpayers will be footing for defending this law should be a whopper.

But there’s some practical reasons why this law is a bad idea as well, most notably for law enforcement officers. I have to think this law makes being a cop in Arizona a heck of a lot more difficult. Keep in mind, there’s a lot of Hispanic people in Arizona. Some of those Hispanic folks are criminals. Some are victims. Most are just Arizonans trying to live their lives in peace.

Now, every time an Arizona law enforcement officer has a “lawful contact” with those persons (or anyone else), that officer is going to have to decide if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. Of course, they’ve been given no guidance as to what that reasonable suspicion might be, so they’ll have to make it up as they go. I can’t imagine what could possibly go wrong.

It gets worse. Lots of times, officers will be investigating serious crimes, and needing to gain the trust of the people they are having “lawful contact” with in order to help their investigation. That’s going to be a lot more difficult if the officer is required – required, not encouraged, remember – to check on the immigration status of the people that officer is dealing with in an investigation.

Proponents of the bill will point to an exception that the requirement is only “when practicable.” But what does that mean? And will that mean something different to a judge and jury when the officer is being sued for not enforcing the new law?

Because that’s the part of the bill that isn’t getting nearly enough attention. Any person can bring a lawsuit against any officer or agency if that person thinks the law isn’t being enforced “to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” A person winning a lawsuit gets their attorney’s fees and costs paid for by the losing party. And there’s plenty of anti-immigration organizations out there looking to get some publicity and a little dough for their lawyers by suing insufficiently-zealous Arizona cops, believe you me. And, again, while I am firmly in the pro-lawyers-making-scads-of-money camp, this provision is ripe with the potential for mischief.

So, imagine you’re that law enforcement officer. You’re investigating a murder, and trying to convince a witness to talk to you about what she saw. She's reluctant, because she comes from a tough background and has learned not to trust the police. But you need her testimony for your investigation. As you talk to her, you discovery she’s Hispanic, and (for whatever reason) you think she might be here illegally.

Do you, as the law requires, check your witness’ immigration status? Do you check it even if it will derail your murder investigation and let the guilty party go free? Do you not check it and risk being sued by an anti-immigration zealot, putting your job and your family’s livelihood at risk?

What a horrible position to put a law enforcement officer in. I have long thought that police officers have the hardest and most dangerous jobs in the world. Why the state of Arizona wants to make their jobs harder just to make a political point is beyond me.

There’s another angle to this story as well, one of hypocrisy. Where is the Tea Party outrage about this bill? I thought the Tea Party people were all about small government and reducing the intrusion of “Big Brother” government into our lives. I thought they loved the Constitution and just were about people being left alone.

The sole purpose of this bill is to give law enforcement – that’s the government, Tea Party folks – more authority to detain and arrest people. I’ve seen lots of your signs (some of them comically misspelled, of course) telling everyone how the Constitution prohibits health care reform and how the Constitution says President Obama isn’t actually President because he was born in Kenya, or Indonesia, or Mars, or something like that.

Hey, folks, this is an actual intrusive-government problem here! Arizona just passed a law that mandates the police to stop people on the vaguest of reasons. That’s a huge government intrusion, right? You’re all about small government, right? You should be up in arms about this, right? You’d be very concerned about this even though it is likely not to affect your overwhelmingly-white membership because you believe in freedom for everybody and aren’t even the slightest teeny tiny bit racist, right?

Right?

The Republican party’s hypocrisy is worse. In Arizona, they’re the driving force behind the new law. Remember, this is the same Republican party who thinks the economic downturn can be fixed by putting limits on patients suing doctors who butcher them. Now they’ve passed a law giving the green light for anyone to sue a police officer or police department if that person thinks Arizona’s immigration enforcement isn’t tough enough.

So, to summarize the Republican position on lawsuits: Suing doctors, bad. Suing cops, good.

And the hits keep on coming. The Republican National Committee has just set up a new fund-raising website claiming Obama is “versus” the Constitution. Plenty of Republican attorneys general are spending taxpayer money to get the newly-passed health care reform bill declared unconstitutional.

Really? Were you guys around when the PATRIOT Act was passed? When President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program was revealed? When Vice-President Cheney tried to argue that the vice president’s office wasn’t legislative or executive and therefore not subject to oversight? When Guantanamo Bay was created as a place to hold prisoners indefinitely at the whim of the president?

You know, things that were actually violations of the Constitution.

I’ve got plenty of problems with the Obama administration, many of them revolving around his failure to stop the Constitutional violations of his predecessor. But here’s the thing. Just because you don’t like a particular policy decision Obama or anyone else makes doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional.

People are entitled to whatever opinion they like, I guess. But they aren’t entitled to wrap themselves in the Constitution and pretend it says whatever they want it to say. And if you’ve held your tongue after eight years of a presidential administration who exhibited naked contempt for the Constitution, you really don’t get to tell me about how much you love the Constitution.

JTG 04/25/10 - Whoo, duck, quack?

2010-04-25T19:12:00.000-07:00

“This is home. This is where I will finish my coaching career.”

That was Dana Altman in 2007, coming back after his 48 hours as head coach of the Arkansas Razorbacks. Surely you remember what has to be one of the strangest stories in the coaching carousel. Altman took the job, got to Fayetville, had his shockingly uncomfortable “Whoo Pig, Sooey” moment, and returned to Creighton.

When he got back, he told us Creighton was home. He told us that he would finish his career with the Bluejays. And Bruce Rasmussen, Creighton’s athletic director, took him back.

Both Altman and Rasmussen are decent, honorable men, and I have no doubt Rasmussen’s decision to take Altman back was due in part to the friendship between the two. But there were other reasons to take Altman back as well.

In 2007, Altman’s Bluejays had their ninth consecutive 20-win season. In that span, Creighton had been to the NCAA tournament seven of those years and had won two first round games. Ticket sales at the Qwest Center were through the roof, and it felt like Creighton was on the verge of something special.

And, maybe more importantly, Creighton fans felt like they couldn’t do any better than Altman. If Altman left, the fans felt, the program would almost assuredly collapse into mediocrity.

Since that fateful 48 hours, though, things have changed. Creighton hasn’t made the NCAA tournament since Altman’s “Whoo Pig” moment. Their 20-game winning season streak has been snapped. Their stranglehold on the Missouri Valley conference has disappeared. And the fans have noticed.

Even more disturbing is how the tenor of the team has changed. In an effort to upgrade the talent and go to the mythical “next level” that Creighton fans demanded, Altman changed his recruiting targets. Without question, the talent level increased. The question was whether Altman’s old-school style would work on his new players.

At this point, it’s impossible to avoid looking at P’Allen Stinnett as Altman’s post-Arkansas problems in microcosm. Stinnett came in shortly after Altman’s 48-hour dabble into the SEC. He wasn’t a Kyle Korver or a Nate Funk or an Anthony Tolliver. He was an athletic and talented scorer, to be certain, but one who never could be convinced to play within Altman’s system and under Altman’s tutelage.

So, there was much trepidation looking forward to next year’s Bluejay squad. Was 2009-10 just a blip? Or was it the canary in the coalmine signifying a true descent into mediocrity?

Thanks to Phil Knight and the neon yellow folks in Eugene, we’ll never know. Three years after Creighton fans felt their program was saved by Altman’s cold feet, many now feel the program has been rescued by his itchy ones.

It’s hard not to feel a little contempt and betrayal for a man who told us three years ago that he’d retire a Bluejay. But even before his trip to Arkansas, questions were asked about Altman’s ability to advance Creighton beyond where he had taken them. And it must be remembered that all of the heightened expectations were created by Altman’s teams and their remarkable run of success.

So, while Altman’s departure does feel a little slimy on his part (as duck tends to be), I think it’s ultimately good for the program. I wish him well at Oregon (and dealing with Knight looking over his shoulder), and now have some excitement for Creighton’s potential.

Remember, Creighton is still in the top fifteen nationally in attendance. For a conference like the Missouri Valley, that’s a huge advantage. Heck, for any team, that’s a huge advantage. National coverage of Altman’s departure has drawn dismissive descriptions of Creighton as a school and a fan base with ideas above their station in dreaming of being a national power.

Dismiss Creighton at your peril. Given their attendance, history, conference, and geography, the Bluejays have the potential to be a player on the national stage in men’s college basketball. But to do so, Rasmussen and the Creighton brass must think big.

At the time of writing this column, it looks like the new coach may be Greg McDermott. He is currently head coach at Iowa State, but has the dogs nipping at his heels for the Cyclones’ lack of performance. Prior to his work in Ames, McDermott was head coach at Northern Iowa, so he has a good knowledge of the conference. He would be accepted by the fan base, and could plod the Bluejays along.

But the Bluejays need to think big. I hope that, before the hire is made, that Creighton makes a run at the big time. Altman’s former employers, Kansas State, hired Bob Huggins for a year, and set the table for the Purples to be a #2 seed in last year’s tournament.

While Kansas State might be a unique situation (and one that brings some unwanted baggage that Creighton should avoid), it was important to show that Kansas State was not satisfied to settle for less in basketball. Creighton has the opportunity with this hire to plant a flag and demonstrate they are looking to be serious players on the national scene.

It’s a risk, to be certain. Oregon did the same thing and had to “settle” for Altman. But I’d rather see Creighton take that risk and demonstrate that ambition than to immediately settle for a recycled version of Altman.

After all, when Altman left the first time, Creighton fans thought they couldn’t do any better than him. Now is the time to prove that Creighton can.

Conservative judicial activism?

2010-04-18T17:27:00.001-07:00

Sometimes, it’s what isn’t said that’s more important than what’s said.

Nebraska has recently passed the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Act,” which outlaws abortions in the second half of the second trimester of a pregnancy (after 20 weeks) because, according to the Unicameral, that is the point at which the fetus can feel pain.

Sounds relatively straightforward, right? Another attempt to ban later-term abortions from a conservative state in the ongoing pro-choice vs. pro-life battle, right? Nothing to see here, move along.

As college football analyst Lee Corso would say, not so fast, my friend. Nebraska’s new law is more than just your run-of-the-mill pro-life trial balloon tossed into the courts. This law is intended to challenge the fundamental basis of abortion laws in the United States.

Let’s take it from the top, though. In 1973, the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade that abortion was a constitutionally-protected right that must be balanced against the state’s interest in the life of the unborn child. Roe defined viability as the threshold when the state’s interest outweighed the mother’s interest – in other words, once the fetus could survive outside the womb (was “viable”) then the state’s interest outweighed the mother’s interest and the state could restrict abortion access. In addition to keeping agitators on both side of the issue employed and well-funded for the last 37 years, that basic rule has been what has guided the courts in deciding the contours and boundaries of abortion law.

So what’s the big deal, you ask? It’s all about the premise. Nebraska’s law (like other “fetal pain” bills in states like Oklahoma and Texas) abandons the viability premise. Under Nebraska law, an abortion is illegal because the fetus can feel pain, regardless of whether it is viable or not.

That is nothing less than a frontal assault on the legal architecture of abortion law since Roe was decided in 1973. There’s no way that Nebraska’s new law could survive a legal challenge under current law. It could only survive if the Supreme Court uses a law like Nebraska’s to re-interpret the Constitution and change abortion law. Which is, of course, exactly what the pro-life community wants to see.

Now, this won’t happen overnight. There will be legal challenges to the constitutionality of Nebraska’s law filed, and they will take years to filter their way to the Supreme Court. Between taking the abortion bill to court and suing the Federal government over the health care reform bill passed earlier this year, the budget for Nebraska’s Attorney General office should be plenty stretched. Good thing the state is so flush with tax revenue.

(As an aside, I was discussing Nebraska’s new law with a very wise colleague of mine. She pointed out that the Tea Party faithful were quite upset about health care reform “stealing their freedom” by proposing a tax penalty for not buying insurance. They didn’t, however, seem nearly as upset about a bill that removed the actual freedom to receive an actual health care procedure. Good thing the Tea Party is a broad base of libertarian-minded independents and not just a collection of hard-core and somewhat cranky conservatives, right?)

So what’s going to happen once this gets to the Supreme Court? Tough to say, as we’re about to be treated to another episode of everyone’s favorite reality show, “Supreme Court Justice Confirmation.” But keep in mind, the Conservative Four (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) will be there regardless of who the rookie justice will be. And the Conservative Four have shown no hesitance to make dramatic changes in settled law – just go read about Citizens United and see how they turned decades of campaign finance reform on its’ collective head.

But, you might ask, shouldn’t the idea of judges making dramatic changes to settled law run counter to conservative ideals? Isn’t that – gasp – judicial activism that is so anathema to conservatives everywhere? Shouldn’t conservatives who believe in their principles just go to the ballot box and try to change law through the legislature instead of using the court to end run the will of the people, like they’ve loudly and consistently accused progressives of doing?

They should. I hope they do. I’m not holding my breath.

NU Re-View: Red 21, White 16

2010-04-18T16:31:00.000-07:00

THE GOOD ...
- TAYLOR MARTINEZ: Yes, I know, he's the guy everyone is talking about. ESPN's coverage of NU's Spring Game was basically a Martinez PR piece. But there's good reason for the coverage. The kid looked the part, particularly in what appears to be what Shawn Watson's offense is going to look like going forward. His first play was basically a Wildcat run, which he looked comfortable running. But he ran decisively, was patient in the pocket when he dropped back to throw, and definitely did not look like a freshman directing the offense. Based on what we saw on Saturday, there's no question he's in the mix in the starting quarterback race.
- THE OTHER GUY: Martinez is the shiny new car, and Cody Green suffers from a bit of the "been there, done that" syndrome. And while it is true that he didn't sparkle in quite the way Martinez did, it's also true that he was asked to air it out a lot more than Martinez was. As we have seen before, Green struggled some in the short passing game. But he had two gorgeous deep throws - and the lack of a deep threat to stretch the field was sorely lacking last season. If I had to put money on one kid to get the starting QB position next season, my money would be on Green.
- RETURN OF THE PAJAMAS: I understand that I will be in a distinct minority on this one. But I loved the red-on-red look the team had. I loved the white-on-white they've experimented with in the past. I think a uniform re-design is not warranted (although a few more throwbacks would be nice), but adding in some mix-and-match would be more than a little cool. Oh, by the way, it's nice to see Gay Dancer Herbie (tight shirt and jeans) replaced by the familiar Bib Overall Herbie. Let's hope that's permanent.

THE BAD ...
- TAYLOR MARTINEZ'S HYPE: Yes, the kid was really exciting. Yes, I think he's got a place in the offense. But, please, 'Husker fans, do not engrave his name on the Heisman just yet. Assuming he's not the starting quarterback this fall, do not start calling for him at the first incompletion thrown by Green or Zac Lee. He's good, but I can almost guarantee you that he's not as good as you think he is after watching him on Saturday.
- PLAY TO THE WHISTLE: Look, I get that it's a scrimmage. But there were at least two incidents at the end of a play where a rugby scrum broke out. In just about any actual game, those plays would have been blown dead for halting forward progress. But they weren't, and the offense pushed the pile forward. Brandon Kinnie got a touchdown after being dogpiled at the five yard line, with the dogpile getting pushed into the end zone. Great motor for Kinnie and the offense, but I have to think a defense-first guy like Bo Pelini had to be popping a vein seeing his defensive crew giving those up.
- ROW 39 IN THE EAST STANDS: Unlike some years, it was a perfect spring day in Lincoln. The sky was blue, the temperature was warm but not hot, and the wind was just strong enough to put a charge into the air. What better way to spend that afternoon, then, but to be sitting under a 50-year-old concrete overhang navigating a two-foot-wide pole? The experience was eerily remniscent to watching a baseball game in the concrete monstrosity that was Cincinnati's old Riverfront Stadium.

... AND THE REMINDER THAT WE'RE TALKING 'BOUT PRACTICE.
There was a lot to like about NU's Spring Game 2010, not the least of which were the 77,000-plus people that showed up (although, really, could 'Husker Nation not find another three thousand bodies to sell Memorial Stadium out?) Everything we saw, though - from the offensive wizardry to the introduction of the Peso to the Bouncerooski - should be viewed through the "it's only practice" prism. For the first time in a while, Nebraska is going into a season with legitimate championship aspirations. The results of the Spring Game should not be over-analyzed to presume those championships are won already.

THE BIG PICTURE
More than anything, what struck me is that this group of 'Huskers looked more like a complete roster of players Pelini is looking for. In the previous two Spring Games, it felt like Pelini was piecing together a hodgepodge roster of leftover Callahan players and trying to see where the square pegs and round holes were located. This year, the direction and philosophy seem more settled and there seems to be legitimate competition for the positions to execute that direction. For the most part, the NU roster looks and feels deeper than it has for some years. Sure, there's holes to fill (you don't move your best tight end to wide receiver on a whim), but the signs are there that Pelini was right about Nebraska being back and here to stay.

THE NEXT GAME
Western Kentucky @ Nebraska, September 04, 2010.

Is it September 04, 2010, yet?

THE PHOTOS
http://picasaweb.google.com/patrickrunge/NUSpringGame10?authkey=Gv1sRgCNWdndif9eSliwE&feat=directlink

GBR, baby.

Oklahoma legislators channel their inner Somali warlord

2010-04-13T11:06:00.001-07:00

There’s tone-deaf, and then there’s the Oklahoma state legislature.

As we approach the 15th anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City – perpetrated by anti-government domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh in which 168 people died – members of the Oklahoma legislature are discussing the formation of a “volunteer militia” to “defend” the state against what they view as “unwarranted” intrusions from the federal government.

Remember, McVeigh believed that the federal government was an enemy force responsible for killing Americans in Waco and Ruby Ridge. He believed that deadly force – including the bombing of a federal building – was necessary to resist the federal government’s “unwarranted” intrusions. So, really, what better way to commemorate McVeigh’s victims than to organize a group McVeigh would stand in line to join?

Think about it for just a moment. State senators think it would be a good idea to create a volunteer militia – a group of armed citizens who enforce the rules as they think they should be enforced. And, at least one thinks that it would be legal.

“The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government,” said Randy Brogden, a Republican state senator and (naturally) candidate for governor.

Um, actually, not so much. There are arguments to be made as to whether the Second Amendment’s intent was to protect the right to bear arms for hunting and recreation, or to repel foreign invasion. There is no argument, historically, that the purpose of the amendment was to keep the federal government in check.

Besides, Oklahoma (along with 49 other states) already has a state militia. It’s called the National Guard. At the time the Second Amendment was written, there was no such organization. Heck, there wasn’t even supposed to be a standing army. Times and laws have changed to make such a “minuteman” style of army both unnecessary and unwise.

Now, in fairness, recently the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, which as taken any meaning out of the whole “well-regulated Militia” part of the Second Amendment. But this isn’t an issue about whether individuals can possess firearms.

If the argument for an armed force protecting a state from an “overreaching federal government” sounds familiar, it should. In 1957, the governor of the state of Arkansas ordered the National Guard (the state militia, remember) to prevent black students from attending a previously-all-white high school. Arkansas’ governor at the time, Orval Faubus, believed the Supreme Court’s decision requiring schools to be desegregated was an “overreaching federal government” intruding upon the rights of the state of Arkansas. In 1962, then-governor George Wallace attempted to use the Alabama National Guard to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama. Wallace believed that the federal court’s decision that the state could not prevent blacks from attending the school was the act of an “overreaching federal government” intruding upon the rights of the state of Alabama.

And now, because in 2014 people will face a tax penalty if they don’t purchase health insurance, Oklahoma state legislators want to mobilize private armies with the blessing of the Oklahoma legislature. I thought private armies were what Somali warlords used to help maintain control of their territories, not what Americans used in political disagreements.

But let’s think this through. We’re talking about volunteer armies that would be somehow deputized by the state legislature based on a particular political belief. Would everyone get to do that?

On “The Daily Show,” comedian Wyatt Cenac played a supporter of health care reform and was asked his response to the violent and separatist language used by health care opponents. He said “bring it on, I mean, we’ve got guns too.”

Apparently no one told the Oklahoma legislature that he was kidding.

LTG 03-31-10: NOW can we call them terrorists?

2010-03-31T09:56:00.001-07:00

Earlier this week, several members of the Hutaree militia in Michigan were arrested for conspiring to kill police officers. According to prosecutors, the group planned to make a fake 911 call to lure police officers into an ambush and then use bombs to attack the funerals of the officers slain in the original ambush.

What’s even more chilling is the reasons attributed for these attacks. According to federal authorities, the militia hoped their attacks would spark others to rise up and violently oppose the government. The Hutaree militia (whose name is supposed to mean “Christian warrior”) believed that they were preparing for the Biblical end-times and the rise of the Antichrist in the form of the United States government. Therefore, they believed they were compelled by God to use violence against agents of the Antichrist and that any innocent persons harmed along the way were unfortunate collateral damage to their holy mission.

Sound at all familiar? Who needs a trip to Baghdad or Kabul when you can just head to rural Michigan?

Unfortunately, that’s not the only reason why the Hutaree story sounds familiar. It wasn’t that long ago that an anti-government believer flew a plane into a building in Texas. And it wasn’t that long before the plane attack that an anti-abortionist walked into a church and assassinated a doctor. And it wasn’t that long before the assassination that soldiers were shot by a man violently opposed to the war in Iraq. And it wasn’t that long before the shooting of the soldiers …

OK, you get my point. There’s plenty of reason for concern about the rising tide of politically-motivated violence in this country. This is particularly true if you remember back to the mid-1990s, when the militia movements first gained notoriety. A lot of what you heard back then – the government is evil, your freedoms are being taken away, the President is a traitor, good citizens should arm themselves and resist – is being echoed in the Tea Party rallies of today. Whether the current anti-government rhetoric will culminate as the rhetoric in the 1990s did – with the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and the death of 168 people – remains to be seen.

But there’s a broader legal issue that has received little attention. After the September 11 attack on this country, we were told by then-President George Bush that the fight against terrorism was a new kind of war, requiring new kinds of tactics. Those tactics, as it turned out, involved indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, the use of torture, the elimination of habeas corpus, and ultimately the granting of the President with dictatorial powers in the name of “keeping us safe.”

That was a pretty easy sell to a scared nation being told about mushroom clouds hanging over its’ cities. And let’s be honest, it was also made easier when those on the wrong end of all that unchecked Presidential power were named Mohammed or Ali instead of David or Joe.

So, why haven’t we called the Hutaree militia a terrorist cell? The plan certainly fits every description of a terrorist plot I can think of. But there’s no mention of terrorism in the indictment filed against the militia members. There’s been no mention of terrorism in the President’s statements about the attack. Ironically enough, the Obama administration offered support to the people of Moscow who were victims of domestic terrorism in the subway bombings, but no references to the domestic terrorist plot broken up by law enforcement.

Why is this important? Because it exposes the lie told to us for years that constitutional rights have to be surrendered to fight terrorism. The Hutaree militia plot was foiled not by the PATRIOT act, but by good law enforcement. They’re being held in jail, not in a super-secret military prison outside of the country, and they haven’t broken out and wreaked havoc on the American countryside like we’ve been told Guantanamo detainees would if we put them in a SuperMax prison.

Apparently, that means the Republicans believe that foreign-born terrorists are way more dangerous than domestic terrorists. Isn’t that a touch unpatriotic?

I’ve said this before, and I will say it again. “Declaring war” against an abstract concept like terrorism, or crime, or littering, is fine as a metaphor but terrible as a legal rationale. If we’re serious about declaring actual war against terrorists, then we’d be renditioning the Hutaree militia members to Guantanamo and torturing them.

We’re not. Our refusal to accept actions like the Hutaree plot as terrorism is further evidence that, at some level, we understand that treating the “war on terror” as an actual war and suspending our constitutional freedoms for the duration puts us into the perpetual war that George Orwell warned us about in “1984.”

LTG 03/21/10 - The Imperial President

2010-03-21T09:23:00.000-07:00

Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman have introduced the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 before the United States Senate. The proposal is shocking in it’s sweep. If passed into law, the bill would literally give the President the authority to detain anyone he wishes, American citizen or not, for as long as he wants.

I’m not kidding. I’m not exaggerating. This isn’t the opening chapter of “It Can’t Happen Here” or any other dystopic fictional work. Here’s how it would work.

According to the bill, if someone who was taken into military custody and suspected of being an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” the bill would give the President authority to detain that person in military custody without trial or criminal charges “for the duration of hostilities against the United States.”

And you thought the Bush-era euphemisms like “enhanced interrogation” for “torture” were gone. Silly you.

But what do all those euphemisms mean? Well, an “unprivileged enemy belligerent” is someone who the President determines to be a member of a group hostile to the United States. If that sounds similar to the Bush-era “enemy combatant” designation, that’s because it means the exact same thing.

How about the “duration of hostilities” thing? That means when the President declares the “war on terror” to be over. And if you think the answer to that question is “never,” just like a war on crime or poverty or bad taste in music, you’re exactly right. It’s the primary problem for treating a metaphorical war on a concept the same as a real, legal war on something tangible like a country. By telling a populace they are in a war, even a perpetual war, a government gets to enhance its’ power and repress its’ citizenry for the duration of the perpetual war. George Orwell told us that in “1984.”

Did you notice a common theme running through the description of the bill? It’s the President that gets to make all of these decisions. The bill is actually just putting into law the “Unitary Executive” theory made popular by the neoconservative movement that brought us the Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay. That theory states that the President has unfettered authority during times of war as commander in chief of the military. A perpetual war, of course, means a perpetual granting to the President of unfettered authority. And that is pretty hard to distinguish from a military dictatorship.

Surely, though, such a law would be unconstitutional, right? Well, on its’ face you would think so. But the Bush administration did a pretty good job of taking this country down a constitutional rabbit hole with its’ fearmongering of 9/11, getting at least six unconstitutional ideas into the mainstream of American thought before breakfast. And with the Conservative Four on the Supreme Court, there’s no reason to be optimistic about this bill being struck down if it became law.

For example, remember Jose Padilla? He was the guy accused of trying to set off a “dirty bomb” in 2002, and held indefinitely as an “enemy combatant” by President Bush. Eventually even the Bush administration was forced to try him in Federal court, where he was sentenced in 2007 (by the way, not for anything involving a “dirty bomb”) to 17 years in prison. He remains there to this day, which is amazing to know considering how we’ve heard from the Republicans how terrorists are all supervillains whose mighty powers couldn’t possibly be held by a SuperMax prison.

I guess I understand why McCain would sponsor such legislation. He’s in a huge primary fight against a conservative talk show host, and thinks he needs to look tough to get the hard-right conservative votes. Lieberman is more of a mystery to me, and I cannot fathom how a Jewish man who knows his history could ever give the kind of authority to anyone that his bill would grant the President.

What surprises me a little is why the Tea Party kooks haven’t picked up on this. Remember, these are the folks who think that President Obama is a socialist. And a communist. And a Marxist. And a dictator. And a Klingon, I think. Regardless, they think he’s a Bad Dude who is trying to “steal our freedoms” and “take our country away” and stuff like that.

Well, guess what? If this bill passes, Obama would have the legal authority to do just that. He could declare all the Tea Partiers as “unprivileged enemy belligerents” and have them arrested and held in military detention for as long as he wants. It wouldn’t matter that the Tea Partiers have no connection whatsoever to international terrorism. The President and the President alone could make that decision, with no access to the courts or any other independent tribunal for review. After all, Padilla didn’t have anything to do with what he was accused of, but he would have been held indefinitely anyway.

Perhaps if the Tea Partiers spent less time worrying about death panels and more time worrying about military tribunals, they’d be a more productive force in society. But I’m not holding my breath.

LTG 03/10/10 - Waterboarding litterbugs?

2010-03-15T06:45:00.000-07:00

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” – Samuel Johnson

Liz Cheney, daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney and current conservative political agitator, has thrust herself into the spotlight again. Her political organization, Keep America Safe (not to be confused with Keep America Beautiful, although if she ran that organization she’d be advocating the waterboarding of litterbugs) has run an advertisement critical of Department of Justice attorneys who represented Guantanamo detainees in the past.

Although, to be fair, calling the ad “being critical” really doesn’t do it justice. In the ad, the lawyers who had the temerity to represent Guantanamo detainees were called “war criminals” and “terrorist huggers,” and the ad suggested that the attorneys might be terrorist sleepers and a threat to the country.

So, in the world according to Liz, making sure that people get a fair trial means you’re a threat to national security. If you represent a criminal, you love crime.

This isn’t reasoned debate. This is verbal thuggery. This is a naked and brazen attempt to use fear to damage the public’s confidence in the DOJ and the administration which, surprisingly enough, doesn’t include her father.

It’s not like Clan Cheney doesn’t have experience using fear. For years during the Bush administration, Papa Cheney orchestrated a campaign of darkly worded missives about supervillain terrorists who could break out of normal prisons to convince a nation that torture was acceptable and to create an extrajudicial gulag in Cuba that even George W. Bush realized was a bad idea.

And, to give the devil her due, it works. When Wolf Blitzer ran a story about the Keep America Safe ad, the chyron at the bottom of the screen read “Dept. of Jihad?” Mission accomplished for Liz and company, to be able to take this non-story about attorneys doing what attorneys are supposed to do and stoke the fires of the lunatic Tea Party conspiracy theories about President Obama being a “secret Muslim” out to “steal America” from “real Americans” and give it to “them.”

But, it’s Wolf Blitzer, the nation’s premier embarrassment to journalism. It shouldn’t be surprising that he was distracted by a shiny object like the Keep America Safe ad.

When you take even a moment to think through the ad, though, you realize how offensive it really is. If America really is a free country, one of the bedrock principles of that freedom is that everyone gets a fair trial. In the Soviet Union in its’ heyday, there were plenty of trials that went on. They just weren’t fair trials. People got railroaded in show trials and the enemies of the state got sent to a Siberian work camp or a shallow grave.

This, apparently, is the model Liz wants to adopt for our country. Again, it’s consistent with her father’s “torture and lock up forever whoever I tell you to” philosophy. But to attack an attorney for doing exactly what an attorney is supposed to do – zealously represent their client and let a neutral judge make a fair decision – is even starting to ring hollow in conservative circles.

So, is Liz just dumb? Hardly. Clan Cheney may be many things, but they are very smart. So why would she say something like this when she knows how silly she’ll look?

Well, keep in mind that just before this scary ad came out, the DOJ released a report describing how John Yoo and other Bush-era DOJ lawyers wrote memos justifying torture that they knew were not legally defensible. While the report said Yoo didn’t commit malpractice, the report also was scathingly critical of the legal lynchpins that supported Clan Cheney’s torture program.

That’s not something Papa Cheney would want making the national media cycle. That’s easy to fix. One scary commercial later and CNN has a “Dept. of Jihad?” chyron on the screen. And no one is talking Papa Cheney’s torture program being illegal.

Which is, of course, the ultimate irony. Liz’s commercial calls the DOJ lawyers war criminals for doing their jobs. Liz’s father, though, by spearheading and authorizing an illegal torture program, is the one in jeopardy of war crimes prosecution.

If Papa Cheney gets charged, wanna bet Liz won’t complain about the lawyers defending him?

Leaving kids behind?

2010-03-02T05:59:00.001-08:00

Very interesting article from NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124209100&sc=fb&cc=fp) interviewing former Assistant Secretary of Eduacation Diane Ravitch, who once championed George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program and now thinks maybe it was a bad idea. The money quote is at the end, talking about how schools operate best when they share the best ideas rather than competing and trying to put each other out of business.

Ya think?

I have no idea who Ravitch is, or whether she's having this deathbead conversion to protect her professional position after the election or not. And while the goal of accountability in NCLB is laudable, the mechanism used to achieve it is disastrous. Unfortunately, the Republican panacea to everything is "apply competition, give tax breaks" without any consideration as to whether or not it would actually, you know, work. It's the ultimate example of the cliche about when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Sadly, the Obama approach to education hasn't been that much better. Race to the Top, part of the stimulus package, has asinine rules and outcomes as well.

------

In 2005, former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch wrote, "We should thank President George W. Bush and Congress for passing the No Child Left Behind Act ... All this attention and focus is paying off for younger students, who are reading and solving mathematics problems better than their parents' generation."

Four years later, Ravitch has changed her mind.

"I was known as a conservative advocate of many of these policies," Ravitch says. "But I've looked at the evidence and I've concluded they're wrong. They've put us on the wrong track. I feel passionately about the improvement of public education and I don't think any of this is going to improve public education."

Ravitch has written a book about what she sees as the failure of No Child Left Behind called The Death and Life of the Great American School System. She says one of her biggest concerns is the way the law requires school districts to use standardized testing.

Emphasis On Test Scores Led To Cheating, Dishonesty

"The basic strategy is measuring and punishing," Ravitch says of No Child Left Behind. "And it turns out as a result of putting so much emphasis on the test scores, there's a lot of cheating going on, there's a lot of gaming the system. Instead of raising standards it's actually lowered standards because many states have 'dumbed down' their tests or changed the scoring of their tests to say that more kids are passing than actually are."

Some states contend that 80 to 90 percent of their children are proficient readers and have math proficiency as well, Ravitch notes. But in the same states, only 25 to 30 of the children test at a proficient level on national tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

"Secretary (of Education Arne) Duncan often says we're lying to our kids," Ravitch says. "And we are lying to our kids."

'There Should Not Be An Education Marketplace'

Part of the reason schools were so intent on achieving high tests scores was because they were competing with other schools for resources, which were often doled out on that basis alone.

Ravitch is critical of the impact this had on schools.

"There should not be an education marketplace, there should not be competition," Ravitch says. "Schools operate fundamentally — or should operate — like families. The fundamental principle by which education proceeds is collaboration. Teachers are supposed to share what works; schools are supposed to get together and talk about what's [been successful] for them. They're not supposed to hide their trade secrets and have a survival of the fittest competition with the school down the block."

JTG 03/01/10 - It's about time

2010-03-01T06:52:00.000-08:00

Well, I guess the last minute is better than not getting someting done at all. Creighton managed to sweep the final week of the regular season, ending at 16-14 (10-8 in Valley play) and a fourth-place finish in conference.

The week started out with a mid-week trip to Carbondale to face the hated Salukis. The game started out fast, but competitive, with neither team able to pull away from the other (or play any form of defense, apparently). Towards the end of the first half, Creighton went into one of their now-traditional swoons, allowing Southern Illinois to go on a 20-4 run. But the Bluejays came back to life a little, cutting SIU's halftime lead to 40-36.

Creighton then spent the entire second half chipping away, getting close, and hanging around against the Salukis. While Creighton was never able to get the lead, it was more than refreshing to see this Bluejay squad have the mental toughness to stay in the game and get it to overtime.

Of course, in yet another flashback, Creighton had the final possession of regulation and held for the final shot. At least this time the Bluejays' failure to score was the result of two blocked shots instead of an unforced turnover, but the result was the same.

In overtime, however, Creighton found its' collective mojo. The Bluejays scored the first six points and never looked back, pulling away for an 83-78 win. In a sign of the atrophy of this rivalry, the win was Creighton's fifth straight over SIU, including two straight in Carbondale.

So, the Bluejays got the road win they desperately needed against the Egyptian dogs. Given this season, it sets up perfectly for a letdown and an inexplicable home loss to Bradley, right?

Sure looked like it to start out. After building a ten-point lead in the first half, Creighton apparently thought they had the game in hand. Bradley came roaring back, including hitting a ridiculous shot from their own end of the court as the halftime buzzer sounded to cut Creighton's lead to one. Here's that deja vu again - how would this Bluejay squad respond?

Bradley opened the second half by hitting two shots to take the lead, much to the discomfort of the assembled Qwest crowd. But then Creighton did something we've seen precious little of all season. They put the clamps down, went on a 9-0 run, and ultimately pulled away for a relatively comfortable 82-71 victory.

You want streaks? Creighton salvaged their 10-conference-win streak, making it 14 in a row (second nationally to Kansas' 16). Their 20-game win streak, once dead and buried, now can at least be discussed. Two wins in the Valley tournament puts them at 18, and likely gets Creighton a bid to at least the CBI postseason tournament. Two wins in that, and the Bluejays pull off what to me would be an unthinkable salvage job.

So, now we look to St. Louis. On Friday, Creighton has to turn around and play Bradley again. The Bluejays have won both games against the Braves this season, but Bradley has an unfortunate history of spoiling Creighton's trips to Arch Madness. And, even if the Bluejays get by Bradley, they get the winner of the Northern Iowa-Southern Illinois/Drake play-in game. In other words, they get Northern Iowa.

That's not good news for Bluejay fans hoping for a run. Sure, the Panthers are ranked, but they're not going to be kidding themselves. UNI knows that an early exit in St. Louis could be deadly to their NCAA dreams, particularly given how weak the Valley is this year.

It does look like the Bluejays are really starting to come together, finally. How much the suspension of P'Allen Stinnett has to do with Creighton's end-of-season play is tough to tell, although it's telling that Creighton has found ways to replace his scoring. It's a big mountain left to climb, but the only time I've seen Arch Madness in person in when Creighton was a four-seed, and they won the whole thing. A little magic this weekend wouldn't be a bad way to kick off Championship Week.

JTG 02/22/10 - A new, and unwelcome, thought

2010-02-22T06:56:00.000-08:00

I've followed Creighton basketball for a long time, and in that time there have been a number of thoughts that have run through my head. Some of them went like this:

"What a shot, [insert Taylor, Korver, or Woodfox here]!"

"How did [insert fifth or seventh school from major conference] get the last NCAA bid over us?"

"Shouldn't we be guarding that big kid for the Chippewas?"

But I can't tell you the last time I had this thought going into a game:

"Please, just don't embarass us."

Unfortunately, that's the state of the Bluejays this year going into Creighton's visit to Cedar Falls and their matchup with nationally-ranked Northern Iowa. And, even more unfortunately, the Panthers didn't oblige this fearful Bluejay backer. Creighton scored the first seven points of the game (yay!), but fell victim to a 28-5 Panther run (boo!) and never got themselves back in the game.

My wife, of course, is a UNI graduate, which makes matters worse. We were at dinner for the second half. I was facing a television with the game on, and she had her back to the TV. It didn't matter. She could read the progress of the game just by watching my face.

Sure, there were glimmers of good play from Creighton, but there's no covering up how completely outclassed the Bluejays were by Northern Iowa. Creighton has long since lost their collective mojo, and once UNI went on their big run in the middle of the first half there was no sign of life from Creighton.

So, pressure fell on the BracketBuster game on Saturday - the "JESUIT SHOWDOWN" - between Creighton and Loyola Chicago. For a half, things looked more than a little concerning. Creighton only led by a point, although that was from a seven-point run from Loyola to close the half. The magic of the Qwest Center and the 15,000+ that showed up for the JESUIT SHOWDOWN didn't disappoint, however. Creighton went on a 13-2 run to start the second half and cruised to a comfortable 78-58 win.

So, now Creighton is 14-14, with two games left to go before the Arch Madness tournament in St. Louis. We've discussed the .500 Mendoza line as a psychological tool throughout the season, but it's becoming a practical question now. Many of Creighton's streaks are already broken, but the postseason streak remains a possibility. However, to get to the postseason the Bluejays need to finish at least on the line to remain eligible.

The final two games of the regular season see them going to Carbondale to play Southern Illinois, then back to the Qwest for the home finale against Bradley. A split of those two games - and given Creighton's season, is there any way to pick anything else - leaves the Bluejays in a must-win situation for their first game in the conference tournament. Going into the tourney at 15-15 and pulling a one-and-done would leave Creighton under .500, and likely at home for the whole postseason.

This has been a brutal, humbling season for Dana Altman and his Bluejays. The team now is almost entirely remade from the squad we thought we would be seeing. The fact that Ethan Wragge and Josh Jones started against Loyola is not insignificant, showing the changing of the guard for the boys in Blue.

Much like bowl games in football, postseason tournaments are a great way for rebuilding teams to get extra work in and build chemistry. This year more than ever, Creighton needs a post season - ANY post season, be it NIT or CBA - to get some extra playing time and help figure out who they are going into next season.

Sure, a magical run through St. Louis to an NCAA bid would be fun. But a win over the stupid Salukis in Carbondale to spark an NIT bid is more likely, and a lot more important.

LTG 02/20/10 - How can that not be terrorism?

2010-02-20T19:24:00.000-08:00

I’m going to need some help with this. A man flies a plane into a building with the express intent of making a political statement, and it’s not terrorism?

Last week, an angry Joseph Stack posted a long anti-government diatribe on his blog, set fire to his house, and flew a small plane into an Austin, Texas, building containing the local office of the Internal Revenue Service. As of this column’s writing, two people (in addition to Stack) were killed in the attack, with a third person missing.

Of course, seeing the crawl on the bottom of a TV screen that says “plane crashes into building” brings back the inevitable, horrifying memories of 9/11. I know when I first heard the news of Stack’s attack, I had the same knot in my stomach I felt watching the Twin Towers fall.

So, I was more than a little confused when, later that day, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that the incident didn’t “appear” to be a terrorist attack.

Excuse me?

Gibbs went on to say that there didn’t seem to be any link between al Qaeda or any similar group and the attack on the IRS building. As if that’s supposed to make anyone feel better.

I’m not sure why this is so complicated. Terrorism is the act of using violence to instill fear into a populace in an attempt to achieve a political end.

So, let’s see. Stack was very, very angry at the IRS in specific and the Federal tax code in general, and wanted to see it changed. Political end, check. Use of violence, check. Instilling fear into a populace, check.

Having “Mohammed” or “bin-something-or-other” in his name? No check there, so it must not be terrorism.

It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that we’ve all been very effectively programmed to think that terrorism = Muslim. Let’s face it, we had a presidential administration that pounded that into our heads starting about September 14, 2001, and continues to do so to this day. Obviously, that type of fear-mongering is effective.

Unfortunately, thanks to the legacy of the Bush administration, whether something is “terrorist” or not has significant consequences. If the government calls you a terrorist, then they can lock you away without any Constitutional rights, keep you locked away as long as they want, and torture you if they feel like it.

So, we couldn’t possibly call Stack a terrorist, because if we did then we’d have to treat him like we treat the people in Guantanamo. And, sadly enough, the American public might look very differently at a white American citizen being waterboarded.

It’s not like we haven’t had acts of domestic terrorism recently. Remember Scott Roeder? He walked into a Kansas church and assassinated Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who performed abortions. Roeder killed Tiller for the express purpose of making a political statement and to use fear to stop other doctors from performing abortions.

Was he treated like a terrorist, renditioned by the military to a secret prison and tortured? Nope. He was treated like what he was, a criminal, and has been convicted of murder and is facing the justice he deserves. Just the way Richard Reed, the “shoe bomber” and Jose Padilla, the “dirty bomber” was. Both of those guys were given all their Constitutional rights, were convicted, and now languish in a SuperMax prison. And, amazingly enough, they haven’t used the superpowers some in the GOP apparently believe they possess to break out and destroy Manhattan.

If you saw any of the town hall meetings about health care this summer, you’ve seen the face of irrational, terrified anger. We’ve seen that irrational, terrified anger explode into two acts of domestic terrorism in the last eight months. We’ve seen people making lots of money appearing on television stoking the fires of that irrational, terrified anger (looking right at you, Glenn Beck).

So, the next time you hear someone take to the airwaves or to the Senate floor decrying the concept of applying the rule of law to Gitmo prisoners, ask yourself this question. Do you think these people would be saying the same thing if the target of their venom was a fifty-something white guy instead of a Muslim? Do you think the people supporting them would be as rabid if they realized the people getting waterboarded looked and sounded like them?

Reporter fired for being objective?

2010-02-17T11:15:00.000-08:00

If this isn't one of the signs of the apocalypse, it's certainly a sign of the death of journalism as we knew it. Jason Linkins of HuffingtonPost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/reporter-sacked-for-his-i_n_465528.html) writes an article about a journalist who was fired from his job for clinging to the notions of objective reporting and, indeed, the existence of an objective reality.

No, seriously, that's what his BOSS said in firing him.

Now, the paper he was fired from is an unabashed liberal/progressive publication, so I suppose if they want to be in the business of opinion-making (or, in other words, being like FOX News) then they have a right to avoid those nasty facts. But to actually have the gall (or, quite honestly, the stupidity) to admit so in public should shame and discredit the rag permanently.

Look, as readers here know, I'm pretty lefty. I agree with a lot of things this rag wants to do. But the kind of propaganda FOX News has been spewing has been poisonous to the process as a whole. It's just as wrong when someone wants to put out propaganda that I happen to agree with, and it's worth just as much contempt as the Glenn Beck channel.

------

Hamilton Nolan made note yesterday of a reporter fired for reasons that can only be called bogus and aggravating.

The reporter in question was Jonathan Springston, a four-year veteran of the Atlanta Progressive News. Springston was sacked as part of some wide-ranging online reboot, but he wasn't let go because his position was made redundant (though the paper apparently has no plan on hiring a replacement). Rather, he was fired because of an apparent insistence on fact-based reporting.

That this was the reason is troubling. That his editor, Matthew Cardinale, copped to it, is insane.

Here's the key excerpt from the response that Cardinale gave to Atlanta's Creative Loafing, when their Andisheh Nouraee asked about this:

Jonathan Springston served as Staff Writer, then Senior Staff Writer for a total of four years. During that time, he has grown as a writer and has produced a lot of content which has served to inform our readership on issues ranging from Troy Davis to Grady Hospital.

As many of our readers know, we are in the midst of a major website redesign and relaunch that will result in new content and new forms of content, as well as tools to empower our readers to meaningfully participate in the democratic process. Part of that has meant going back to our core mission and re-examining how every part of what we do is consistent with, and advances, that mission.

In the end, we had to make a very difficult decision to move forward as a publication without Jonathan Springston. Last Wednesday, we informed him it seemed more appropriate if he found work with another publication or started his own publication.

At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn't the right fit.

Cardinale goes on to cite his paper's FAQ, which informs that "Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust."

Now, I like things like universal health care and affordable housing and et cetera. But if your strongly argued point of view on those matters is founded in a reality that you have just decided to invent out of whole cloth, then what you are delivering is not news. At best, you are creating an echo chamber for like-minded people to enter and feel comforted. At worst, you are treating this important issues with the same intelligence as birtherism.

People who work tirelessly to properly advocate for things like health care reform accept that they have a challenging case to make, that making that case is hard work, and that the case is best made when you are operating within the constraints of objective reality.

Cardinale would do himself a lot of good if he spent some time reflecting on the origin of the phrase "reality-based community." In the meantime, advocates of universal health care and the like will have to note that citing the Atlanta Progressive News is going to undermine their efforts.

JTG 02/16/10 - Deja Blue

2010-02-16T10:23:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the tardiness of the post. Apparently the Gods of Winter and the Iowa Department of Transportation weren't in any hurry to have last week's Creighton performances recapped, as I was stuck in Sioux City until this afternoon.

------

This Jay-Talking Guy thing isn’t all that tough. I’ve been able to write the same column for weeks now.

Again, the Bluejays came into the week after a split, one win and one loss. But with both games for the week at home, the hope was that Creighton could get a winning streak going, gain a little momentum, put the .500 line farther behind them, and get ready for a run in the Valley tournament.

The week certainly started out in promising fashion. Indiana State was in town to start the week, and Creighton had an opportunity to pay the Sycamores back for handing CU their opening loss in the conference season. The Bluejays took care of business emphatically, beating Indiana State 65-52 in a game that probably wasn’t even as close as the score would indicate.

At the start of the game, Creighton was a little outside-shot-happy, putting up three point attempts on 19 of their first 31 shots. Given that they only made five, it appeared that a re-thinking of the strategy was in order, even though Creighton had built a fairly comfortable lead.

In the second half, though, the Bluejays went inside to Kenny Lawson, Jr., who got his first double-double of the season. The fact that Indiana State was down to eight players due to injury coming into the game made a punishing inside strategy work as well.

So, Creighton avoided a Sycamore sweep, and had a chance to put a winning streak together and drag themselves up the standings as the Valley conference tournament nears. Another home game, against 17-8 Illinois State, would be a good test for how far Creighton has come throughout the conference season.

Illinois State 67, Creighton 63.

It’s not just the loss, although CU dropping to fourth in the conference is certainly problematic. It’s the staggering similarity of the loss that makes it so disturbing.

The first half was a back-and-forth affair, which boded well for Creighton. The Bluejays took a 53-50 lead with just over eight minutes to play, and looked poised to pull away and get some real forward momentum moving towards March.

Illinois State had other ideas. Creighton only scored one field goal the rest of the game, from a combination of bad shot selection and a lack of confidence that is inevitable from the arc of the season. Still, impressively enough, Creighton’s free throw shooting left them within striking distance as the contest came to a close.

Osiris Eldridge, Illinois State’s talisman (who can’t graduate soon enough, if you ask me) missed a second free throw attempt leaving Creighton two points down with 15 seconds left to play. The stage was set. If Creighton could even tie the game, the Qwest Center crowd was waiting to explode and give the Bluejays the lift they needed to win in overtime. And if Creighton could hit a buzzer-beating winner against the Redbirds, it’s hard to measure what that could do for the Bluejays’ confidence level.

Unfortunately, we’ll never know. The Bluejays got stuck in the corner after Kaleb Korver turned down a decent three-point look, and the ball went off Kenny Lawson’s leg out of bounds.

Yep, an unforced turnover on the final possession when Creighton had a shot to win the game. If you’re having flashbacks about Michigan, welcome to the club. At least we know the team is able to make up for the absence of suspended P’Allen Stinnett in one category.

So, Creighton is back to where they started, a .500 club (13-13) and one game over the Mendoza line (8-7) in Valley play. Currently, the Bluejays sit in fourth place in the Valley, tied with Bradley. Unfortunately, the road for the week ahead is a little bumpier. The Bluejays head to Cedar Falls on Tuesday to play league-leading Northern Iowa, then come home on Saturday for their BracketBuster game against Loyola of Chicago. For those of you looking for the BracketBuster game on ESPN, keep looking. ESPN has decided that this year’s Bluejay squad isn’t ready for television.

That’s understandable, I suppose. After all, it feels like Creighton has been in re-runs for about a month now.

JTG 02/08/10 - New 'Jays, same as the old 'Jays?

2010-02-08T08:41:00.000-08:00

They’re killing us, I tells ya. They’re just killing us.

The first of last week’s two games started off so well. The Bluejays came home against Evansville and, after struggling a little, pulled away for a convincing 84-71 win. In the win against the Aces, Creighton shot 66.7 percent from the floor.

No, that’s not a typo. 66.7 percent, a school record. Against anyone, that’s an impressive performance. Heck, in the gym by yourself practicing, that’s an impressive performance.

Now, admittedly, playing Evansville isn’t that far off from practicing in the gym by yourself. Evansville is 0-12 in Valley play, meaning my pick-up hoops squad has as many conference wins as the Purple Aces. Even so, given Creighton’s struggles from the field, a hot shooting night like that had to feel good.

It all looked so promising. Creighton had five players score in double digits. Josh Jones, filling in for suspended P’Allen Stinnett, had a career-high 14 points and looked to be rounding into form to help fill Stinnett’s role as a scorer. Ethan Wragge started to look like the three-point wizard the Bluejays need to keep up with the better teams in the league.

So, Creighton gets a convincing performance at home, shakes their shooting blues, and gets above the Mendoza line with their overall record. We wondered here if the win at Evansville was a turning point earlier in the season, so could it be that a convincing win over the Aces might be another turning point?

Um, not so much. Creighton went to Springfield and lost 70-52 to Missouri State, never leading in the contest. Well, allegedly they went to Springfield. Given the performance, it’s not entirely clear that Creighton ever got off the bus.

To steal a line from other outlets, it’s now clear that Creighton has had so many turning points this year that they’ve come right back to where they started.

It’s really hard to overstate how comprehensively trounced the Bluejays got by the Bears. They never led. They fell behind 25-11 (sound familiar to a certain game in Des Moines?) They shot under 40 percent for the game, close to thirty percentage points worse than their performance against Evansville. The Bluejays were 4-21 from three point range and 10-17 from the free throw line.

When the best you can find in the game recap is Creighton’s high-water mark of “trimming” Missouri State’s lead to 60-43, you know the game has gone poorly.

And it’s not like Creighton was playing a national power. Missouri State’s win bumped the Bears’ record to 16-8, and 6-7 in the Valley. Amazingly, Creighton is still ahead of Missouri State in the Valley standings.

Sure, there’s some bright spots. Jones got into double-digits in scoring again. Wragge managed to hit a three-pointer to keep an 11-game streak going. Kenny Lawson, Jr., had 15 points. But, once again, you saw a Creighton team that was tentative at the start of a road game, got behind early, panicked, and collapsed.

So, meet the new Bluejays, same as the old Bluejays. Creighton is back at .500 overall with a 12-12 record, 7-6 in Valley play. The Bluejays have two home games coming up this week, against Indiana State and Illinois State. The fact that the games are at home should give Creighton fans some hope, and a two-game winning streak would be a nice feeling.

But, remember, we’ve talked all season about how everything boils down to Creighton’s performance in the Valley tournament. Last I checked, the Valley tournament is in St. Louis, not in Omaha. Yes, the games this week are important. But until we see this Creighton team lace up their road shoes and have some success, there’s no reason to expect a different result at Arch Madness from what we’ve seen so far.

Why bipartisanship can't work

2010-02-01T12:01:00.000-08:00

Really interesting article by James Fallows of The Atlantic (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/why_bipartisanship_cant_work.php), explaining why bipartisanship is impossible when one of the "partisans" you're trying to be "bi" with (sorry for the double entendre) refuses to participate in the process. With the Republican Party's committment to opposing everything coming from the Democrats, with the express purpose of doing so to gain electoral advantage, the whole concept of bipartisanship (or even governance) collapses.

I've heard the arguments about why you don't make an opponent actually filibuster (you don't give your opponent the stage unfiltered), but I don't find it persuasive. If the Democrats force the GOP to actually filibuster stuff, then you get to make them look like the obstructionists they are. Let's face it, the strategy the Democrats are currently following ain't exactly lighting up the scoreboard, is it?

------

I got this note from someone with many decades' experience in national politics, about a discussion between two Congressmen over details of the stimulus bill:

"GOP member: 'I'd like this in the bill.'

"Dem member response: 'If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?'

"GOP member: 'You know I can't vote for the bill.'

"Dem member: 'Then why should we put it in the bill?'

"I witnessed this myself."

I wrote back saying, "Great story!" and got the response I quote below and after the jump. It is worth reading because its argument has the valuable quality of being obvious -- once it is pointed out. The emphasis is mine rather than in the original; it is to highlight a basic structural reality that has escaped most recent analysis of the "bipartisanship" challenge.

"BTW, that exchange I quoted is not really a great story. It is a basic story, fundamental to legislation -- a sort of 'duh!' moment -- and to the US Congressional system, and to the key difference between our system and a parliamentary system when it comes to bipartisanship. I'm astonished every pundit doesn't already get it, but many either don't or seem willfully to ignore it.

"In our system, if the minority party can create and enforce party discipline (which has never really been done before, but which the GOP has now accomplished), then OF COURSE there can be no 'bipartisanship' on major legislative matters, in the sense of (1) the minority adding provisions to legislation as the majority compromises with them, and (2) at least some minority party members then voting with the majority.

"In a parliamentary system, the minority party is not involved in helping write or voting for major legislation either. If you think about it, and as that exchange I quoted shows, that sort of 'bipartisanship' really can't happen in a parliamentary system on issues where the minority party has the power to tell its members to boycott the majority's major bills on final passage.

"Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it, even if (as is typically the case) a few majority party members defect and most minority party members don't join. Bipartisanship consists of getting ENOUGH members of the minority party to join the (incomplete) majority in voting for major legislation. It can't happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation. And that can happen only if the minority party has the ability to discipline its ranks so that none join the majority, which is the unprecedented situation we've got in Congress today.

"The way parliamentary parties maintain their discipline is straightforward. No candidate can run for office using the party label unless the party bestows that label upon him or her. And usually, the party itself and not the candidate raises and controls all the campaign funds. As every political scientist knows, the fact that in the U.S. any candidate can pick his or her own party label without needing anyone else's approval, and can also raise his or her own campaign funds, is why there cannot be and never really has been any sustained party discipline before -- even though it is a feature of parliamentary systems.

"The GOP now maintains party discipline by the equivalent of a parliamentary party's tools: The GOP can effectively deny a candidate the party label (by running a more conservative GOP candidate against him or her), and the GOP can also provide the needed funds to the candidate of the party's choice. And every GOP member of Congress knows it. (Snowe and Collins may be immune, but that's about it.)

"I've missed almost all the punditry this past week... but what I've seen seems almost like a lot of misleading fluff designed to fill the void that should follow an understanding of the foregoing, at least on the subject of 'why no bipartisanship?' There's really nothing more to be said about "why no bipartisanship," once one recognizes the GOP party discipline. On this issue, it's absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise). It's doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections. Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again...

"Ironically, the one thing that might lubricate some bipartisanship -- earmarks, or their functional equivalent in specific amendments of general policy -- is becoming unavailable just when needed, and when it might help. After the exchange I quoted (and observed), a Dem could run against that GOP incumbent by pointing out that the GOP opponent lost X or Y or Z project or policy benefit for his or her district or state by insisting on voting down the line with the GOP. 'Put his party above his constituents,' might be the charge, or 'Put Michael Steele above you and me.' But so far, the Dems don't seem to have cottoned onto this. They could go into the 2010 elections not just challenging the obstructionists in the GOP, but showing the electorate what the price of obstruction has been for real people back home."

As I have pointed out a time or two or a thousand, the structural failures of American government are the country's main problem right now. In this installment, we see that the US now has the drawbacks of a parliamentary system -- absolute party-line voting by the opposition, for instance -- without any of the advantages, from comparable solidarity among the governing party to the principle of "majority rules." If Democrats could find a way to talk about structural issues -- if everyone can find a way to talk about them -- that would be at least a step. And the Dems could talk about the simple impossibility of governing when the opposition is committed to "No" as a bloc.

JTG 01/31/10 - Life After P

2010-01-31T18:51:00.000-08:00

What do the Bluejays look like after the suspension of junior guard P'Allen Stinnett? Only slightly better than the Bluejays before said suspension.

Let's start with the good. In their first game after Stinnett's suspension, Creighton notched their first road conference win of the season over Bradley, 73-68. While it wasn't a work of art, and needed the Braves to have an uncharacteristically cold shooting night at home, a win is a win, especially on the road. The victory was made sweeter when Justin Carter made two free throws to seal the win. Sure, that doesn't sound too dramatic, but with Creighton's struggles at the charity stripe getting some clutch free throws on the road can do nothing but enhance the team's confidence.

So, great news. Creighton clears the decks of a player who seemed to be a significant negative influence on the team. They go on the road, to play a solid mid-table conference opponent, and find the guts to hold on and win. Is this it? Is this the turning point that can salvage the most disappointing and underachieving season in Dana Altman's CU career?

Drake 79, Creighton 74.

But that's not really the score that tells the story. Of far greater concern was Drake 22, Creighton 9. That was the score about four minutes into the game. And, although CU did manage to dig themselves out of the hole they dug to tie the score with nine minutes left to go, the energy they had to put into the comeback showed in their lack of finish at the end.

The end of the game, as well, was hauntingly familiar for Creighton fans. Missed free throws. Crucial turnovers. Defensive lapses. Haven't we read this story somewhere before.

So, Creighton is now 11-11 and 6-5 in Valley play. Where do we go from here?

First of all, it should at least be observed that Creighton was also playing without starting guard Darryl Ashford, who was at a funeral. Kenny Lawson, who has been at the heart of a lot of Creighton's all-too-infrequent wins, also got himself into foul trouble and ended up far less of a factor than he had been previously.

The Bluejays did put together an impressive comeback after digging themselves such a hole early in the first half. To get the game all the way back to a tie shows quite a bit of fire and resilience. But ultimately Creighton paid for their lack of ability to finish, which Altman spent quite a bit of time discussing in his post-game press conference.

Even though Stinnett had been relegated to a bench role as the season wore on, though, there is a period of adjustment that Creighton will have to go through. While Altman finally had enough of Stinnett's immaturity, Stinnett's athleticism and playmaking ability on the court is still unmatched amongst the current Bluejay roster. Not having that scoring threat to call on when trying to make a comeback on the road in conference play is a new experience, and Creighton wasn't up to the test Saturday night.

The Bluejays get Evansville at home on Wednesday, then travel to Missouri State on Saturday. The Purple Aces look to be a game Creighton should expect to win, particularly at the Qwest Center. Missouri State should still be a winnable game as well, particularly if the team can get more comfortable with the post-Stinnett rotation.

Let's take a quick look ahead at the remaining schedule, with at least a stab in the dark as to the result: Evansville (W), at Missouri State (W), Indiana State (W), Illinois State (L), at Northern Iowa (L), at Southern Illinois (W), Bradley (W).

If I'm right, that puts Creighton at 16-13, and 11-7 in Valley play. That should be good enough for at least a first round bye in the Valley tournament - which, as we've discussed since Thanksgiving, is where the Bluejays only legitimate hope for an NCAA berth realistically lies.

JTG 01/25/10 - GTFO, P

2010-01-26T05:52:00.000-08:00

Procrastination has its’ benefits. My plan was to get all caught up on Creighton’s travails over the last two weeks over the weekend, after the Missouri State game. A strong desire to get a little FIFA 10 in on my Xbox overcame me, however, and the article got put off until Monday night.

Well, thank you FIFA 10.

Monday afternoon, head coach Dana Altman confirmed that he indefinitely suspended junior guard P’Allen Stinnett. The reasons for the suspension were not announced, but the trouble had been brewing for some time. Stinnett had struggled with disciplinary issues throughout his Creighton career, and had lost his starting job.

In public, anyway, Stinnett’s behavior came to a head towards the end of the Missouri State game on Sunday. Stinnett received a technical foul, his second of the season and ninth (!) as a Bluejay, in the second half after arguing a foul call. Altman, a stickler for on-court discipline who is famous for telling his players that he’s the only one allowed to get a technical, could not have been pleased.

But, obviously, there’s more to the story than that. Earlier in the season, Stinnett got himself into trouble by taking a shot a Creighton’s fans on his Facebook page. He’s been in and out of Altman’s doghouse throughout his Creighton career for antics on and off the court and practice. And, most importantly, his play has been maddeningly inconsistent.

Sure, he’s talented. He’s probably the most dangerous scorer Creighton has – or, I guess, had – on the roster. But he’s also the guy you expect to make the clutch turnover at the end of a close game. He’s the guy who pouts after Booker Woodfox hits one of the biggest shots of the year because he didn’t get the ball. He’s the guy who poses for the camera after a dunk at the end of the Missouri State game – when Creighton was losing and a little defense might have been in order.

It’s hard not to draw comparison to Terrell Taylor, a supremely talented but self-centered talent Creighton had a few years ago. Much like Stinnett, Taylor clashed with the team-first ethic preached by Altman and flamed out of the program early.

Bluejay fans who like to talk about “old school” and “overachievers” welcomed Stinnett’s suspension, thinking the team will improve now that Stinnett’s distraction has been removed. In the long run, there may be some truth to that, but no Bluejay fan should kid themselves as to the short-term effect of Stinnett’s departure.

Stinnett was Creighton’s second-leading scorer, was second in assists, and led the team in steals (of course, he also led the team in turnovers). He was an offensive threat that opposing teams had to plan for. Altman has said that freshman Josh Jones will likely see the most minutes as a result of Stinnett’s departure, but that all of the wing players on CU’s roster would have to pick up the slack left behind. That’s a lot to ask a freshman, and for a team that has been walking such a razor’s edge in terms of wins and losses, it’s tough to see how Stinnett’s departure doesn’t add to Creighton’s struggles in the short term.

Oh, by the way, there’s been some games played since last we met. In the interim, Creighton has fallen into a somewhat-disturbing pattern. They’ve played tough, hard-nosed games at home, winning exciting games against Drake (73-69), Southern Illinois (71-69), Wichita State (57-56), and Missouri State (76-72). Unfortunately, they’ve also been dreadfully flat on the road, losing to Wichita State (58-70) and Illinois State (62-71), in games that weren’t as close as the scores would indicate.

There are definite signs of hope, particularly that Creighton hit their last 19 free throws to close out the win over Missouri State. But, as of yet, Creighton has not shown an ability to take their show on the road, getting their only conference road win against Evansville.

Now there’s a new factor in the equation, however. What will Stinnett’s departure do to the mentality of this team? Will the removal of a distraction help the rest of the team come together and salt away the road wins that have escaped them? Or will the loss of a powerful offensive threat be the final millstone that sinks the Bluejays season?

We’re about to find out. Creighton sits at 10-10 overall, and 5-4 in the Valley. They’re stuck in a four-team logjam for third place in the conference. This week they have two road games, against Bradley and Drake. We’ve said since November that this team was playing for the conference championship in St. Louis, but now the Bluejays only have nine games to figure out their identity post-Stinnett.

LTG 01/24/10 - Corporations are people, too!

2010-01-24T09:48:00.000-08:00

Last week, the Supreme Court decided that Congress could not block or limit corporations from making political donations. With the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court has abandoned decades of rules about how we run elections, and dramatically shifted how the First Amendment applies to corporations.

The short-term result of the decision will be a Wild West of corporate donations for the November elections. Corporations will be free to promise whatever sum they wish to the politicians who will take positions to help that corporation on the huge issues before them, such as health care reform, bank regulation, and climate change regulation. They will be able to offer the converse, as well – to offer those huge sums to any challenger to a politician who takes a position contrary to that corporation’s interests.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by the group of judges we can now call the Conservative Four – Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and my pal Tony Scalia. (Hey, if the right-wing can talk about scary “rogue judges” roaming the countryside legislating from the bench, I can create a supervillain group of judges. Just, please, don’t let Tony near a spandex costume.) Kennedy’s opinion was draped in the First Amendment, uttering dire warnings about the power of the government to imprison citizens for expressing their thoughts.

Gentle readers, no one is a more passionate defender of the First Amendment than your Law-Talking Guy. So take it from me when I tell you that Kennedy’s interpretation of the First Amendment is hogwash.

The First Amendment is designed to make sure that people have a right to speak freely. But in Kennedy’s opinion, a corporation should be treated exactly the same as a person, and given those exact same rights. In law, a corporation is treated like a person, meaning a corporation can sign a contract, bring a lawsuit, or be sued like a person. It’s called a “legal fiction,” and is helpful in allowing a corporation to do business.

But Kennedy takes that legal fiction and insists on granting it the full panoply of First Amendment rights that a real person would have. Never mind the fact that all of the people that make up that corporation already have their First Amendment rights. It’s unclear if the Conservative Four would extend this corporate personhood to granting them the Constitutional right to vote or sit on juries, but that may be coming as well.

The results of the decision are bad enough. But what is even more offensive is the rank hypocrisy demonstrated by the Conservative Four. Sherman, set the WayBack Machine for 2005. John Roberts sat before Congress as President George W. Bush’s appointee to replace William Rehnquist as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts decried the concept of “judicial activism,” saying that judges should merely be umpires calling balls and strikes and not inserting themselves into decisions about policy.

“If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more,” Roberts wrote and was hailed by conservative pundits as a model judge who would not be a “rogue judge” who would “legislate from the bench.”

Now, let’s go back to the present. In Citizens United, the issue before the Court was whether election rules prohibited the distribution of a movie that was clearly designed to be a political attack on a candidate. Almost every Court observer expected a limited ruling, designed to give some nuance as to how the laws Congress passed would be treated in this specific situation.

Nuance, schmuance. The Conservative Four got Kennedy on board and used Citizens United to completely blow up Congressional rules governing campaign finance, imperil campaign finance laws in almost half the states in the union, and dramatically expand the “legal fiction” of personhood given to corporations. This wasn’t judges being umpires. It was judges ‘roiding up like Mark McGwire and pounding decades of precedent into the right field bleachers.

Doesn’t a change in law that dramatic sound like judicial activism? Isn’t throwing out an act of Congress legislating from the bench and overturning the will of the people? If nothing else, what we learn from this decision is that the conservative “judicial activist” complaint is even more than hypocrisy. It is an bald-faced lie. Conservatives are totally cool with what they call judicial activism – so long as the activism gets them a result they like.

It is likely that soon President Barack Obama will have another Supreme Court vacancy to fill. If that’s the case, you can bet that conservative groups – fueled by now-unrestricted corporate giving thanks to the Conservative Four – will be running attack ads on the hour darkly warning you about how Obama’s nominee is a “judicial activist” who will “overturn the will of the people” and “legislate from the bench.”

Just remember when you hear it the judicial activism from the Conservative Four that made it all possible.

LTG 01/04/10 - Cap'n Pirate walks the plank

2010-01-04T08:19:00.000-08:00

Am I cheap enough to break out a “forced to walk the plank” reference for a lead? You bet I am.

Last week, Texas Tech fired head football coach Mike Leach. Leach, an attorney, is an unconventional and at times controversial figure who earned the “Captain Pirate” nickname for his “Air Raid” style of offense. He’s even been featured on a magazine cover wearing an eye patch.

But it wasn’t the theatrics that got him into trouble. Instead, Leach was accused of forcing one of his players to stand in a darkened closet for hours at a time without being able to sit down after he was injured. Leach claimed that he was simply following his trainer’s advice after the player suffered a concussion.

The player claims that Leach was punishing him for disagreements they had in the past. And when the player is Adam James, son of ESPN’s college football analyst Craig James, you understand why the story gets momentum quickly.

But there’s more to the story than just the celebrity’s kid. As the story unfolded, the Texas Tech administration claimed they went to Leach in an attempt to investigate the matter further. According to the administration, Leach refused to cooperate in the investigation, resulting in Leach’s firing.

Now, you’ll notice that I said “according to” a number of times in the previous paragraph. Remember, Cap’n Pirate is an attorney as well as a football coach, and it appears he’s going to have quite a bit of time on his hands in the next few months. Rest assured there will be a number of lawsuits coming out of this escapade, and I would prefer to avoid being named in one.

But, back to the story. The Law-Talking Guy angle deals with how Texas Tech fired Leach. The school is claiming that Leach’s insubordination in refusing to comply with the investigation meant that the school could fire Leach “for cause.” The phrase “for cause” is lawyer for “and we don’t have to pay him any more money.”

Leach and Texas Tech had a contract, a binding agreement between the parties. Leach agreed to coach the Texas Tech football team for a number of years, and the university agreed to pay him. That contract would mean that if Texas Tech got tired of Cap’n Pirate’s act and wanted him to walk the plank early, the university would still have to shell out all the doubloons they promised him in the contract.

But, if they can prove that Leach broke some of the contract’s rules (the lawyer’s term would be “materially breached” the contract), then it’s likely there is a provision in the contract meaning the university can end the agreement without having to fork over one more penny to Leach.

So, there’s quite a bit of money involved in the university’s decision to claim Leach’s firing was “for cause.” And a lot of money, combined with an angry and vindictive Cap’n Pirate, means that the courts in Lubbock should be busy for quite a while.

While it’s not part of the allegations that gave rise to the immediate issue, it’s important to know a little history of the situation to understand how we got here. Last year, thanks to wide receiver Michael Crabtree, Texas Tech had a phenomenal season. They went 11-1, and were only a conference tiebreaker rule away from playing for a national championship.

Naturally, Leach got a lot of notoriety from his team’s success, and openly flirted with a number of other schools in an attempt to parlay his success into more money. Ultimately, he was successful, getting a long-term extension and a pay hike before this season started.

But the contract negotiations were pretty bare-knuckled, and left a lot of Texas Tech’s top brass feeling pretty used by their flamboyant football coach. Those kinds of feelings in the hearts of the west Texas powerful linger, and it’s likely that they were looking for a way to repay Cap’n Pirate for his antics. And so, when James’ allegations came forth, and Leach allegedly told the administration to pound sand when they tried to investigate, the administration had the perfect opportunity to bring out the knives and save the university some money in the process.

As a Nebraska fan, I can’t say I’m sorry to see Leach go. Under Cap’n Pirate, Texas Tech was 4-0 against NU, including an ugly 70-10 drubbing in Bill Callahan’s first year. Leach’s departure may very well make Nebraska’s life in the Big XII a little easier.

What it will definitely do is make for entertaining theater as Leach fires his legal broadsides into James and Texas Tech.

JTG 01/04/10 - Purple Ace turning point?

2010-01-04T08:16:00.000-08:00

Currently: 6-8 overall, 1-2 in Missouri Valley competiton.

Is this it? Is this the win that gets Creighton out of this disastrous rut? Is a defeat of the Purple Aces the turning point?

Let’s review the action since last we met, first. After suffering one of the most disastrous non-conference schedules in Dana Altman’s tenure, Creighton had the daunting task of opening conference play against Northern Iowa, the consensus selection to win the league.

However, CU got the Panthers at home, and an upset over the favorites had the potential to jumpstart Creighton’s second season. Things didn’t start out so well, with the Bluejays falling behind 13-2. However, Creighton fought its’ way back and took the lead with under 12 minutes to play.

The Bluejays then found themselves in a familiar position. They had the lead in the second half, with a chance to close out a quality opponent and get a desperately needed victory. In the non-conference season, this is where Creighton had been marred with poor defensive play, terrible free throw shooting, and an inability to get a quality shot in the final minute of the game. What happened against UNI?

Creighton had poor defensive play, terrible free throw shooting, and was unable to get a quality shot in the final minute of the game.

It is a little eerie how all of Creighton’s losses tend to follow the same script. I’ve wondered (and rest assured, have not been alone in wondering) whether the Bluejays would internalize those losses and have them become self-fulfilling prophecies. It’s difficult to say how much of Creighton’s fade against UNI was the Panthers’ toughness and athletic ability and how much was Creighton’s mental issues.

Unfortunately, we got a chance to have a similar experiment in the following game, at Indiana State. Any time Creighton plays against the Sycamores, coached by former Creighton assistant coach Kevin McKenna, the Bluejays struggle. In this case, the struggle went all the way to dropping their second Valley conference game.

At least in this game, the Bluejays didn’t give a lead up in the second half. They did get the score tied, but Indiana State never trailed Creighton. Free throw problems again plagued Creighton, shooting only 13-20 against Indiana State. What might be more disturbing, however, is Creighton’s 3-19 performance in three-point shots. Yes, this year’s Bluejay squad is far less reliant on outside shooting than teams in years past. However, 3-19 is still 3-19, and combining that with poor free throw shooting makes it very difficult to win conference games.

The Bluejays, however, were able to right the ship in Evansville, getting their first conference win and their first road win of the season against the Purple Aces. At this point, the fact that Evansville was 6-6 going into the game without a conference win is almost irrelevant. Creighton needed the feeling of a road win, any road win, and they got a tough one against Evansville.

Yes, a tough one. Creighton gave away a double-digit second half lead to fall behind 58-56 with under eight minutes left. At that point, you have to think that every Creighton player had flashbacks of Michigan. And George Mason. And New Mexico. And Northern Iowa. And … well, you get the picture.

But Creighton finally flipped the script in their favor. The Bluejays got the lead back and played stifling defense to end the game, holding Evansville to just one basket in the last 3:15 of the game. Finally – finally – Creighton was able to get some positive reinforcement from the hard work they put into a game.

So, is that enough? Is a win over 6-6 Evansville a turning point?

If nothing else, it stops the rot and gives the Bluejays at least a little confidence that they can close out a team. Although it says a lot about how the season has unraveled that a win over Evansville seems like water in the desert, the fact is that the Bluejays have been pretty parched lately.

There have been plenty of individual standouts, most notably Kenny Lawson, who have begun to offer consistent contributions. That’s the biggest positive, apart from the win, to take out of the week’s results. As we’ve discussed since Orlando, Creighton’s NCAA aspirations hinge on their performance in the Missouri Valley conference tournament in March. So, once again, even the conference schedule is a bit of a pre-season in terms of tournament hopes.

If that’s the case, the win over Evansville is an important step forward. It’s a small step, to be sure, but a necessary one if Creighton hopes to keep their NCAA dreams alive. The Bluejays face a home contest against Drake and a road game against Wichita State in the upcoming week. A sweep of those games and the Bluejays have some nice momentum going forward.

NU Re-View: Nebraska 33, Arizona 0

2009-12-30T20:56:00.001-08:00

THE GOOD ...
- DEFENSIVE DOMINANCE: Sure, it's stating the obvious, but the Blackshirts absolutely snuffed out any hope Arizona had of competing in the game. To pitch a shutout - the first in Holiday Bowl history and in 'Husker bowl history - is a real testament to how far Bo Pelini has brought the defense since NU lost 65-51 in Bill Callahan's last game.
- UN-TURTLING: Hey, how about that! Open up the playbook a little bit, get a wildcat formation running, get a playmaker like Niles Paul in space, and Nebraska can put up yardage against a pretty solid defensive team. An offensive performance like that not only gives NU confidence going into next year, but also makes NU a much easier sell to offensive recruits. Keep an eye on NU's signings from now until signing day in February. If the 'Huskers land some offensive stars, you can thank that performance in many ways for closing the deal.
- ALEX MVP: It's probably clear by now that I have a bit of a sports crush on Alex Henery, but he did his thing again. He was perfect on field goals (including an almost-effortless 50-yard strike), and killed two more punts inside the UA 10 yard line. Three of the most beautiful words for a 'Husker fan looking towards the 2010 campaign are "junior Alex Henery."

THE BAD ...
- OH, NOW YOU RUN THE WILDCAT!: Sure, it was a ton of fun to watch NU humiliate Arizona in the San Diego rain (it rains in San Diego? Who knew?). But it's a little bittersweet to see NU get that kind of offensive production and show that kind of creativity and wonder what might have been against Texas in the Big XII championship. Cast your mind back towards the end of that game, when a Paul return sets NU up with first down at the Texas 10. Think one of those Burkhead wildcat runs might have been a little more effective than what NU threw at the Longhorns? Just saying ...
- VERY GREEN: True to his word, Pelini gave freshman QB Cody Green a series early in the game. In a word, yeeesh. Every practice report says that Green is improving and playing well. That's sure not translating to his performance when the spotlight is on. Green was very fortunate not to throw a pick-six and potentially give Arizona a little life. He's very young, and hasn't had an opportunity to work a lot with the first team. But, good Lord, it looks like he's got a long way to go before he's going to compete for playing time.
- HELU, GOODBYE: I've also made no secret about my sports crush on Roy Helu, but it became obvious as the game wore on that Rex Burhkead is the starting tailback going into next season. Things can change a lot over an offseason, and maybe this will be a motivator for Helu, but Burkhead looks like he fits NU's new offensive vision a lot more than Helu does.

... AND THE BEGINNING OF THE OVEREXCITEMENT.
Please, don't think I'm trying to be a wet blanket. But ESPN's crew calling the game was in a great hurry to anoint NU as a top-10 team going into next year. I'm all for giving Nebraska some credit - quite honestly, they've been too easily written off since their throttling by Miami in the Rose Bowl in 2001. And while this game certainly was encouraging, I think it might be wise to avoid carving NU's name in any 2010 trophies just yet. Wise, but unlikely. After this performance, 'Husker fans will be dreaming about national titles in the coming year.

THE BIG PICTURE.
Usually, coaches are reserved and try to tamp down expectations. Leave it to Pelini to be contrarian. In the rain, while giving praise to his staff and his players, he finished his speech to the 'Husker faithful with the following:

"Nebraska's back, and we're here to stay."

Cue the t-shirt printing machine. Holy cats, this is a man who is confident in his team coming back. He's already talked about NU being "five times" better next year than this year. Is this bravado? Coach-speak trying to sell recruits? An attempt to raise the bar for his guys in the offseason?

Beats me. I think defensively, though, he's got a lot of reason to be confident. Sure, big Mr. Suh will be gone (but please, please, please, not to the St. Louis Rams), but the area of the defense I have been most impressed with is the growth of the secondary. They're still going to be very good, and I am really interested to see how the defensive line looks with Baker Steinkuhler plugging in Suh's spot. My guess is that you'll see the ends, particularly Pierre Allen, be the stars of the show next year.

It's the offense that's the question. Zac Lee played his best "big" game of his career, hands down. If we get THAT Lee for all 12 games next year, then the offense should be in good shape. It does look like Shawn Watson and Pelini have come to a detente about what the offense should look like, which will make all the difference in the world. Keep in mind, this is a team that had to completely reinvent itself halfway through the season.

But it's still a team with, at best, a question mark at quarterback, one playmaker at wide receiver, and spotty offensive line play. Yes, I'm just as excited as everyone else about the bowl win. But lets not kid ourselves, there's a lot of work for Pelini and Co. to do between now and August 2010 before Nebraska can be thought of as legitimate conference or national title contenders.

I will throw a little gas on the "NU in 2010" fire by looking at the schedule. Good gravy, that's a nicer looking slate than 2009. Only three road tests of note (Washington, Oklahoma State, and Texas A&M), with Texas, Kansas, and Missouri at home. If NU is going to make a run, it's not a terrible schedule for it.

What I want to leave you with, though, is a look back to marvel at where NU has come. Two years ago, Nebraska ended it's season by scoring 51 points in Boulder - and losing by two touchdowns. NU gave up 76 points to Kansas - KANSAS, fer cryin' out loud! After that sad season ended, did anyone realistically think that two years later you'd be hearing Craig James talking about NU as a sure-fire pre-season top 10 team?

Heck, just go back to October of 2009. This is the same Nebraska team that lost - at home - to Iowa State. Let me say that again to let it sink in. The same team that lost at home to Iowa freaking State just throttled a team that was three seconds away from the Pac-10 title. It's been a heck of a ride.

Bask in the glow of this one through the haze of basketball season (because, Lord knows, it ain't like Creighton is going to do much to keep you warm). I have to say, I think Mr. Pelini is right on this one. I'll need to see more before I'm ready to start talking trophies, but I think Nebraska is definitely back as a player on the national college football landscape.

Is it August yet?

GBR, baby.

JTG 12/23/09 - Friend me!

2009-12-23T05:43:00.000-08:00

I have to say, I'm disappointed P'Allen Stinnett hasn't responded to my friend request on Facebook. He's definitely worth following if you want to keep things interesting.

Since last we convened, Creighton has played three games, won two, lost one, and caused at least one Jay-Talking Guy to go through a half-bottle of antacids. The Bluejays now sit at 5-6 preparing to enter conference play.

The first game in the series was a home contest against Savannah State. While the Bluejays did get a 77-62 win, there were still signs of trouble. Creighton roared out to a 14-2 and 23-8 lead early, and appeared to believe the game won at that point. Savannah State continued to come at the Bluejays, cutting the lead to single digits in the second half. Creighton held on to win comfortably, but not convincingly.

Was that a big deal? Were the Bluejays looking ahead to their trip to New Mexico? Possibly. But Creighton has suffered a number of heartbreaking losses (more on that to come), and what you want to see as a Bluejay fan is a sharper mentality to close out these tough games and get wins. Fiddling around and letting a team like Savannah State stay in the game in the second half does not bode well for the development of that mentality.

Then, the trip to The Pit. Unbeaten and nationally ranked New Mexico faced Creighton, in the Bluejays last opportunity to exorcise the demons of Orlando. And it all started so well. Creighton played stifling defense and ended the first half with a 12-point lead. Could this be the breakthrough, the game that could catapult the Bluejays in conference play?

Not so much. New Mexico started the second half with a 7-1 run, which got the crowd back in to the game. Creighton played gamely and fought throughout the second half, but New Mexico took the lead as time wound down. Creighton had the ball in a one-possession game with an opportunity to seize the lead and momentum. But, in a scene that was all to reminiscent of Creighton's end-game performances throughout this season, they were lost offensively and turned the ball over without ever threatening to score. New Mexico pulled away and escaped with a 66-61 win.

The Bluejays came home and demolished Houston Baptist 85-56 at the Qwest. It's definitely a positive that Creighton blew out a team, but Houston Baptist was also rated dead last in Division I programs by realtimerpi.com. You never say no to a win, but it would have been an even bigger concern had Creighton struggled.

So, Creighton is 5-6 as the non-conference season ends. Where do we stand? There is a lot of raw talent on this team - more talent, I think, than any other team in the Valley. But that means nothing if it doesn't come together. With gut-wrenching road losses to Michigan, George Mason, and New Mexico, the question has to be raised about the team's mental state. That question was heightened when Stinnett slammed Creighton fans for questioning the team in a foul-mouthed Facebook rant.

You don't think he was talking about me, do you?

I really do think there is a ton of potential in this squad. Ethan Wragge is coming on as a real star, and Wayne Runnels is adding a physical presence to the team on defense and on the boards. Justin Carter is maturing into a leader, Stinnett can go off for 20 at any point, and Cavel Witter is making his presence felt. And, while 5-6 is incredibly disappointing, think about how close Creighton is to something else. A bounce here, a foul there, and Creighton wins those tight games they've lost. That puts them at 8-3 (and that's keeping the Iona loss on the books) with road wins against national powers along with a home win over a Nebraska team that keeps winning. That's a much difference scenario than what Creighton is looking at now.

As we've said many times before, everything Creighton does now is preparing for Arch Madness in St. Louis. But that might be liberating for the Bluejays. Everyone starts conference play at 0-0, so Creighton can look at a tough non-conference experience as a tune-up for the Valley. The talent is there, and if Dana Altman can focus that disappointment into sharp play on the court (and Creighton can break through and win one of those tough road games), then it could be a fun March for the Bluejays. Northern Iowa is up next at the Qwest, followed by a trip to Terre Haute to play Indiana State.

By the way, congratulations to Anthony Tolliver, who got called up to the Portland Trail Blazers. A-Train worked hard and had a phenomenal senior season in Omaha, and it's always good to see Creighton players get some time in the Association.

JTG 12/14/09 - The TWEET heard 'round the world

2009-12-15T10:06:00.000-08:00

It’s been a tough week for a Jaysker. I had to spend a week dealing with a phantom second on the clock in Cowboys Stadium, and now I have to deal with a phantom technical foul that helped seal the Bluejays’ fate against George Mason.

Let me set the table for you. After being behind at halftime, Creighton took solid control of their game against the Patriots, extending to a three-possession lead in the final minutes. George Mason put on a spirited comeback, including giving Creighton all kinds of fits with an aggressive full-court pressure, and cut the lead to 73-72 with 18 seconds left to play.

The Bluejays were on the wrong end of a blocking call at the defensive end, setting George Mason up for two free throws. Coach Dana Altman informed Missouri Valley conference official Brad Gaston of his disagreement with the decision.

TWEET!

A technical foul is called. Altman insists that his disagreement did not include any foul language, and nothing has surfaced to contradict Altman’s claim. Regardless, George Mason hit two free throws and took the lead. After a turnover, the Patriots extended their lead to 75-72 and Creighton did not score further.

Bluejay Nation, understandably, was incandescently angry with the technical foul. And yes, the referee has no business making that call unless there is a stone-cold, undeniable reason to blow the whistle. Gaston and the Valley owe the Bluejays in specific and basketball fans in general an explanation for the call.

But having said that, Creighton has no one to blame but themselves for their fourth loss in five games. CU had the game in hand and absolutely frittered the game away. Here’s just a few things that went wrong for the Bluejays in crunch time:

- Missed free throws: On more than one occasion, Creighton missed the front end of one-and-one shots that prevented them from opening up a bigger lead and pulling away from the Patriots. For the game, Creighton was only 10-18 from the charity stripe, mirroring the poor performance that dogged them in the Old Spice Classic.

- Offensive confusion: Even after everything that happened with the phantom technical foul, Creighton had the ball with 18 seconds and the ball. There was plenty of time to settle into an offensive set and get a good shot to win the game. Instead, the only way to describe the Bluejays’ attack was one of panic. CU ended up turning the ball over after Justin Carter fell over, with no Creighton player around.

- Lack of aggression: Does 18 free throw attempts seem like a low number? It might. But when you compare it to George Mason’s 44 attempts, you see how gargantuan the differential is. It’s fair to question the refereeing of the game (particularly after the TWEET heard around Bluejay Nation), but the fact is that Creighton settled for the perimeter for much of the game, while George Mason was more aggressive. Creighton’s 29 three-point basket attempts underlines the Bluejays’ satisfaction to remain outside the key.

Against Nebraska, Creighton was in a similar circumstance, with the lead late and needing to put a team away. At home, Creighton looked more comfortable and hit their free throws to grind out a win. On the road, just like in Orlando, the Bluejays collapsed at the end.

As harsh as it sounds, I don’t see how you avoid the conclusion that Creighton choked this game away. For much of the game, Creighton looked strong and athletic, and were the better team on the court. But when crunch time arrived, all that strength and athleticism crumbled.

In some ways, the debacle in Orlando makes the ramifications of this game less dire. We knew before the tip against George Mason that CU needed to win the Valley tournament to make the Big Dance, so the game against the Patriots really would have no effect on their post-season fate.

There were many positives to take from the game for Creighton, and hopefully Altman will be able to rally the troops. CU gets a mid-week softie against Savannah State at the Qwest, and then they go on the road to play New Mexico in The Pit on Saturday. Coming home, Creighton sits at 3-5 with 22 games remaining. That means, to keep their streak of 20-win seasons intact, Creighton can only lose at most seven games the rest of the season.

So the New Mexico game has meaning in part for the streak. But mostly, Creighton needs to get a win on the road against a legitimate (if not overpowering) opponent just for their confidence. Their first road conference game is New Years’ Day, against Indiana State and former Creighton assistant coach Kevin McKenna. It’s a daunting prospect, and we will find out in the next week if some leadership and maturity will emerge from this years’ Bluejay squad.

JTG 12/07/09 - Confessions of a Jaysker

2009-12-15T10:05:00.000-08:00

From the Omaha CityWeekly

------

CURRENTLY: 3-4, 0-0, unranked.

NEXT WEEK: December 12, at George Mason

It was a tough weekend to be a ‘Husker. But for a Jaysker, the weekend was just plain confusing.

For those of you who had WAY too much turkey on Thanksgiving and are now just waking up, you missed a heartbreaking and controversial end to the Big XII Championship game which saw Texas steal a glorious upset from Nebraska on the gridiron. The truly die-hard ‘Husker fans then dragged themselves off the mat after the burnt orange sucker punch they received and headed to the Qwest Center to see the intra-state basketball rivalry game between Creighton and Nebraska.

A Jaysker, for those not familiar with the term, is a person who is a fan of Nebraska football and Creighton basketball. Usually the term is made in derision, accompanied by words like “frontrunner” or “bandwagon jumper” or [snip – CityWeekly editorial staff]. As discussed in previous columns, I bear the name with pride, and never suffer from any cognitive dissonance as a result of being a Jaysker.

Well, almost never. While there’s no question that I’m rooting for Creighton to win, it’s a very complicated emotional response I have to Creighton-Nebraska games. I don’t wish any ill on NU’s basketball program – quite the opposite, I really like Doc Sadler as a coach and I hope Nebraska wins every game except against Creighton.

But there’s something primal about being a sports fan. And when “Hail Varsity” gets played by the NU band as Nebraska goes on a run against Creighton, I have to control the tribal urge to stand up and scream.

It would help if Creighton had a better fight song. I’m sorry, “The Blue and the White” just doesn’t cut it.

Creighton found themselves in an unusual position this year with regards to the Nebraska game. Usually, it’s Nebraska that’s looking at Creighton as a great opportunity to get a good win, while Creighton is just hoping not to stub their collective toe against a lesser foe. This year, Nebraska came to Omaha at 5-1 with a decent road win under their belt. Creighton, on the other hand, was limping home after their epic FAIL in their Orlando tournament, losing to Michigan, Xavier, and (yes, really) Iona.

This year, the game was much more important for Creighton than for Nebraska. And, to my pleasant surprise after the Orlando disaster, the Bluejays played like the game was important. Creighton gutted out a 67-61 win over Nebraska, improving their record to 3-4 on the season.

Yes, the win was very important. A loss to Nebraska would have put Creighton at 2-5, and taking a four-game losing streak on the road to George Mason. These aren’t the Patriots that made their magical run to the Final Four a few years ago, but I don’t think anyone was anxious to see the Bluejays’ staring a trip to Philadelphia in the face to avoid opening 2-6.

What is more encouraging, though, is the way that Creighton beat Nebraska. Usually Creighton, like most mid-major schools, is pegged as a lightweight team that needs to hit threes in order to succeed. On Saturday, the Bluejays dropped in only one three-pointer and still won.

To make up the difference, Creighton played solid defense, forcing Nebraska into 20 turnovers. Creighton out-rebounded Nebraska 31-25, and drew 32 free throws. More importantly, Creighton hit 12 straight free throws down the stretch, to put Nebraska away after the ‘Huskers had closed to within two with just over two minutes left in the game.

Kenny Lawson was Creighton’s player of the game, going 7-13 from the field, 11-12 from the free throw line, and getting 10 rebounds. Cavel Witter was the only other Bluejay scoring in double digits, getting 13 points off the bench.

Coming back from the Orlando debacle, coach Dana Altman almost could not have scripted a better result for the Bluejays. The game was far from perfect for CU – I’m sure Altman would have written the 15 Bluejay turnovers out of the script – but the way Creighton responded to adversity was what mattered. The Bluejays kept steady pressure on Nebraska for the final quarter of the game, did not turn the ball over, and sank their free throws when they matters to close out Nebraska.

hat grind-it-out, gut-check type of win was exactly what Creighton needed. It’s going to be the blueprint for how Creighton will be successful this season. This Bluejay squad has plenty of talent, but no transcendent player to take over a game night after night. The closest thing Creighton has to that type of player is P’Allen Stinnett, but he has not shown that ability this season to date.

So, Creighton will need to play the type of basketball that Altman’s teams are known for – tough, smart, high-pressure defense, and enough offense to get by. The performance in Orlando leaves Creighton’s chances of an at-large tournament bid perilously slim, so the Bluejays need to be preparing now for their run in Arch Madness to win the automatic bid. Performances like the one Creighton got against Nebraska are exactly how tournaments are won. The Bluejays now have to show they can repeat that performance, especially on the road.

JTG 11/30/09 - The Old Spice disaster

2009-12-15T10:03:00.000-08:00

No, this isn't about a bad high school prom experience. From the Omaha CityWeekly.

-------

It is the downside of getting an opportunity. If you finally get the chance to shine on the big stage, and you blow it, your failure gets magnified.

Creighton couldn’t get out of Orlando fast enough, losing all three games in the Old Spice Classic and dropping the Bluejays to 2-4 on the season. Creighton hasn’t started a season this poorly since the 1993-94 season.

Things started so promisingly on Thanksgiving night against nationally-rated Michigan. The Bluejays played scrappy defense and hung around enough to take the game into overtime. They needed sophomore guard Antoine Young to channel his inner Tyus Edney and go coast-to-coast on the inbound pass with time expiring in regulation to send the game into extra time, but getting that kind of play seemed to bode well for things to come.

Creighton played valiantly, keeping the game close for the first two minutes of the extra period. But the Wolverines got themselves out to a six point lead and the Bluejays looked spent. Creighton’s offensive possessions after that lead were either ill-advised drives into heavy coverage or quick three-point shots out of rhythm and out of the offensive structure. Michigan held on for an 83-76 win that was probably more comfortable than the score indicated.

There were lots of positives to come out of that game, however. Clearly, Creighton is a better team with Justin Carter in the lineup. His presence on offense and defense makes things work better, and he seems to present problems for opposing defenses in spades. Young is starting to look more comfortable running the team, and looks like he has real potential as a point guard.

So, the Bluejays drop a heartbreaker to a nationally ranked team. Sure, there’s no moral victories, but that’s a moral victory. Creighton can pick themselves up, get a win or two in the tourney, and come home ready for more.

Oops. Creighton next gets to play the Xavier Musketeers (and please, no more comments about playing the Musketeers outside of Disney World), a team they’ve faced every year since about the Eisenhower administration. Creighton never had a lead in this game. They were down eight at the half and ended up losing 80-67, again with a score that probably flatters to deceive for the Bluejays.

Coming out flat after a disappointing overtime loss? Understandable, I suppose. Again, some positives to take out from the game. Most importantly, and surprising to me, was Creighton’s ability to rebound. Xavier is a much bigger team than Creighton, and yet only out-rebounded the Bluejays by one. Creighton’s new additions to the lineup have added some size and some rebounding prowess that will serve the Bluejays well as conference play arrives.

In many ways, after the Xavier loss you could already chalk up the trip to Orlando as a disappointment. Creighton missed their opportunity to get a resume-building win on their schedule, and was left playing the seventh-place game against Iona. No, not Iowa. The Iona Gaels. Surely the Bluejays could get at least one win, right?

Iona 63, Creighton 55.

It’s not even the loss that’s the most disturbing. Creighton center Kenny Lawson told the Omaha World-Herald that “[i]n a game this early, it comes down to who's going to bring the most energy. I don’t think our guys were dead, but we also weren’t as energetic as they were.”

That clicking sound you hear is the noise of Bluejay-colored panic buttons being repeatedly pressed. The Bluejays weren’t as energetic? Come on guys, this was game six of the season. If the Bluejays can’t find the energy to put on a solid performance against Iona in game six, what are they going to look like in Evansville, Indiana, on a cold February night?

There’s a lot of details that we could discuss about the Bluejays performance statistically, most alarmingly their poor free throw shooting and their propensity to turn the ball over. But from a big-picture perspective, it now comes down to the Missouri Valley. While Creighton has some at least solid road games upcoming (at George Mason, at New Mexico), the fact of the matter is their poor showing in Orlando likely means that Creighton will have to win the Valley in order to make the NCAA tournament.

Maybe that will be a positive, as they can look at the rest of the non-conference season with less pressure and find a way to integrate the new players. It’s not like things get simple. The Nebraska Cornhuskers come to town this Sunday. Nebraska has found its’ stride a little bit with a solid win over TCU earlier in the season and a road in Los Angeles over USC. Not that either of those schools is a force like Iona, but it’s still a good start for Doc Sadler’s crew.

The Qwest Center should be rocking for the Creighton-Nebraska game. If the Bluejays ever needed to come out flying, Sunday would be the time.

LTG 11/30/09 - On Polanski

2009-12-15T10:02:00.000-08:00

From the Omaha CityWeekly

------

Is 58 days in jail worth 31 years of life as a fugitive?

By the time you read this, noted film director Roman Polanski may have been released from a Swiss jail to house arrest in his chalet in Gstaad, pending his extradition to the United States. There’s been a lot of noise about Polanski’s case, which I thought made it ripe for discussion.

Plus, I wanted an opportunity to make a Gstaad reference in a column. I watched too many James Bond movies growing up, apparently.

Polanski’s legal problems started back in 1977, when he was arrested for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Although charged with a number of felonies, he ended up pleading to a single count of “unlawful sexual intercourse.” It was when he reached sentencing that his case got a little strange.

After the plea, but before sentencing, Polanski was sent to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. The doctor evaluating him released Polanski after 42 days, but the judge let it be known that he wanted Polanski to serve the full 90 days in custody.

Polanski was not pleased with the prospect of spending an additional 58 days in the Grey Bar Hotel, and therefore decided not to show up for his sentencing hearing. A warrant was issued for his arrest, and Polanski has been a fugitive since February 01, 1978.

France was Polanski’s destination of choice, home of the Louvre, Thierry “Handball” Henry, and most importantly, a lack of extradition. He’s lived and worked in France ever since, at least until he made the mistake of attending a film festival in Switzerland. Apparently, a deal was made between American and Swiss authorities to arrest Polanski if he came to Switzerland.

The Swiss judge set a bail of $4.5 million for Polanski to be released pending his challenge to extradition, requiring Polanski to give up his identity papers and wear a locator bracelet. He must also remain on house arrest in his Gstaad (there it is again) chalet, which apparently has a breathtaking view of the Swiss Alps.

Um, can I be put on house arrest there, too?

Polanski and his friends have mounted a vigorous defense in the media and the courtroom. The primary legal challenge is that the judge overstepped his authority by deciding Polanski’s sentence prior to the hearing date. Therefore, Polanski’s lawyers argue, the sentence should be thrown out so Polanski can – I don’t know, stay at his Gstaad chalet, I guess.

The legal challenge is relatively easy to deal with. Yes, the judge acted inappropriately if he said definitively what he was going to do. It’s a judge’s job to be neutral and to render a decision based solely on the evidence presented to him or her. If the judge had pre-judged Polanski’s sentence before hearing the arguments of his attorney, that did deny Polanski a fair hearing.

However, if that happened, Polanski shouldn’t get a literal “get out of jail free” card. The remedy is for the judge to recuse himself, and for a different and neutral judge to preside over sentencing.

More importantly, the fact that the judge may or may not have done something inappropriate is secondary to the issue of Polanski’s choosing not to join everyone else at the Palace Hotel ballroom for his sentencing. Polanski was under a legal duty to appear in court when ordered to do so, regardless of whether he thought the process was unfair. By skipping out on sentencing, Polanski committed a separate crime even if the underlying sentence would have been thrown out in a later proceeding.

That’s part of how the criminal justice system works. Not only is there insufficient space in our jails to hold every person accused of a crime, there are many times when jailing someone while they wait for trial wouldn’t be fair. There has to be a system in place where people can be released with a promise to appear later in court, even if it means something bad will happen to them when they show up. But that system can only work if there’s a punishment for someone who breaks the rules.

Polanski’s defenders have also argued that the crime happened a long time ago, that the victim doesn’t want to see Polanski in jail, and that Polanski has made a lot of great films. For all those reasons, they say, the authorities should forget about the whole sex with a 13-year-old thing.

Sure, Polanski has made some wonderful films, like “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown.” (Although, strangely enough, not “The Fugitive.”) But, last I checked, making great movies is not a defense for statutory rape. And in criminal cases, it’s the government and not the victim that makes a decision on how to proceed. If victims controlled whether a criminal case went forward, then there would be an even greater opportunity for an accused to escape prosecution by intimidating or threatening their victim. The system, quite rightly, takes the decision on whether to prosecute away from the victim in part for the victim’s protection.

Those who know me should understand I’m the last person to channel my inner Sarah Palin and rail against the “Hollywood elites.” But the behavior of Polanski and his defenders is sickening. If Polanski had just sat his remaining 58 days out, none of this ridiculous story would be happening. It’s really a story of arrogance and celebrity entitlement at its worst. I hope the judge throws the book at Polanski, and leaves him to rot in his Gstaad chalet.

NU Re-View: Texas 13, Nebraska 12

2009-12-05T20:44:00.000-08:00

THE GOOD ...
- BLACKSHIRTS: There's nothing cute to say, really. Nebraska put on one of the most dominating, inspired defensive performances in ages. They took the effort against Oklahoma and doubled it. They ended Colt McCoy's heisman candidacy (and should have kick-started Suh's candidacy, but we all know how that works). And they came up a half-second short.
- ALEX MVP: Well, he probably wasn't the MVP today, given his struggles punting early. But when he stepped up to give NU the lead, was there ever a doubt the ball was going through the posts?
- NOTHING. THERE IS NO THIRD THING.

THE BAD ...
- 106: As in, that was NU's total yardage. Nebraska's offensive ineptitude wasted a pristine defensive show. NU looked at least a step, if not two, slower than the Texas defenders. Sure, UT is a great defense and their offense was no great shakes. But UT has people that will scare you, and those guys made the plays to put UT into range for the winner. Nebraska doesn't, offensively. Are they in the pipeline? Can Bo recruit them? The defense is unbelievable, but what will it look like next year without Suh and Dillard?
- ADI-OS: If you get a scholarship and your only job is to kick the ball off, you cannot - cannot - ever kick the ball out of bounds. Especially on the biggest kick of your career. NU made a couple of mistakes on that drive to put UT into position (although not NEARLY as big as the one ol' Mackie boy made on the last play), but putting Texas on the 40 started everything rolling downhill.
- PLAYING THE CONSPIRACY CARD: Let's get this out of the way. I think it was the right call to put a second back on the clock. I am less convinced about some of the penalties (particularly the two pass interference calls against Eric Hagg, both of which the officials got his number wrong. If you can't even see the number on the shirt, how can you be that sure to call the penalty?) Even some of the spots NU got were dicey at best. I don't think there's enough evidence to claim a conspiracy - with the Big XII officials making sure a Big XII team is playing for the national title - there sure as heck is a motive.

... AND THE CRUELEST OF CUTS.
Folks, I have seen Nebraska lose in a whole lot of different ways. At no point have I ever seen a more painful, more difficult loss. Fate was even cruel enough to suggest that Mack Brown coached his way out of a national title game with what might have been the dumbest play call this side of Mark Mangino's last series at Kansas.

THE BIG PICTURE.
Let me get this out of the way first. Whatever the line is for the Alabama-Texas game (and my guess it will open at about 8-9 points), take Alabama. McCoy isn't even as good as I thought he was, after watching this game, and Alabama absolutely mauled a more talented Florida team earlier in the day. I'm not at all convinced that TCU isn't a better team, right now, than Texas.

But this is a Nebraska 'blog, not a Texas one. And it's good to remember that this is a Nebraska team that, two years ago, missed a bowl game after giving up 65 points to a Dan Hawkins-coached Colorado squad. It's a team that, this year, lost to Iowa State at home. Yes, it hurts to not have "2009" on the conference championship board up on the west stands. But it's nice to be in the position to have your heart broken, and as quickly as it has been.

And I so want to be optimistic going forward. I'm just struggling with it right now. Suh will be gone next year, and with him goes a lot of the double-teams that made the rest of the defense better. More disturbingly, I'm trying to see where the cavalry is coming for the offense. Is Lee going to get that much better in the offseason? Is NU going to get a playmaking receiver? NU had the ball twice in Texas territory - including once at the freaking 10 yard line - and got six points. Just like at Virginia Tech. NU has had to "find its' identity" on offense throughout the season, much like a bad soap opera squeezing out drama until the season-ending cliffhanger. I think there's a real combination of a lack of offensive talent and a lack of creativity from offensive coordinator Shawn Watson to get something going. I was more than a little surprised to see such a lack of misdirection in the game plan. With the speed of Texas' defense, it seemed that was waiting to be pulled out, but we only saw it once or twice. And how about the bubble screen? Or the wildcat? Or ...

Feh. This is the Big Picture portion of the piece. We'll know a lot more about what Pelini thinks of the reasons for Nebraska's offensive struggles. My guess is he thinks it's a lack of talent, and that will be addressed through recruiting. Because, I'll tell you this. Just about anywhere else, the offensive display that Nebraska has put on this season would get Watson a pink slip. If he doesn't get one, then Pelini thinks he gets a pass because he doesn't have the tools to work with.

THE NEXT GAME: Stay tuned, kids. NU will likely be going to San Diego on December 30 to play in the Holiday Bowl against Arizona. Those of you with long enough memories will remember that didn't work out so well for Nebraska the last time that happened. But after seeing the Wildcats live against Iowa this year, and Nebraska enough as well, I think this trip to San Diego will be a lot more comfortable for the 'Huskers than last time. As if a trip to San Diego could be anything BUT comfortable.

GBR, baby.

NU Re-View: Nebraska 28, Colorado 20

2009-11-29T14:42:00.000-08:00

THE GOOD ...
- ZACURACCY: Quarterback Zac Lee was 9-14 for 73 yards passing against Colorado, but early in the game he hit a number of difficult passes to keep Nebraska's offense moving. It's starting to look like the mid-season hiccup (although calling an eight-turnover home loss to Iowa State a hiccup seems to be selling it a bit short) had more to do with Lee's confidence than anything. A solid game against Colorado can do nothing but help.
- WELCOME BACK, REXY: Tailback Rex Burkhead put the offense on his shoulders in the second half and ground down the Buffaloes' defense. The drive of the game (and maybe the conference season) was a 13-play, 80-yard touchdown drive almost entirely consisting of Burkhead carries. While CU got their garbage touchdown on the last play, that drive functionally ended the game.
- ALEX MVP: Yeah, it's getting old to talk about Henery's greatness. And yes, he did miss a field goal. But Henery's punting wizardry consistently left Colorado in terrible field position and put the Blackshirts in prime position to be successful. Now that the regular season is over, my vote for team MVP would go to Alex Henery. Can you name me one player (even Big Mr. Suh) who has been consistently excellent for twelve games? Henery for Heisman!

THE BAD ...
- MORE TURTLING: It was a little bit of a concern last week, when Nebraska got up and went into ultra-conservative mode. Again, it worked for Nebraska, so it's too hard to complain. And maybe it's not a decision so much as an acknowledgment that this is the best the offense can do. But at some point in the next two games Nebraska is going to need more from its' offense, and you have to question whether the confidence will be there if (for example) your quarterback only has 14 pass attempts in a game.
- 403-217: That was the differential in total yards with Colorado having the 403. That's a lot of bending from the Blackshirts, and getting a pick-six from Matt O'Hanlon certainly didn't hurt. But once Nebraska got a lead it looked like their defensive intensity went down and let Colorado at least hang around for a while.
- A GAMBLER'S NIGHTMARE: Nebraska had the 10.5 spread covered comfortably until the last play of the game, where Tyler Hansen hit Scotty McKnight on a long and incredibly poorly defended pass to cut NU's lead to eight as time expired. Bo Pelini was incandescently upset with the lazy secondary play. I was at least a little pleased to finally get a 'Husker call against the number correct.

... AND THE FAIT ACCOMPLI.
This was possibly the strangest Nebraska game I have watched in some time. With Nebraska clinching the North title in the previous week and getting a score early, there was never a time I felt any danger. It seemed like the team felt that way as well, with a lackluster defensive performance being good enough for a win but not enough to inspire any confidence for the upcoming games.

THE BIG PICTURE.
Nebraska ends the regular season at 9-3, and was a freak loss against Iowa State away from a 10-2 season. 'Husker fans should be on cloud nine at this development, but almost none are. The struggles of the offense and the visible fraying of the defense over the last two games has put Husker Nation into at least code-yellow worry mode, if not orange. As much as a great defense is appreciated, until the offense becomes at least respectable it's hard to have BCS dreams start running through your Big Red heads.

THE NEXT GAME: Nebraska v. Texas, Big XII Championship, Dallas, Texas (line to be added). Texas had just as much of a clunker against an average Texas A&M team last weekend as Nebraska did against 3-9 Colorado. While Texas has frightening offensive weapons in Colt McCoy and Jordan Shipley, they also have no running game to speak. They play great defense, however, and NU offensive coordinator Shawn Watson will have to leave the turtle shell in Lincoln if Nebraska is to stand a chance. In a game NU is given no chance to win, though, I certainly hope that NU pulls out all the stops and at least gives Lee and Co. an opportunity to shine. The Blackshirts have enough to keep the game close, but that's about it.
FEARLESS FORECAST: Texas 29, Nebraska 9

GBR, baby.

NU Re-View: Nebraska 17, Kansas State 3

2009-11-22T08:22:00.000-08:00

Pardon the prelude, but Saturday was a challenging day. In the morning, I went to my Uncle Ronald Runge's funeral, then drove home, changed, and went to the NU game. I'm not sure I've had a day of such contrasting emotions. But it reminded me, both during the funeral and during the game, that life's moments are precious. Don't ever allow them to be stolen by fear, selfishness, laziness, or greed. Our time on this Earth is far too short to not passionately live each moment that we're privileged to be given.

My uncle was an attorney and an author, and was a massive character in our family. I learned a lot from him, and his absence will be felt by myself, my family, his beloved Minnesota Twins, and the people who knew him. But Uncle Ron was good at not letting life's moments be stolen from him by the static of daily living. If nothing else, if his life is a challenge to the rest of us to use our time on this Earth well, then his is the legacy of a life well lived. Rest in peace, Uncle Ron.

THE GOOD ...
- NOT BREAKING: As in, bending but not. After going up 17-3, NU's offense sputtered and the Purples spent a lot of time in Nebraska's half of the field. But the Blackshirts stiffened, preventing KSU from putting points on the board after the first drive of the game, which prevented them from regaining any momentum and putting pressure back on the offense.
- ALEX MONEY: Give punter/placekicker Alex Henery the MVP award for the season. I know Ndomukong Suh has been a monster, but Henery's punting mastery was crucial in NU's win over Oklahoma, and was crucial against KSU. He hit two punts which bit sideways and went out inside the Purples' 5 yard line, flipping field position and forcing the 'Cats to drive a really long field. For my money, he's been NU's most important player all year.
- CHANNELING HIS INNER BELICHEK: Prior to NU going for it on fourth-and-one at the end of the game, a guy in front of me asked if head coach Bo Pelini would go Bill Belichek and try for the first down. We laughed, thinking how ridiculous that would be. Then Zac Lee and the offense came out, and got the first down. I understand there were football reasons to do that (primarily to let the offense stay on the field to win the game and to show confidence in them after a poor second half), but I can't believe that bit of Pelini bravado didn't have something to do with the 2003 confrontation between then-defensive coordinator Pelini and KSU head coach Bill Snyder. Whatever the motivation, it was great to see ... because it worked.

THE BAD ...
- THE TURTLES: After Nebraska went up 17-3, it appeared the team felt like they had enough points to win and all the offensive rhythm of the first half dissolved. NU didn't cross into KSU territory until later in the fourth quarter, and the defense was left on the field for an extended period. While it's hard to argue with the result, NU had a chance for a knockout punch in the early third quarter and failed to deliver.
- CURIOUS STRATEGY: Two weeks in a row, now, NU has used an ... interesting plan on defense. Let a wide receiver break wide open up the middle, let him sprint to about your own three, then force a fumble. It's great when it works, but it's not terribly sustainable. Against both the Jayhawks and the Purples, NU avoided early second-half, potentially momentum-shifting touchdowns by the thinnest of margins.
- TIPPING YOUR HAND: In the fourth quarter, when NU looked like they were going to open the playbook up a little, they tried the option pass that worked so well against KU the previous week. Apparently, KSU saw that tape because they sent a backside corner blitz and got a free blind-side hit on Lee. Forget being happy he didn't fumble, I was just happy the kid stood up.

... AND THE BIG XII NORTH CHAMPIONS.
I'm happy Pelini and Co. didn't celebrate like they had won something monumental by clinching the North, and I'm glad NU doesn't list division wins on the "wall of fame" on the side of the pressbox. But make no mistake, it's a big deal for NU to win the division in Pelini's second year. It's even more amazing to consider that NU won the division in the same season that they lost to Iowa State at home. NU is definitely a work in progress under Pelini, but the kind of toughness demonstrated by a team to lose such an embarassing game to the 'Clones, then turn around to win the division, bodes very well for the future.

THE BIG PICTURE.
Please, stop with the silly talk about how it's not good for this average Nebraska team to go to the Big XII Championship against Texas. First of all, NU's defense is good enough (particularly with a week's rest) to avoid an embarassment. But even if NU did get run off the field by Texas, being there is still better for the program than not being there. If the North is going to be down, then it's up to Nebraska to make sure they're the dominant force in the North. And, any time you have a one-off situation, anything can happen (see State, Iowa). NU is one win away from their first BCS game since 2001. There is nothing - nothing at all - bad about that.

THE NEXT GAME: Nebraska vs. Texas, Dallas, TX. Whoops! Strike that. Nebraska @ Colorado. Yes, Nebraska, you still have to go to Boulder even though the division is wrapped up. CU put an inspired, tough performance together against Oklahoma State in Stillwater on Thursday, coming up three points short. Say what you will about Dan Hawkins coming just a bit short of his ten-win-or-bust proclamation at the start of the season, the Buffaloes are still playing for him. Plus, CU will be coming off an extra three days of rest, while NU has a short week before a Friday game. There's a witches' brew of circumstances leading to the conclusion that this game will be closer than expected.
Fearless Forecast: Nebraska 24, Colorado 20.

NU-KSU pictures:
http://picasaweb.google.com/patrickrunge/KansasStateNebraska09?feat=directlink

GBR, baby.

JTG 11/18/09

2009-11-19T06:13:00.001-08:00

Jay-Talking Guy column from the Omaha CityWeekly 11/18/09 - 11/24/09
http://omahacityweekly.com/article/2009/11/18/cover-story-happy-blue-year-2009

------

Cover Story: Happy Blue Year, 2009!
Creighton men’s basketball off and rolling at the Qwest Center
By: Patrick Runge
Issue: November 18, 2009

Can you hear it? Can you hear the thumps and the squeaks echoing from gyms around the country? That’s right, college basketball is once again upon us, rescuing us from the interminable wait between football and baseball seasons.

Put down that bracket. Even if you’re Joe Lunardi, it’s too early for that.

My name is Patrick Runge, and you may have seen my Law-Talking Guy columns gracing the pages of this fine publication. But this season, the City Weekly has given me the great honor (or been desperate enough) to allow me to be your Jay-Talking Guy guide through the Creighton basketball season.

Now, those of you who know me might be a little confused. Yes, I am a die-hard Nebraska football fan. Yes, I am a die-hard Creighton basketball fan. And yes, you can be both.

Take a look at the picture. That’s me on the left, with my father, getting ready to head to the Civic Auditorium for another Bluejay adventure. When I was a kid, growing up and learning about basketball, I learned through the lens of the Bluejays. When I came home from YMCA basketball practice, I listened to Bluejay games. When I dreamed of hitting the winning shot in my driveway, I hit that shot for the Bluejays.

I even remember my father telling me about this guy from Indiana State who was supposed to be really good. His name was Larry Bird, or something like that.

One of the great joys in sports is having an allegiance that is passed down to you. When I cheer for the Bluejays, in some small way I am tapping into those happy childhood memories of time spent with my father, wearing matching sweatshirts, eating hot dogs and cheering for the Bluejays. To this day, I can spend autumn and winter evenings with my father talking about Creighton’s over-reliance on perimeter shooting, their lack of developing a true big man, and whether Dana Altman has what it takes to make Creighton a legitimate national program. It’s cliché, I know. Father and son bonding over sports. But it’s cliché because it’s true. Part of the reason I devour all I can about Creighton basketball is because I’m excited about the chance to share those thoughts with my dad.

And being a sports fan in itself isn’t all that rational. In a sense, it’s emotional gambling. You pick a team to support, and you gamble that the excitement of your team’s success will outweigh the disappointment of its failures. But you don’t make that decision consciously. Only when you’ve locked in to “your” team and stay with them through thick and thin can you really understand the joy of long-awaited victories. The price of unabashed euphoria that comes from a big win is all of the heartache and disappointment that comes from losses in the past.

Ask any Nebraska fan who has been waiting for eight years for a game like Oklahoma this year.

So, call me a “Jaysker” if you will. My dad and I will just laugh at you later, anyway.

I promise in the coming weeks I will actually talk about the 2009-10 team, but I thought you should at least know where I’m coming from. At the time of this column, Creighton is 0-1 after a 90-80 loss at No. 21 Dayton. Creighton really got dealt a bad hand, missing three critical players (Justin Carter, Casey Harriman, and Chad Millard) for various reasons. CU had a five-point lead at halftime and led by double digits at one point in the game.

Unfortunately, Dayton’s depth caught up, and Creighton was unable to finish the game. The Bluejays did get solid contributions from newcomers Wayne Runnels and Darryl Ashford, which bodes well for conference play.

Given the absences, it’s hard to know how much to take from this opening loss. Given CU’s absence from the Big Dance in the last two years, it is important for Creighton to make noise on the national stage this year in order to maintain their momentum as one of the mid-major teams to watch. That buzz is important for recruiting and for perception come at-large selection time.

Over Thanksgiving, Creighton will play in the Old Spice Classic, which will give them their best opportunity for a solid resume-boosting non-conference win or two. The Bluejays will have warmups at home against Florida A&M and Arkansas-Little Rock prior to that tournament. Assuming Creighton is able to put out a full squad, we’ll know a lot more about what to expect from the Bluejays after Thanksgiving.

LTG 11/18/09 - Blitzing Wolf

2009-11-19T06:11:00.000-08:00

From the Omaha CityWeekly, 11/18/09 - 11/24/09
http://omahacityweekly.com/article/2009/11/18/law-talking-guy

------

Law Talking Guy
Blitzing Wolf
By: Patrick Runge
Issue: November 18, 2009

Let me say this up front, in the interest of full disclosure. I loathe Wolf Blitzer. I think he’s a vacuous, spineless, unintelligent, slow-witted sycophant. I think he lacks the intellectual capacity to ask a challenging question to a newsmaker and the courage to ask one even if he could think of it. He’s the real-life Ron Burgundy from Will Ferrell’s “Anchorman” movie without the cool moustache. He’s the personification of the descent of television news from actual journalism to celebrity tabloid titillation.

In other words, I don’t particularly care for him.

Last week, I was reminded why I have such a low opinion of Blitzer. In “The Situation Room” (which I believe is next to the conservatory where Colonel Mustard killed Mr. Boddy with the lead pipe) Blitzer was interviewing Col. John Galligan, an attorney for Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan, the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre. Here’s what Blitzer asked Galligan after his interview was announced.

“They asked me, how could a retired U.S. military officer, a full colonel, go ahead and represent someone accused of mass murder? And I want you to explain to our viewers why you’re doing this.”

Cue outrage and righteous indignation from the Law-Talking Guy.

Seriously, Wolf? You don’t mind if I call you Wolf, do you? I mean, after all, it enhances your tough-guy image, right? Anyway, Wolf, are you really dumb enough to believe this line or are you simply playing to the angry-and-stupid portion of your demographic? Were you hoping to catch people surfing for Glenn Beck with a little vigilante justice demagoguery?

Galligan, to his credit, reminded Blitzer about these apparently foreign concepts like fair trials and due process, and how in America everyone has the right to a day in court. Apparently those nuggets of logic couldn’t penetrate the gel in Blitzer’s hair deep enough to seep into his brain, as he closed the interview with this quote.

“I’m sure he will get a much fairer hearing than those 13 Americans who were brutally gunned down the other day.”

Attaboy, Wolf. Apparently in the world according to Wolf (let’s just call it “Blitzerland”), if people are angry about a crime then the police should round up the first suspect, have a quick show trial without a lawyer for the accused, and execute the guy on the spot. Nuts to that whole fair trial, due process, protection of freedom notion that’s in the Constitution. In Blitzerland, it’s all about talking tough and stoking the fires of knee-jerk rage.

Of course, in Blitzerland, we’d all be required to have tough, rugged-sounding names. I’m thinking of going with Hawk Knifestab or Johnny Gutpunch.

Anyway, Wolf, you’re a news guy. Perhaps you remember the Duke lacrosse rape case. It was quite the sensational news item. A whole bunch of preppy rich white kids were accused of gang-raping a poor black woman. Remember how angry everyone was at those Duke kids? This would have been a perfect time to exercise your Blitzerland rules and lock those evil racist rapists away toot sweet, without the need for a pesky trial.

Except, of course, that those kids were innocent. Whoops.

How about Richard Jewell? Remember him, Wolf? He was the guy that people thought was responsible for the 1996 bombing of Olympic Park in Atlanta during the Summer Games. That was such a big news story, and you could have gotten great ratings for “The Situation Room” pronouncing him guilty 12 seconds after his arrest and banging the drum for his execution the following week.

Except, of course, he was innocent. Whoops.

I’ll try to use small words, Wolf, to make it easier for you to understand. Being free means you get to have a fair trial when you’re accused of a crime. It means you get a lawyer, even a free lawyer, to make sure that the government can only punish someone after proving beyond a reasonable doubt that person committed a crime.

The case against Hassan looks pretty open-and-shut right now. And I doubt very seriously there are many non-crazy people who want to see Hassan go unpunished – if he’s found guilty after a fair trial. But apparently, Wolf, you have so little faith in the American system of justice that you don’t think he can be convicted in a fair trial. You think we have to rig the system to make sure he gets convicted. And if a few innocent people get the long walk to Ol’ Sparky as a result of that precedent, well, too bad.

That’s not America, Wolf. It may be how it works in Blitzerland, and it’s certainly how it works in Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea and all the other totalitarian regimes around the world. It’s how the Taliban mete out their brand of “justice” in the areas they control. I thought that’s what we were fighting against, but I don’t have a manly name or great hair like you, so what do I know?

Your colleague, Lou Dobbs, recently left CNN for his inevitable appearance on FOX News. Feel free to follow, and leave the news for real journalists to cover.

Patrick Runge has practiced law in the Omaha area since earning his degree from Creighton University in 1994. He has also written for the Omaha Pulp, Millard Avenues and UNO’s Gateway. E-mail him at thelawtalkingguy@gmail.com.

NU Re-View: Nebraska 31, Kansas 17

2009-11-16T18:03:00.000-08:00

Sorry for not getting the Re-Views done for Baylor and Oklahoma, reality called.

THE GOOD ...
- THEIR TURN: Ever since the open of conference play, Nebraska has been leaning on the defense to win games. This time, with Nebraska down 17-16 in the fourth quarter, it was up to the offense to salvage a win. They did so with gusto, imposing their will through a powerful running attack (and a little help from costly KU penalties).
- GAME PLANNING: Offensive coordinator Shawn Watson has been the target of 'Husker fan angst for the last month, and rightfully so. Against Kansas, Watson scaled back the shotgun read option and focused on the downhill run and the long pass, both playing to the strengths of their talent.
- RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH: For the first time, quarterback Zac Lee tucked the ball in and ran with authority. Good heavens, he even broke a tackle as the second-leading rusher on the team. If Lee can bring that element to every game, NU's offense got a lot more dangerous.

THE BAD ...
- RUNNING ON FUMES: The Blackshirts were on the field for 87 plays against Oklahoma and for another 70 against Kansas. There's no question that fatigue played a factor in the front four being less able to generate a pass rush and disrupt the Jayhawk offense.
- THE EXPERIENCE FACTOR: While Nebraska has had great success in the last few weeks, it should be remembered that they were facing rookie quarterbacks. Against Kansas, they got the best shot of an experienced, savvy, and dangerous veteran QB in Todd Reesing. I, for one, am very pleased he's out of eligibility.
- RED ZONE ISSUES: Nebraska still is struggling with success in the red zone. With a chance to put a second touchdown on the board in the first half, a back-side tripping penalty pushed NU back and forced a field goal. We've already seen how that's cost NU games (see Tech, Virginia) and we're still seeing in.

... AND THE RETURN OF THE MOJO.
Well, maybe not completely. But with the offense coming through with a win in a building that had been a house of horrors for NU, it's hard not to see them playing with confidence and an attitude from here forward. They've also proved they can survive success, something they struggled with after their win against Missouri.

THE BIG PICTURE.
This actually seems like it's been about three seasons for Nebraska. Season one was the team that had a near miss in Blacksburg and beat Mizzou in the rain. Season two was the team that lost to Iowa State at home and looked like they could lose out. Season three is post-Oklahoma and a team that's returned to front-runner status in the North. It shouldn't be lost, though, that two years ago Nebraska fell to Kansas 76-39 and looked like they would be lost in the wilderness for a decade. It's a credit to Bo Pelini and his staff that, even with some of the bizarre turns of this season, Nebraska sits poised to claim a division title.

THE NEXT GAME: Kansas State at Nebraska (-15 1/2). The Big XII North title game is Nebraska versus Kansas ... State? Not quite how the script was supposed to work, but here we are. Kansas State is almost the polar opposite of Kansas offensively. They have Daniel Thomas, a bruising power running back, and they're not afraid to hit you in the mouth with him. Under the return of Bill Snyder, the Purples will try to play mistake free football and wait for their opportunity to win. But a power game against Ndomukong Suh and Nebraska's front four doesn't exactly match up well. The Purple's savior has done a magnificent job (although Iowa State's Paul Rhodes should be the Big XII coach of the year), but the ride ends this Saturday in Lincoln. Lay the points, and book your flight for Dallas.
Fearless forecast - Nebraska 38, Kansas State 10

The photos (from Oklahoma and Kansas)
http://picasaweb.google.com/patrickrunge/OklahomaNebraska09?feat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/patrickrunge/NebraskaKansas09?feat=directlink

GBR, baby.

NU Re-View: Iowa State 9, Nebraska 7

2009-10-24T15:13:00.000-07:00

It still seems surreal.

THE GOOD ...
- PISTOLS FIRING: Nebraska unveiled a pistol formation, and looked much more effective both running and passing. The pistol (basically a short shotgun with the running back three yards behind the QB) gave Nebraska a much more dangerous straight-ahead running attack while still giving Zac Lee enough space to operate in the passing game. It's a wrinkle that needs to stay.
- LONG NAME, AMAZING RESULTS: Nebraska has a new number two running back in Dontrayevous Robinson. The freshman brought size and aggressiveness with his carries, as well as surprising speed. His fumble was a freshman mistake, but between him and the injured Rex Birkhead, Nebraska's future at running back looks bright.
- DEFENSIVE SHARPNESS: Nebraska only had two penalties, and had only one instance of a real busted coverage, that being the fake punt. After some shaky performances, Nebraska's defense did just about everything they could to win. If only for ...

THE BAD ...
- MINUS EIGHT: What is amazing about this game is that Nebraska was minus eight in turnovers and only lost by two. It's a testament to how well the defense played and how anemic Iowa State's offense was that the game was this close. Many of the turnovers were just strange, fluky plays, but when there's eight you have to look inward.
- DROPPED OPPORTUNITY: Just as devastating to Nebraska's chances to win were the repeated dropped passes from Nebraska's wideouts. Niles Paul was the most egregious offender, but all the wideouts played a role. Even with the turnovers, if NU doesn't drop that many passes this game is likely a 'Husker win.
- HERO TIME: Even as bizarre as the game was, Zac Lee had the ball in his hands twice with a chance to at least get Alex Henery onto the field to win the game. He threw two interceptions. I know Iowa State was sitting back and waiting, but this was Lee's opportunity to really claim the QB position as his own, and he spit the bit.

... AND THE TRIP THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS.
This was, I believe, the worst loss I've ever seen Nebraska suffer. But it's also the hardest one to understand. When you turn the ball over four times inside the opponent's five yard line - and that's only half your turnovers - something weird is going on. Nebraska dominated the game until the fourth quarter, when Iowa State was able to get enough first downs to chew clock and put Nebraska into a longer field. There was a lot to like offensively, and so many of NU's turnovers were Bizarro-style plays that it's hard to know what to take away. But give Iowa State all the credit for the win. They are well coached, played a near-flawless game, and deserved to win. Once Paul Rhodes gets some talent, Iowa State has the potential to be a very salty team in the near future.

THE BIG PICTURE
No, this isn't delusional sunshine-pumping. Nebraska is one Iowa State conference loss away from controlling its' destiny in the Big XII North. Yes, this was an ugly, ridiculous loss. But Iowa State also should have beaten both Kansas and Kansas State - the 'Clones aren't that far from being 3-0 in the conference. NU's road games are to teams that are reeling as much if not more than Nebraska (Baylor, Kansas, and Colorado) and Kansas State on the road has been atrocious. So, if NU can pull things together, a remarkable end-of-season run is still available. But this week will be Pelini's biggest test ever. Will the offense's will break? Will there be an offense vs. defense split of the team? After this loss, a 4-8 season and a 9-3 season are both equally plausible scenarios.

THE NEXT GAME: Nebraska @ Baylor (line to be announced). Probably the best thing in the world for NU is to get out of town, particularly if the coaching staff continues with the "everyone-in-Nebraska-is-against-us" nonsense. The Bears are free-falling as much if not more than Nebraska - they gave up 24 points to that Iowa State offense last week in Waco. Nebraska's Halloween horror show came a week early. A humbled Nebraska coaching staff should be able to circle the wagons, and a chastened Nebraska offense won't turn the ball over eight times. Nebraska gets a comfortable win, and a shot of confidence going into a huge opportunity when Oklahoma comes to Lincoln.
FEARLESS FORECAST: Nebraska 34, Baylor 3

http://picasaweb.google.com/patrickrunge/IowaStateNebraska?feat=directlink

GBR, baby.

NU Re-View: Texas Tech 31, Nebraska 10

2009-10-17T18:36:00.000-07:00

THE GOOD ...
- THE DEFENSE IN GENERAL. Yes, Tech put up 31 points, but the Red Raiders only gained 259 yards of total offense. If you would have told me before the game that the still-not-the-Blackshirts would only give up 259 yards, I would have felt really good about Nebraska's chances to win. This was a solid defensive performance, that unfortunately went to waste.
- DILLARD IN SPECIFIC. Phillip Dillard didn't start as the only actual linebacker on the field, but was far more effective than anyone else in the role. Dillard's senior leadership showed through and
- GOING GREEN. Freshman quarterback Cody Green showed no fear after being inserted twice, throwing the ball downfield and accounting for Nebraska's only touchdown of the game. That could be problematic, as he had one interception and could have had more, but given Lee's hesitance Green's moxie might be what NU needs to get things moving.

THE BAD ...
- CRACK! That's the sound of Nebraska's collective will breaking after going down 14 points early in the first quarter. Up until now, Nebraska has been performing (perhaps over-performing) on its' mental toughness, particularly in the fourth quarter comeback against Missouri. After the scoop-and-score brought the game to 14-0, it seemed that Nebraska ran out of gas completely.
- CLICK! That's the sound of the panic button being pressed early and often by offensive coordinator Shawn Watson. First, Watson only got Roy Helu, NU's best offensive player, seventeen total touches of the ball. That's simply not good enough. Second, by going back and forth between quarterbacks, Watson seemed to be desperately flailing for some piece of magic to make the offense work. No magic showed up, and I worry about the damage caused to the team's confidence as a result.
- TWEET! That's two games in a row where Nebraska had double digits in penalties. NU had more yards in penalties (95) then it did in rushing (70). And, again, penalties kept opponents' drives alive and took NU out of red zone scoring opportunities. If Nebraska is going to consider itself a championship-caliber team, it simply must become more disciplined.

... AND THE QUARTERBACK CONTROVERSY.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Cody Green era has begun in Lincoln. After being pulled the second time, it's difficult to see how Nebraska can go back to Zac Lee under center. That's going to be a problem, as Green is a true freshman and looked it with his decision making. He threw one interception, but easily could have had two or three more in the limited time he played. On the other hand, Lee looked like he had a terminal case of Sam Keller. He was tentative, had happy feet in the pocket, was reluctant to throw the ball, and chose the short dump-off rather than go downfield. He looked a LOT like how Keller looked in 2007, before his injury and replacement by Joe Ganz.

THE BIG PICTURE.
My, how one game changes things. Before this game, Husker Fan was assuming a North Division title and thinking national championship scenarios. Now, next week's game against a suddenly-not-terrible Iowa State becomes more than a little worrisome. Certainly, any talk of Nebraska "being back" can be shelved for the forseeable future. NU will be very lucky to remain in the top 25 after their performance against Texas Tech. Still, Nebraska's reasonable goals for the season remain intact. NU still controls its' own destiny for the divisional title, and will likely do so even with a loss to Oklahoma. But Nebraska just ate up any margin for error they may have had, and it remains to be seen whether the coaching staff can force-feed some confidence back into an otherwise-anemic offense.

THE NEXT GAME: Iowa State at Nebraska (-19). Don't look now, folks, but the Cyclones are getting better. After a woodshedding from instate rival Iowa, the 'Clones have steadily improved, nearly knocking off the Jayhawks in Lawrence and fairly comfortably beating Baylor in Waco. If NU has a hangover, particularly offensively, from this loss, Iowa State could come to town and pull off a shocker. The line screams sucker play, but Nebraska should have the raw talent to muscle their way past the resurgent 'Clones. Lay the points, drink your lucky juice, and pray that Iowa State doesn't get an early lead.
FEARLESS FORECAST: While Pelini's team apparently hasn't learned how to handle success, they're a proven commodity for playing well after a loss. Iowa State puts up a good fight but gets out-athleted by the end of the game. Nebraska 31, Iowa State 13.

http://picasaweb.google.com/patrickrunge/TexasTechNebraska?feat=directlink

GBR, baby.

LTG 10/14/09 - Crosses, boxes, and public land

2009-10-16T07:28:00.000-07:00

From the Omaha CityWeekly, October 14-20, 2009

------
Sometimes, the hard work is done for you. If you’re a sports-talk host, just ask about a college football playoff or whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame and you’ve got a week’s worth of shows done. If you’re a news-talk host, just say “so, abortion, what’s up with that” and you can go on vacation for a week.

And, if you’re a Law-Talking Guy, and the Supreme Court is hearing a case about a cross on government land, you’ve got your topic selection covered. Fortunately, I happen to be a Law-Talking Guy, so let’s talk Establishment Clause.

The latest kerfuffle started back in 1934, when a five-foot white cross was put on a remote hilltop in the Mojave Desert by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) to commemorate fallen soldiers in World War I. Unfortunately, that remote hilltop happened to be in the Mojave National Preserve in California, and owned by the Federal government. The VFW never asked for permission to put the cross up, but the Feds have allowed it to stand since its’ construction.

It became an issue in 2001, when a Buddhist park employee filed a lawsuit because the presence of a cross on federal land offended his view of the Constitution. The lower courts have consistently found the presence of the cross to be an impermissible violation of the Establishment Clause and ordered it removed. The cross is still there, inside (I kid you not) a plywood box concealing it from view pending hearing before the Supreme Court.

Much to the delight, of course, of the worshippers of the small-but-vocal Church Of The Plywood Box.

First, we’ll discuss the basics. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from, well, establishing a national religion. Through the years and interpretations of the Supreme Court, this has come to mean that the government can show neither favoritism nor hostility towards any particular religion.

In general, this has meant that religious displays on public property are only permissible when displays of all faiths can be displayed. A cross is allowed on public property, but only if a menorah and a Buddha would also be allowed. No Buddha, no cross.

This case, however, has two interesting wrinkles that will decide the case on grounds other than the big Establishment Clause issue. The first is standing, which in law does not mean what your team’s record is in comparison to other teams (like, say, Nebraska’s 1-0 Big XII record as opposed to Missouri’s 0-1, to pick a random and not at all personally pleasing example).

In law, to have standing means you have the right to file a suit in court. Generally speaking, you have to have a specific personal interest in a matter before you file a lawsuit. So, for example, someone might think that the grapevine growing on my fence is clearly over the boundary line and interfering with my neighbor’s right to enjoy his property. But only my neighbor would have standing to bring a lawsuit to make me move my grapevine, because my neighbor is the only one who is personally affected.

The question in this case is whether someone’s “understanding of the Constitution” being offended is sufficient standing to challenge a public display of religion on public property, or whether a person has to prove their religious beliefs were actually offended by the public display.

Yes, that’s actually the question. And no, there is no “offense-ometer” you can be hooked up to measure your level of offense. At least not yet.

The other question revolves around a bit of legal trickeration pulled by the government. When the issue of the cross came up, the government tried to lease the one-acre square of land to the VFW. By doing so, the clever government lawyers thought they’d be able to argue that the land wasn’t public property any more and therefore the Establishment Clause wouldn’t apply.

Of course, the one-acre postage stamp where the cross sits is still smack dab in the middle of the Mojave National Preserve. And, amazingly enough, there are no big signs or anything else saying the land is private. All you have is the cross itself, on an island of “private” property, still looking to the world like a cross on government land.

Not surprisingly, the trickeration hasn’t worked up to this point. The lower courts have consistently held that there is still an appearance of endorsement of one particular religion, which is not allowed by the Establishment Clause. I have yet to find an opinion referring to the land transfer as a “trave-sham-ockery,” but I believe that is the technical term which would most accurately apply.

Of all the cases in this year’s Supreme Court docket, this one is one of the sexier ones because of the issues involved. Unfortunately for most non-Law-Talking Guy coverage of the case, I think the case will ultimately be decided by the standing issue. My guess is that the Court will use this case to limit Constitutional challenges to public displays of religion to people whose religious beliefs are actually offended by the display.

Consider this a heads-up, then. Invest heavily in the “offense-ometer” manufacturing sector. They’re going to make a killing in the years to come.

NU Re-View: Nebraska 27, Missouri 12

2009-10-08T22:31:00.000-07:00

THE GOOD ...
- THE FOURTH QUARTER. After basically doing nothing for the entire game, Nebraska flipped the field and scored all 27 of their points in a furious fourth quarter rally. Through a combination of momentum shift and wearing out the Tigers, Nebraska left it late but engineered a ridiculous comeback win.
- GIVE 'EM THE BLACKSHIRTS, BO. Let's be honest. Nebraska could very easily have been down by 24 points going into the fourth quarter and we could be talking about an ugly, embarrassing loss. But the we-sure-as-heck-should-call-them-Blackshirts-now kept Nebraska in the game, surrendering only one touchdown at the end of the first half. Yes, the offense came to life in the fourth quarter, but it wouldn't have mattered - and the momentum wouldn't have swung nearly as much - had NU's defense not kept the 'Huskers in the game.
- MENTAL TOUGHNESS. If you want one key to Nebraska's victory over Missouri, it's that Nebraska has become an incredibly tough team mentally under Bo Pelini. With NU's complete offensive ineptitude, there were so many opportunities for the team to give up, roll over, and wait for the next game. That happened with disturbing regularity in 2007. But the defense stayed strong and kept faith in the offense to get the game back. And, remarkably enough, the offense was able to find enough confidence in itself to produce 27 fourth quarter points and one of the most satisfying - if unexpected - Nebraska wins in a long time.

THE BAD ...
- THE FIRST THREE QUARTERS. All you need to know is this - it took until the last play of the third quarter for Nebraska's offense to get 100 yards of total offense. Yech. Sure, it was raining, but that kind of offensive production is unacceptable and very easily could have cost NU the game.
- MORE YELLOW. Just about every week this has been on the list. Nebraska had over 100 yards of penalties against them. Now, in a chippy game like this you're going to expect to see those. But there were critical penalties all over the place. A false start on a two-point conversion (which, for the record, I am opposed until there's about 5 minutes left in the game - had NU kicked the extra point, the next TD would have put them two scores ahead and made the end of the game more comfortable). A pass interference call to keep a Missouri drive alive after NU had taken the lead. We've seen those penalties cost them a game against Virginia Tech. It's disturbing that they seem to be getting worse, not better.
- WHITHER O'LEARY? Nebraska's long snapper has been shaky all season. Against Missouri, the long snapper struggled the entire game, costing NU two points and countless yards of field position. Unless NU gets better production from that position, and fast, NU's failings at long snapper will cost them a game this season.

... AND THE SIGNATURE WIN?
Pelini's 'Huskers get their win on the road against a ranked conference opponent, and knock off Missouri in Columbia without Eric Crouch on the team. Was this Pelini's signature win? Given how poorly the offense played in the first three quarters, it's tough to feel that way. Sure, NU walked away with a 15-point win (comfortably covering, bringing me to 4-1 against the number this year), but for most of the game 'Husker Fan was in shock, calling for offensive coordinator Shawn Watson's firing and backup quarterback Cody Green to come in to spell a struggling Zac Lee at halftime. Neither were unreasonable - Watson's abandonment of the run was puzzling, unless starting running back Roy Helu's illness was as bad as feared, and Lee's outstanding fourth quarter masked an awful first three. Sure, it's great to get a win against the two-time Big XII North champions, but is it a signature win if you feel a bit like you stole it?

THE BIG PICTURE.
Will the real Nebraska please stand up? It's clear Nebraska's defense is for real. It's also clear that Nebraska's offense is, put charitably, a work in progress. A win is a win is a win, particularly in a snake pit like Columbia. But the switch the offense flipped in the fourth quarter is simply mystifying. Seeing the fourth quarter performance, though, tells you that at least the potential is there for a dynamic offense to go with a smothering defense - Nebraska will likely still be near the top of the country in scoring defense. There's still some scary games on the schedule, but a 10-win season and divisional title now seems much closer than it did at the end of the third quarter.

THE NEXT GAME: Texas Tech at Nebraska (-6). It's a good thing Nebraska gets another week off before this game. The Red Raiders come into Lincoln with their trademark wide-open offense and almost complete lack of defense. This game is certainly dangerous for Nebraska, as Pelini's team have never had to deal with handling a big win. Will the 'Huskers suffer a letdown in focus and edge? If so, Texas Tech could pose a real risk. There should be enough points scored in the game to make giving the six points safe enough, so take the 'Huskers and lay the points. But I will admit I have less confidence in this pick than I have in a while.
FEARLESS FORECAST: Nebraska 45, Texas Tech 31

GBR, baby.

LTG 09/30/09 - Limiting protection orders

2009-10-06T06:07:00.000-07:00

From the September 30, 2009, issue of the Omaha CityWeekly

------

Earlier this year, the Nebraska Court of Appeals made a decision about protection orders that, to say the least, has caused quite a stir. In the case, a woman filed for a domestic abuse protection order against her ex-husband. After a hearing, the lower court left the protection order in place. The ex-husband appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and threw out the protection order.

So, how did that cause a stir? Well, here’s the underlying facts. First, the ex-husband began sending a series of one-letter text messages to his ex-wife over the course of about two weeks. Those letters ended up spelling the word “behead.”

On the day she got the final piece of the “behead” text-message puzzle from her ex-husband, the ex-wife came home to find a 2x4 piece of wood in her driveway. Why would that mean anything? Well, in their previous relationship, the ex-husband had threatened to harm the ex-wife by using just such an instrument.

(In the interest of full disclosure, the ex-husband claimed the letters in the text messages came from his accidently hitting buttons. I know the feeling. Last week I accidentally sat on my phone and texted “guillotine” to my mother. Thank heaven she doesn’t know how to get texts off her phone.)

So, we’ve got a “behead” text message and a prop from a previous threat placed in a woman’s driveway. And the Court of Appeals found, based on that evidence, that the ex-husband showed enough evidence to throw the protection order out. How’d that happen?

In order to get a domestic abuse protection order, you have to first show that there was domestic abuse. The statute defines abuse as one of three categories. The first is being injured or having someone attempt to physically injure you. The third is to be subjected to non-consensual sexual behavior.

Neither of those applied in this case, so the court looked to the second definition, in which a victim has to be placed by “physical menace” in fear of “imminent bodily harm.”

The court then looked at the word “menace” and decided that it meant, basically, to threaten to do harm. But the statute didn’t say just menace, it said physical menace. One of the standard rules of interpreting statutes is that every word is supposed to mean something. Thus, reasoned the court, physical menace must be different than plain old menace.

That difference, the court reasoned, was that the addition of the word “physical” means that threatening someone (or, “menacing” them, in the statutory lingo) would only count as abuse and get you a protection order if the threat included “a physical threat or act and requires more than mere words.”

So, according to the Court of Appeals, texting “I’m going to behead you” isn’t domestic abuse, and wouldn’t get you a protection order, unless you were swinging your beheading knife while you were sending the text message. And that can be tricky, especially for guys who tend to “accidently” text scary things to their ex-wives.

But the Court of Appeals wasn’t finished. They also defined the word “imminent” in the statute for us. The court decided that imminent, for purposes of protection orders, means that a person must be in danger of harm “likely to occur at any moment.”

That means, returning to our random texting ex-husband (and let’s hope he’s got an unlimited text plan or all those “random” messages he must send will get really expensive), that if he sent the “I’m going to behead you” text all at once instead of one letter at a time, his ex-wife still couldn’t get a protection order. After all, the ex-husband has taken no physical action to make his threat more than plain old menace, and there’s nothing in the threat to indicate it is going to happen immediately.

Now, of course, the ex-husband would be committing a crime, likely a felony, by making his threat. But that’s not the point. While criminal prosecution of domestic violence is very important, it has drawbacks. If an incident happens, criminal charges may take days or weeks to get filed. The person charged has to be brought before a judge, which takes more time. In that gap, without a protection order there is nothing in place to prevent an abuser from continuing to terrorize – or kill – his or her victim.

The protection order is intended to bridge that gap, and get a court order in place that will provide a person some level of safety. It’s not perfect, by any means, but having a protection order is much better than having nothing. According to the Department of Justice, an estimated four million women per year suffer from domestic violence and over thirty thousand have died from it since 1976. Protection orders are a big part of trying to reduce those numbers.

Protection orders carry serious consequences, and there are unfortunate circumstances when people abuse them to get revenge or an advantage in a custody case. Without question, people who have protection orders filed against them deserve a fair and impartial hearing.

But the result of this decision means the effectiveness of a protection order has been dramatically limited. The case was not appealed to the Supreme Court, so the decision will remain in place until another case works its’ way through the courts or the Legislature changes the law.

In the meantime, make sure you know how to operate the key lock on your mobile phone. You’d hate for any “accidental” text messages to get out.

NU Re-View: Nebraska 55, Louisiana 0

2009-10-02T07:27:00.000-07:00

(Apologies for this being late, and for no Re-View of Virginia Tech. That game took a while for me to get over. In my defense, though, I will note that I am 3-1 against the spread with NU this year!)

THE GOOD ...
- GOOSE EGGS AND DONUTS: Whatever you want to call it, Nebraska got a shutout against a D-I/FBS opponent. Yes, it was Louisiana (and, officially, NOT Louisiana-Lafayette, thank you very much), and yes, they were on the back end of a nightmare non-conferene run. But it was still a shutout, meaning the not-yet-Blackshirts managed to avoid the breakdowns that we've been disturbed by all season.
- UP THE MIDDLE: Towards the end of the game, when NU was in the red zone, offensive coordinator Shawn Watson seemed to make a point of running between the tackles to score. The elusiveness of Roy Helu (who regular readers know I have a disturbing man-crush on) looked just as good sliding through the line into the end zone as he does breaking a stretch play. If nothing else, getting that on tape was important to give the folks in Columbia something to worry about.
- PARTY LIKE IT'S 1962: NU's throwback uniforms with the curly-Q numbers weren't just cool. They were wicked cool. They were unbelievably cool. They were Nebraska-has-to-do-that-again-very-soon cool. Nebraska is all about tradition, and anything that can bring tradition to life like that needs to be done again, and again, and again.

THE BAD ...
- THE YELLOW STUFF: While improving, Nebraska still cannot shake an abundance of penalties, particularly on the offensive line. Head coach Bo Pelini wanted a focus on execution in the game against Louisiana. While there was improvement, there's still an issue to work on.
- TICK, TICK: Nebraska's clock management is now a cause celeb for 'Husker Nation. The crowd has taken to counting down the play clock if it gets under eight and the ball isn't snapped. But what's disturbing is one play where it appeared that the crowd's countdown actually got Zac Lee's attention and forced a time out.
- INJURIES: NU's secondary took a big injury hit with Ricky Thenarse, Larry Asante, and Prince Amukamura all having knocks during the game. It appears that Asante and Amukamura will be OK in time for Missouri (thank you, 10-day layoff), but that Thenarse will miss some significant time. Given the spread-em-out offense Missouri runs, Nebraska needs all the secondary depth they can get. Asking young, inexperienced guys to step in to a hostile atmosphere like in Columbia and perform against the defending Big XII North champions should make 'Husker Fan nervous.

... AND THE CELEBRATION.
Let's just get it out of the way. Nebraska did a GREAT job honoring its' 300th consecutive sellout. Having the guys from the '62 team come out of the tunnel, having the Bobfather's family honored, wearing the throwback gear, and the video tribute after the game was simply phenomenal. And it was a nice touch to have messages from Frank Solich, Barry Alvarez, and others. It was particularly nice to see the response Solich got from the crowd. I have to admit, though, I never thought I would see the day when a Nebraska crowd would applaud Barry Switzer. Strange times, these.

THE BIG PICTURE.
The non-conference season is over, so it's time to step back and assess. Yes, NU won the Sun Belt Conference championship - I'm sure no one has made that joke before. But what you can take from the Sun Belt games was that Nebraska did what good teams are supposed to do against minnows - they throttled them by a combined 142-12. The Virginia Tech near miss looks even better after the Hokies embarassed Miami on the same field a week later. But don't forget that we've had false dawns before. Solich's NU team was a Jamaal Lord interception away from knocking off Texas. Bill Callahan had Texas on the ropes twice, including in Austin during the dreaded 2007 campaign. Near misses are great for moral victories, but NU has to cash in and start winning games like those to really get a solid footing. So far, Pelini's best win is the Gator Bowl against Clemson. That's solid, but NU has to convert some of the upcoming opportunities this season to avoid the danger of regression.

THE NEXT GAME: Nebraska (-2) at Missouri. Nebraska's first opportunity for redemption, and possibly to break the streak of losses to ranked teams, comes October 08 in Columbia. Missouri has looked inconsistent in getting to 4-0, struggling against some pretty poor opponents. Even their best win, against Illinois, is looking less and less impressive as Illinois nosedives their way through the 2009 campaign. This game is also the red-letter game on Nebraska's calendar. At the Football 202 I attended this summer, I was astounded how many references the staff and team made to the Missouri game last year. I think NU will be incredibly focused and prepared to play a smart, physical game against the Tigers. If the table has ever been set for a coming-out party for Pelini's NU squad, on national television, this is it. Interesting that the line is Nebraska by two, even with the game being in Columbia. I don't mind laying those points at all. Take Nebraska, give the points.
FEARLESS FORECAST: Nebraska 38, Missouri 20.

Louisiana @ Nebraska photo album:
http://picasaweb.google.com/patrickrunge/LouisianaNebraska?feat=directlink

GBR, baby.

Your brain on torture

2009-09-22T14:34:00.000-07:00

Excellent article by Sharon Begley of Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/215922) discussing the neurological effects of torture on the brain. The upshot of the article is that there is significant physical and neurological evidence to show that torture is ineffective to produce valuable information. Given what is sure to come from former vice president Dick Cheney and his supporters, this is yet another pillar in the base of the argument against torture.

It's also kind of fun to read the author trying to be a scientist and not take a political position, even though it's clear as glass that a political position is exactly what she's taking. But that's another story.

------

The Tortured Brain
Extreme pain and stress can actually impair a person's ability to tell the truth.
By Sharon Begley | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Sep 21, 2009

While we wait for Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, or the CIA to release evidence that "enhanced interrogation techniques" produced useful, truthful intelligence that could not be obtained without torture, neuroscientists are weighing in on how likely torture is to elicit such information—and they are not impressed.

It's become the conventional wisdom that the tortured will say anything to make the torture stop, and that "anything" need not be truthful as long as it is what the torturers want to hear. But years worth of studies in neuroscience, as well as new research, suggest that there are, in addition, fundamental aspects of neurochemistry that increase the chance that information obtained under torture will not be truthful.

The backstory. The inspector general of the CIA last month released a 2004 report on the interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects. As my colleague Mark Hosenball reported, it and other internal documents (which Cheney called on the CIA to release, believing they would back his claim) do not show that torture worked. In fact, The New York Times reported, the documents "do not refer to any specific interrogation methods and do not assess their effectiveness."

Scientists do not pretend to know, in any individual case, whether torture might extract useful information. But as neurobiologist Shane O'Mara of the Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience in Dublin explains in a paper in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciencecalled "Torturing the Brain," "the use of such techniques appears motivated by a folk psychology that is demonstrably incorrect. Solid scientific evidence on how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions (such as planning or forming intentions) suggests these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended by coercive or 'enhanced' interrogation."

The CIA documents released last month implicitly set forth a specific scientific rationale for enhanced interrogation: someone possesses information in his long-term memory, withholds it under normal questioning, and releases it as a result of prolonged periods of coercive interrogation. That rationale seems to be "seem based on the idea that repeatedly inducing shock, stress, anxiety, disorientation and lack of control is more effective than standard interrogatory techniques," says O'Mara, who was one of nine scientists appointed to the Panel of Experts of Ireland's Chief Scientific Adviser earlier this year.

So let's break this down anatomically. Fact One: To recall information stored in the brain, you must activate a number of areas, especially the prefrontal cortex (site of intentionality) and hippocampus (the door to long-term memory storage). Fact Two: Stress such as that caused by torture releases the hormone cortisol, which can impair cognitive function, including that of the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Studies in which soldiers were subjected to stress in the form of food and sleep deprivation have found that it impaired their ability to recall personal memories and information, as this 2006 study reported. "Studies of extreme stress with Special Forces Soldiers have found that recall of previously-learned information was impaired after stress occurred," notes O'Mara. "Water-boarding in particular is an extreme stressor and has the potential to elicit widespread stress-induced changes in the brain."

Stress also releases catecholamines such as noradrenaline, which can enlarge the amygdale (structures involved in the processing of fear), also impairing memory and the ability to distinguish a true memory from a false or implanted one. Brain imaging of torture victims, as in this study, suggest why: torture triggers abnormal patterns of activation in the frontal and temporal lobes, impairing memory. Rather than a question triggering a (relatively) simple pattern of brain activation that leads to the stored memory of information that can answer the question, the question stimulates memories almost chaotically, without regard to their truthfulness.

These neurochemical effects set the stage for two serious pitfalls of interrogation under torture, argues O'Mara. The first is that "information presented by the captor to elicit responses during interrogation may inadvertently become part of the suspect's memory, especially since suspects are under extreme stress and are required to tell and retell the same events which may have happened over a period of years." As a result, information produced by the suspect may parrot or embellish suggestions from the interrogators rather than revealing something both truthful and unknown to the interrogators. Second, cortisol-induced damage to the prefrontal cortex can cause confabulation, or false memories. Because a person being tortured loses the ability to distinguish between true and false memories, as a 2008 study showed, further pain and stress does not cause him to tell the truth, but to retreat further into a fog where he cannot tell true from false.

The other barrier to eliciting truthful information through torture is that the captive quickly learns that, as O'Mara puts it, "while I'm talking, I'm not being water-boarded." In other words, speaking = relief from pain. That conditions the suspect to speak at all costs, not distinguishing between what is true and what is made up. "To briefly summarize a vast, complex literature: prolonged and extreme stress inhibits the biological processes believed to support memory in the brain," says O'Mara. "Coercive interrogations involving extreme stress are unlikely, given our current cognitive neurobiological knowledge, to facilitate the release of veridical information from long-term memory."

In what is probably a futile effort to avert a flood of pro-torture comments and e-mails, let me point out that whenever science learns something about the brain, it is always possible that the generalization fails to apply to some particular brains. Maybe the brains of Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded 83 times, and of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times, are different, and their torture elicited truthful information. Neuroscientists would very much like to see the evidence of that.

NU Re-View: Nebraska 38, Arkansas State 9

2009-09-17T11:39:00.001-07:00

THE GOOD ...
- EXPLOSIVENESS: Nebraska started to show a bit of the additional speed and athleticism that will make Shawn Watson's offense more difficult to handle. Although it was called back, Niles Paul's scamper down the sideline was a thing to marvel at - and worry about if you're game-planning against NU.
- PUTTING THE CLAMPS DOWN: Once again, Nebraska did well in preventing their opponent from cashing in on time of possession and success moving the ball between the twenties. There is something to be said for an effective red zone defense.
- ME TOO, ME TOO!: Nebraska showed more zone read option against the Red Wolves, with Zac Lee keeping the ball and taking off upfield. It's unclear if that was by design to give Virginia Tech something to worry about, or if it was Lee's idea to show that Cody Green isn't the only one who can run the ball. Of course, Lee didn't go 45 yards down the sideline ...

THE BAD ...
- FLASHBACKS: Remember when NU's defense let people go between the twenties but not score under a certain Kevin Cosgrove? It was called a "bend but don't break" defense, and 'Husker fan lost his freaking mind about it. It's not any less dangerous when a "BBDB" defense is employed by Mr. Carlfense, even if people like him better than Cosgrove.
- POWER OUTAGE: If there were any struggles for NU against Arkansas State, it was the lack of ability to consistently run between the tackles. Being able to do so will be critical for success against Virginia Tech. It remains to be seen whether Nebraska chose not to go heavy, or whether they just lack the ability to do so.
- SLOPPY SECOND (HALF): Once the game was decided, it looked for all the world like Nebraska lost interest in the game. Particularly in the second half, poor execution on both sides of the ball and penalties plagued Nebraska. It's not a good sign going into a hostile environment to have the team lose focus.

... AND THE MEASURING STICK.
Virginia Tech week is finally here. Nebraska has an opportunity to take the "can't beat a ranked team" monkey off its' collective backs, and to establish themselves a national presence. They also have the ability to throw up a clunker and undo a lot of the national goodwill earned by their Gator Bowl win over Clemson. Yes, Virginia (Tech), this is a big game.

THE BIG PICTURE
Given how badly the Big XII North is starting to look (staring right at you, Dan Hawkins), a win in Blacksburg is Nebraska's best opportunity to get a marquee win. The Hokies have injuries on defense and are down to a third-string tailback. They looked inept offensively against Alabama, a team that Utah shredded. This game looked like a huge longshot at the end of last year. Now, it could really be a springboard for Nebraska.

THE NEXT GAME
Nebraska @ Virginia Tech (-3). Look for NU to go back to more of a ball-control offense like they ran in Lubbock, with the intent of keeping Tyrod Taylor on the sidelines. Don't be at all surprised to see one of Nebraska's big-hitting safeties (see Thenarse, Ricky) spying Taylor and daring VT to beat the Blackshirts with his arm. To win, Nebraska needs to have a lot better ball control then they have in their first two games, and to establish a power running game to set up Lee's play-action and allow NU's playmakers to get loose. All of those are doable. This game is razor close, so take Nebraska and the points.
FEARLESS FORECAST: Pelini gets the signature win Callahan never could. Alex Henery is the hero, converting more stalled drives into points than VT's kicker. Nebraska 20, Virginia Tech 16.

GBR, baby.

NU Re-View: Nebraska 49, Florida Atlantic 3

2009-09-06T09:47:00.001-07:00

THE GOOD ...
- BALANCING ACT: After a creaky first quarter, Nebraska's offense found rhythm and balance. Nebraska ended the game with 259 yards passing and 231 yards rushing, and you could tell as the second half started the difficulty defenses had in handling Nebraska's attack. NU's first two scoring drives of the second half were almost effortless, and ended any threat of an FAU comeback.
- SCORING DEFENSE: Florida Atlantic moved the ball effectively between the 20's, but never really threatened to score on Nebraska. Even though FAU ended up with more time of possession than Nebraska (something that was NU's strong point last year and a sign that the 'Husker offense may be more explosive in 2009), the net result ended up with a comfortable win.
- RIBBON-TASTIC: The new ribbon boards really work well, offering in-game statistics, crowd chants, and hi-def Dorothy Lynch advertisements. As a stat geek, having more information available to me during the game just makes the experience even better.

THE BAD ...
- ABUNDANCE OF YELLOW: Nebraska had nine penalties for 86 yards, including a late hit penalty that kept FAU's only scoring drive alive and wiped out an interception. Again, it's the first game, so you expect a little bit of rustiness, but NU cannot afford to give away that much yardage to stronger opponents.
- THEY ALL ADD UP: Sure FAU didn't score from all the yardage they accumulated, but they still accumulated it. That's got to be an area of concern for Bo Pelini and the Blackshirts. If FAU had some more dangerous athletes on the field, there's no question that they could have cashed in with something on the scoreboard.
- SOMEONE HIT REFRESH! While having stats on the ribbon board is great, it's not so great when the stats aren't updated. Or even close to being updated. Throughout halftime, the ribbon board told the crowd that Zac Lee was 4-6 for 39 yards and a touchdown. That was great, if it was in the middle of the first quarter, when those numbers were accurate. Unfortunately, it was halftime, and Lee already had a 51-yard strike to Curenski Gilleylen. Come on, guys, you dropped about a bajillion dollars for the hi-def jumbo tee-vee machines, you should get the stats right on them.

... AND THE OLD, FAMILIAR FEELING.
This game was hauntingly familiar to Nebraska opening games of yore, when a minnow would come to town, NU would struggle a little early, then pull away late. As my brother commented, it was a little strange to be able to space out during the third quarter knowing the game was in hand. Now, we've seen false dawns before - remember, the dreaded 2007 campaign that got Bill Callahan fired began with a 52-10 thumping of Nevada. But at least for one night, it was fun to feel Memorial Stadium brimming with confidence and enthusiasm.

THE BIG PICTURE
The 'Huskers did about all you could ask of them in their opener. The new guys (particularly Zac Lee) looked a little sluggish to start out, but got their legs under them and ended up with a dominating win. What that means will really only be known after Nebraska's trip to Blacksburg in two weeks. But up to this point, year two of the Pelini regime is encouraging.

THE NEXT GAME
Nebraska's tour of the Sun Belt conference continues when the Arkansas State Red Wolves arrive in Lincoln next week. The good thing about their last game is that it was against FCS Mississippi Valley State. The bad news is that Arkansas State won 61-0. I don't care how bad the opponent is, 61 points is 61 points. ASU did most of their damage on the ground, the polar opposite of air-it-out FAU. Nebraska's vaunted front four and their rushing defense will get quite the test.
FEARLESS FORECAST: Pending release of the early line on the game

THE PHOTOS
http://picasaweb.google.com/patrickrunge/FloridaAtlanticNebraska#

GBR, baby.

Ike on civic duty

2009-09-03T13:08:00.000-07:00

Really good article by Max Blumenthal of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/opinion/03blumenthal.html) discussing President Eisenhower's letter to a soldier extoling the virtues of democracy. I know, sounds corny, but the salient point in the piece is when Ike talks about the allure of totalitarianism being that citizens are not required to actively think about hard issues. They're just told what to believe and can have certainty in those beliefs.

Think about what we're seeing today, specifically from the town hall protesters wanting to "keep Government out of Medicaid." It's not unique to the right-wing, of course, it's just that's been the most recent and most obvious display.

The bottom line is that being a citizen in a democracy is hard work, and far too many people are abdicating that work and allowing themselves to be told what to think. Solving that problem, then, becomes much more systemic and generational - and a lot, lot harder.

It's like the memorable line in the otherwise-forgettable movie "The American President." In that scene, the impressionable young aid tells the president that the people are buying into the argument of his demagogic opponent because, metaphorically, they are in the desert and eating sand because they have nothing else. The president wearily responds that they eat the sand not because they have nothing else, but because they don't know the difference.

------

IN this summer of town hall disruptions and birth-certificate controversies, a summer when it seemed as if the Republican Party had been captured by its extremist wing, it is worth recalling a now-obscure letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Eisenhower is commonly remembered for a farewell address that raised concerns about the “military-industrial complex,” his letter offers an equally important — and relevant — warning: to beware the danger posed by those seeking freedom from the “mental stress and burden” of democracy.

The story began in 1958, when Eisenhower received a letter from Robert Biggs, a terminally ill World War II veteran. Biggs told the president that he “felt from your recent speeches the feeling of hedging and a little uncertainty.” He added, “We wait for someone to speak for us and back him completely if the statement is made in truth.”

Eisenhower could have discarded Biggs’s note or sent a canned response. But he didn’t. He composed a thoughtful reply. After enduring Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who had smeared his old colleague Gen. George C. Marshall as a Communist sympathizer, and having guarded the Republican Party against the newly emergent radical right John Birch Society, which labeled him and much of his cabinet Soviet agents, the president perhaps welcomed the opportunity to expound on his vision of the open society.

“I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed,” Eisenhower wrote on Feb. 10, 1959. “Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life.”

Eisenhower also recommended a short book — “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer, a self-educated itinerant longshoreman who earned the nickname “the stevedore philosopher.” “Faith in a holy cause,” Hoffer wrote, “is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.”

Though Eisenhower was criticized for lacking an intellectual framework or even an interest in ideas, he was drawn to Hoffer’s insights. He explained to Biggs that Hoffer “points out that dictatorial systems make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems — freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning these tremendous complex and difficult questions.” The authoritarian follower, Eisenhower suggested, desired nothing more than insulation from the pressures of a free society.

Alluding to Senator McCarthy and his allies, Eisenhower pointed out that cold war fears were distorted and exploited for political advantage. “It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resorting to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy.”

It is worth noting, of course, that these Cold War exaggerations weren’t just a Republican specialty: John F. Kennedy was making a supposed “missile gap” between the United States and the Soviet Union a key element of his presidential campaign.

In closing his letter, Eisenhower praised Biggs for his “fortitude in pondering these problems despite your deep personal adversity.” Perhaps it was the president’s sense of solidarity with a fellow soldier that prompted him to respond to Biggs with such care; and perhaps it was his experience as supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe that taught him that the rise of extreme movements and authoritarianism could take root anywhere — even in a democracy.

Max Blumenthal is the author of “Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party.”

Big Ten preview

2009-08-27T11:56:00.000-07:00

1) OHIO STATE: A full season of Terrell Pryor gives the Buckeyes enough firepower to win the conference

2) PENN STATE: Favorable scheduling - including getting Iowa in Happy Valley - lets JoePa's boys stay on Ohio State's heels

3) IOWA: Having to replace Shonn Green and go to Penn State make a Rose Bowl run unlikely.

4) NORTHWESTERN: Returning talent at the skill position will help the 'Cats to a surprise finish.

5) MICHIGAN STATE: A team on the rise, but lost too much firepower offensively to contend.

6) WISCONSIN: Is Bielema coaching for his job? With Bucky's underachievements under him, it's time to start thinking about it.

7) ILLINOIS: Proof positive that karma exists. Illinois didn't deserve a Rose Bowl berth two years ago, and the raised expectations are dogging Zook and Co. now.

8) MICHIGAN: If having two quarterbacks means you really have none, then having three means, what, you have negative one QB? RichRod struggles again in Ann Arbor.

9) MINNESOTA: The new stadium is wicked cool. Unfortunately, everyone graduated last year.

10) PURDUE: Joe Tiller is gone, and unfortunately, it appears he took the football program with him.

11) INDIANA: At least their uniforms are better than in the Antwan Randel-El era. That's about all you can say positive about the Hoosiers.

LTG 08/19/09 - Living wills and Logan's Run

2009-08-21T10:15:00.000-07:00

From the Omaha CityWeekly, 08/19/09-08/25/09 issue

------
Did you hear? The new health care reform proposal has “death panels” that will decide whether people live or die based on their value to society. And those “death panels” will be made up of big Red Sox fans, so people from New York are way more likely to get put out to pasture. OMG!

All of the facts in the above paragraph are false. Some of them were made up by yours truly. Some of them were made up by Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor. I’ll leave it to you to figure out who is makin’ up what.

The whole kerfuffel revolves around a provision in some proposals encouraging the use of living wills. So let's get into some detail about what these scary things are.

In the United States, you do not have the right to have someone help you kill yourself. But there is a difference between actively killing yourself, such as taking poison or other means, and passively allowing yourself to die by withholding medical and physical care. That's where living wills come in.

When you execute (an unfortunate, but accurate, word in the current "death panel" climate) a living will, you tell your doctors under what circumstances you want medical care discontinued. For many people, their wish is to discontinue care if they are going to die in short period of time and there is no reasonable likelihood of recovery. That’s the basis for hospice care, a means to provide dignity and comfort at the end of a long struggle with a debilitating disease like cancer.

If you do not want "heroic" measures used to extend life, a living will is critical. Doctors, wanting to err on the side of life, will assume that you want every possible care used, up to and including putting your brain in a Futurama-style jar. If you don't want that, you'd better have a living will or a strong group of loved ones with a big budget for legal bills.

Another common use for a living will is to give direction in the event of a persistent vegitative state (PVS). That's the Terri Schiavo scenario, where the brain has died but the body is hanging on.

Remember Terri Schiavo? She was in a PVS and her husband believed she wouldn't want to linger on that way. Terri's parents fought her husband, and the Republican-led Congress tried to pass legislation to specifically stop Terri's husband from fulfilling what he thought were Terri's wishes.

Because, you know, Republicans believe in keeping government out of people's lives, right?

The whole reason Schiavo’s case became such a big fight was because Terri didn't have a living will, leaving it up to a judge to decide. As a judge, I can tell you that's a decision I want no part of.

But that's why having a living will is such a good idea. You, not your family or a judge, get to decide what to do in that most personal and private time.

To help people make these difficult decisions, someone had the crazy idea to let Medicaid pay for a doctor to talk with a family making those difficult decisions. One might think that having a medical professional offer advice to a struggling family trying to make the most difficult and painful of decisions would be universally supported.

One would be wrong about that. In a callous and transparent attempt to undermine any attempt at health care reform, conservatives like Palin have invented these “death panels” and social values tests to scare people away from making changes to a system that leaves 18 percent of the country without health insurance.

Palin has attempted to defend her “death panel” Facebook posting with another, longer post. This one has no text message abbreviation and uses footnotes, so either she’s taking it more seriously or had someone write it for her. Her basic premise in defending the “death panel” argument was that because the bill is intended to cut costs, there will be implicit pressure on the counselors to convince people to die sooner than they would otherwise.

Unfortunately, even with the footnotes, that’s a load of moose poop. Anyone giving counseling to people in end-of-life situations would have a financial incentive to provide more services, not less. That means, if we are implying selfish motivations upon the counselors, that people would be pushed to get more medical treatment, not less.

Palin’s attempt to defend her “social value” part of her Facebook posting was even less convincing. That may have something to do with the fact that there is nothing in any proposal that could even come close to putting into law any kind of determination of a person’s “social value” as criteria for medical care that Palin darkly warned her Facebook friends about.

Frankly, I was disappointed. I thought we’d get at least one footnote to the dystopian science fiction classic “Logan’s Run.”

Look, there’s plenty of room for reasonable debate. I’m not nuts about a number of things being proposed in the health care reform package, and I think more discussion about them would be healthy.

But it is despicable, indefensible, and evil to tell bald-faced lies to people who trust you in an attempt to scare them into actions that benefit you politically. Anyone who does so (I’m looking at you, Ms. Palin) should be simply ignored in any further policy discussions.

Or, perhaps more appropriately, un-friended.

NU Pre-View: Big XII edition

2009-08-19T11:37:00.000-07:00

NORTH
1) Nebraska: The winner of the game in Lawrence takes the division crown. I think that's the boys in scarlet and cream.
2) Kansas: The Jayhawks have the edge in experience, but not in talent.
3) Missouri: That's a lot of talent to lose to the NFL. Plus, their coach is still Gary Pinkel.
4) Colorado: The only question is whether Hawkins makes it to the end of the season before he gets the sack.
5) Kansas State: It's not like the Purples played well at the end of Snyder's reign last time.
6) Iowa State: Austin Arnaud. Running a spread offense. Yeah, that should work well.

SOUTH
1) Oklahoma: If you don't think the Sooners are on a mission after the championship game last year, you're nuts.
2) Texas: Mack Brown is still Mack Brown. And Colt McCoy ain't Vince Young.
3) Oklahoma State: The 42-year-old coach has a team that will put up a lot of points. And give up a lot of points.
4) Baylor: Don't look now, but the Bears are getting better. Robert Griffin might be the most exciting QB in the conference.
5) Texas Tech: See State, Oklahoma.
6) Texas A&M: Boy, does College Station look a lot like Lincoln circa 2005 right now.

CHAMPIONSHIP GAME: Oklahoma over Nebraska.

BIG XII BOWLERS:
Oklahoma - BCS National Championship
Nebraska - Cotton
Texas - Fiesta
Oklahoma State - Holiday
Kansas - Alamo
Missouri - Sun
Baylor - Insight
Texas Tech - Independence
Colorado - No bowl
Kansas State - No bowl
Texas A&M - No bowl
Iowa State - No bowl

Premier League predictions

2009-08-13T07:31:00.000-07:00

THE BIG FOUR (teams that can legitimately claim a shot at the title):

1) CHELSEA - The Blues continue their strong performance from the end of last year and wrest the title. They'd better, because if things go south, the ghost of Guus will haunt their new boss.

2) MANCHESTER UNITED - A struggle for offense without Cristiano will keep the Red Devils just shy of a repeat. And don't underestimate the need to play Foster in goal at the start of the season.

3) ARSENAL - Could be a title contender if everything went right, but that's too much to bank on.

4) LIVERPOOL - See Arsenal. The loss of Xavi Alonso will hurt the Reds deeply.

THE BIG FOUR CONTENDERS (teams that will push for UCL but will instead fight it out for UEL contention):

5) EVERTON - Still knocking on the door, but still not quite enough quality to run with the big dogs.

6) MANCHESTER CITY - Spending a lot of money on questionable value strikers (see Tevez, Carlos) doesn't buy you a Champions League spot. Or a defense.

7) TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR - 'Arry's boys will have more than two points in October, but won't have the firepower to move into Europe.

8) FULHAM - Thin squad worries and European demands will cost an otherwise solid Fulham points during the season.

9) ASTON VILLA - The loss of Gareth Barry and a lack of quality signings mean Villa's end-of-season performance last year should continue.

MID-TABLE SAFETY (no chance of Europe, no chance of relegation):

10) SUNDERLAND - Upgrade in manager, upgrade in strikers, but the Black Cats a year away from challenging for Europe.

11) WEST HAM UNITED - Zola's men have enough to hold serve, but not enough offensive punch to challenge for anything.

12) BOLTON WANDERERS - Another solid, if unspectactular, side that should be safely in the top flight for another year.

13) BLACKBURN ROVERS - Big Sam's anti-football keeps Blackburn comfortably mid-table.

14) STOKE CITY - The Potters figured out how to play tough and hard-nosed while still playing football towards the end of last season.

RELEGATION THREATENED (teams that will flirt with The Drop):

15) HULL CITY - The start of a new season and a flurry of late signings will be enough for J. Jonah Jamison's men to stay out of the drop zone.

16) WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS - Manager's Premier League experience (bad as it may be) should be enough to guide Wolves to safety.

17) BIRMINGHAM CITY - Just enough defensive prowess to scrape draws and steal points needed for safety.

THE DOOMED (teams that will join the 2010/11 Fizzy Pop league):

18) WIGAN ATHLETIC - Rookie manager + shedding quality players = the end of the run for the Latics.

19) BURNLEY - The Premier League ain't a cup run. The marathon of the season will wear the Clarets out.

20) PORTSMOUTH - This year's Newcastle.

Take the birthers seriously

2009-08-05T08:04:00.000-07:00

Excellent post by Gary Younge of Comment is Free (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141730/why_we_can%27t_ignore_the_birthers/), reminding us that just because something is crazy and not grounded in fact doesn't mean that it can't get a life of its' own. Younge's examples were Whitewater and the Swift Boaters, but I might include the Iraq war run-up in that chain. Regardless, the ending quote from the Bush-administration official deriding a "reality-based perception" was particularly chilling, and particularly insightful.

------

When Barack Obama delivered the speech to the Democratic party convention in 2004 that launched his national career, he began by telling his own compelling personal story: "Let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya … While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas."

He went on to tell his parents' story as a quintessentially American tale of love, hope and aspiration. "My parents shared not only an improbable love," Obama told the rapt Democrats, "they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or 'blessed', believing that in a tolerant America, your name is no barrier to success."

But as Obama prepares to celebrate his birthday on Tuesday there are others who would suggest that his appearance that night was not just probable but plotted -- part of a long-running conspiracy by foreign Muslim forces to take over the United States. In the alternative version, his white grandparents were so displeased at the race of his mother's fiance that his mother fled to Kenya. Once there, she was repulsed by the manner in which Muslim men treated their wives, but was now too pregnant to fly home and so remained in Mombasa, where the heat brought on early labor. A local imam was kind enough to lead the festivities and called the boy Obama.

The details change, but the basic storyline remains the same. Obama should not be president because his occupancy of the White House contravenes article two, section one of the U.S. constitution, which stipulates that only a "natural-born citizen" is eligible for the presidency. He is not just un-American but non-American; a faux candidate foisted on America by way of Mombasa rather than Manchuria. Such are the claims of the American "birther" movement.

The aim here is not prove these people wrong. That has been achieved several times over. For them to be right, Obama would have had to persuade the state of Hawaii to collude in forging a birth certificate that has been verified by its Republican governor and director of health as well as the nonpartisan factcheck.org. Moreover, his mother would have had to have the foresight to place birth announcements claiming he was born in the U.S. in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Hawaii Star Bulletin, 48 years ago, in anticipation of a future presidential run – otherwise, why bother? When you think of the time and effort that must have gone into this cover-up, Obama's election must go down as the most elaborate affirmative-action sting in U.S. history.

Facts won't budge them. The smart ones insist they are just doing him a favor. "What I don't understand is why he hasn't produced [his birth certificate] to get this noise out of the way." Cutting "legitimate doubt" from whole cloth, they create accusations to which the only defence would be to disprove a negative. (How do we know Obama was not enrolled into a school in Indonesia as Barry Soetoro?) Posing as reasonable people asking reasonable questions, many insist that their interest is not in stoking the controversy, but ending it. "I do believe the president is a citizen of the United States folks, don't you?" asks CNN's resident xenophobe, Lou Dobbs. "But I do have a couple of little questions, like you. Why not just provide a copy of the birth certificate?"

When proof is provided, the inconvenient evidence is denied, parsed, undermined or overlooked. Hawaii has produced a certificate of live birth which it both issues and accepts as proof of citizenship. So the birthers demand his full certificate and claim that the document provided is a fraud. Meanwhile, in the absence of tangible proof, birthers are sustained by claims that are variably random, unsubstantiable, insubstantial, untraceable or incredible – and often all five. In November the grandson of the Kenyan imam who allegedly delivered Obama in Mombasa was reported to be on his way to England to claim asylum because he feared the Kenyan authorities would silence him. Which brings us on to the final, crucial part of the birther identity: victimhood. The leftwing media are hounding them and the government is marginalising them. If you can't say what happened to the grandson of that Kenyan imam you'd never heard of, then how do you know the authorities didn't finish him off? And so they turn banality into controversy, truth into speculation, certainty in doubt and the world on its head. Having made up the news, they demand to know why no one is reporting it.

So why dignify these people with column inches when you could just laugh and move on? If they truly are brain-dead, then surely the oxygen of publicity only keeps their contributions in their present vegetative state. There is something to that. But while to engage them is clearly futile, to dismiss them would be reckless, for two main reasons.

First, the birthers are anything but a fringe group. They have found a sizeable audience for their fantasy. A poll last week showed that more than half of Republicans either believe Obama was not born in the US (28%) or are not sure (30%). Mainstream anchors on CNN and Fox routinely give them credibility. So far, 11 Republican congressmen have signed a "birther bill" that would demand a birth certificate from all future presidents. They may have no more credibility than the 9/11 truthers or those who denied the moon landings, but they certainly have more reach.

Second, however marginal they appear now, they were effectively running the country between 2000 and 2008. It was their birther logic (an oxymoron if ever there was one) that provided the mindset, legwork and frontline troops for the Bush era. Iraq was invaded because it could not prove that it did not have something it truly did not have. "We would say, 'Iraq should present any anthrax'," explained UN weapons inspector Hans Blix shortly after the invasion. "While the U.S. and UK were inclined to say, 'Iraq should present the anthrax.'" Guantánamo Bay is still full of people who were incarcerated because they were not able to prove they were not guilty and whose guilt was to some extent inferred by their incarceration.

The birthers' claims might be crazy. But so was Whitewater, which ended with Clinton's impeachment, and the Swift Boat saga helped torpedo John Kerry's presidential campaign.

A senior Bush aide once ridiculed a New York Times reporter over his adherence to "the reality-based community", which he described as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality". "That's not the way the world really works any more. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other, new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

This is what they do. Even a brief study would show it is no laughing matter.

LTG 07/23/09 - The NFL's blitz

2009-08-05T08:02:00.000-07:00

From the July 23-30 issue of the Omaha CityWeekly (http://omahacityweekly.com/article/2009/07/23/law-talking-guy)

------

The NFL's big game
By: Patrick Runge
Issue: July 22, 2009

The NFL has a glorious history of men in helmets succeeding on the field. But in many ways, the NFL is defined as much by the glorious history of the NFL’s men in suits succeeding in the courtroom.

In the upcoming term, the United States Supreme Court will be hearing American Needle v. National Football League. American Needle used to make NFL-licensed hats and caps. When the NFL granted an exclusive apparel license to Reebok, American Needle sued the NFL for violating Federal anti-trust statutes, claiming the NFL was conspiring to limit competition.

That lawsuit, in and of itself, wasn’t so unusual. Actions like that have been brought against sports leagues all the time. It was the response of the NFL, and the success they have had in the lower courts, that make the case more ominous.

The NFL raised the “single entity” defense, claiming that the courts should view the NFL as one entity rather than a conglomeration of different businesses. If the courts accept the NFL as a single entity, then much of the anti-trust laws would not apply. Anti-trust laws are intended to prevent conspiracies, groups working together in an attempt to prevent competition in the marketplace. If a sports league like the NFL is viewed to be a single entity, then there would be no one for them to conspire with, and the anti-trust rules would not apply.

Sports leagues, particularly the NFL, have made the “single entity” argument for many years. What’s new, though, is their success. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the NFL’s argument that it is a single entity, and threw out American Needle’s lawsuit.

That was big enough news. But American Needle appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. And the NFL agreed that the Supreme Court should accept the case.

The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case are significant. The Supreme Court now has the ability to define nationwide whether the NFL is a single entity or not. If the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court and finds the NFL to be a single entity, then the NFL will have the ability to act like a single entity throughout the country.

That is a really, really big deal. Almost all of the restrictions on the power of the NFL have come from anti-trust proceedings. If the NFL can act as a single entity, there will be nothing to stop them from implementing a salary cap for players and coaches, from setting a uniform (and very high) price structure for game tickets and apparel, or from having absolute control over the broadcast distribution of their games.

In other words, if you like Thanksgiving Day games only on the NFL Network, you’ll love a pay-per-view Super Bowl.

The NFL has had success with big anti-trust suits in court before. Back in the early ‘80s, the USFL tried to form a competing football league. They filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, and won the case in 1986. Unfortunately, they were only awarded one dollar in damages. The USFL suspended operations the following summer.

Think about it. If the NFL can crush its competition out of existence by losing an anti-trust lawsuit, what do you think they’ll do if they win one?

If the NFL is successful in the American Needle case, other sports leagues will be just as emboldened. The NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball will be able to make the same argument and will attempt to avoid anti-trust rules in the same way the NFL plans to. And the NCAA will claim itself a single entity and be able to kill any attempt at forcing a college football playoff, cementing permanently the control of the money and power of postseason college football in the hands of the elite.

So, the big question is, will the NFL win? On its’ face, it seems unlikely. All 30 NFL teams have different owners, and those owners have very different economic interests. Many times, those interests compete with each other. There’s a huge fight going on right now between NFL owners as to how to divide up the television money. Big market owners think they should get the lion’s share of the revenue because they generate the most revenue. Small market teams want a more even distribution to help keep the overall league healthier.

Seriously, does that sound like a single entity? Any company whose different divisions fought amongst each other the way NFL owners do wouldn’t survive long as a company.

But the NFL wants this case before this Supreme Court for a reason. Looking at the court’s makeup, it is likely they would have four votes on their side in the bag. Long-time conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would be very likely to side with the NFL in this case. And, in more proof that elections matter, Bush-appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito would also be likely to side with the NFL.

That means American Needle would have to run the table of the remaining five justices. While Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, and (assuming she’s confirmed) Sonia Sotomayor are likely to side with American Needle, John Breyer and Anthony Kennedy have significant pro-business leanings. If American Needle loses either of those two, the NFL and every other sports league will be exempt from anti-trust laws nationwide.

Good for the profits of sports leagues. Bad for sports fans. Really bad.

Patrick Runge has practiced law in the Omaha area since earning his degree from Creighton University in 1994. He has also written for the Omaha Pulp, Millard Avenues and UNO’s Gateway. E-mail him at thelawtalkingguy@gmail.com.

Palin poetry

2009-07-21T14:21:00.000-07:00

Sheer brilliance from John Lundberg of HuffingtonPost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-lundberg/sarah-palin-the-anti-poet_b_237935.html) explaining that Sarah Palin's inexplicable folksy style of speaking isn't a combination of a lack of education and desire to convey programmed talking points, it's poetry. Poetry!

The scary thing is, he might be right.

------

Watching Sarah Palin resign the other week, I remembered how frustrating it is to listen to her speak. She uses simple words, but combines them into a fog that's hard to penetrate, out of which a few political clichés like "freedom" and "reform" appear. Most politicians, of course, obfuscate to some degree, but Palin is a master, and she does it constantly. Look at how she turns a simple statement into a mind-numbing puzzle (this is from Hart Seely's terrific collection of found poems taken from actual Sarah Palin quotes):

You know,
Small mayors,
Mayors of small towns--
Quote, unquote--
They're on the front lines.

A quick analysis reveals why understanding Palin can be such a challenge. She follows a folksy "you know" with a clear misstatement--"small mayors"--which she follows with a clarification, which she then amends with the inexplicable "quote, unquote." By the time she gets to her point--that small town mayors are on the front lines (which she could have simply said)--one is too bogged down in misstatements, repetitions, poor syntax and folksiness to know what to think. This is, no doubt, why her interviewers often look a bit stunned, jaw slightly agape, when Palin finishes answering a question: they don't have a clear idea of what she said.

When you extend Palin's speaking style (if it's even a style) to a more complex issue like the bailout, it becomes a sort of verbal Armageddon. Here's another found poem by Seely called "On the Bailout":

Ultimately,
What the bailout does
Is help those who are concerned
About the health care reform
That is needed
To help shore up our economy,
Helping the--
It's got to be all about job creation, too.

Shoring up our economy
And putting it back on the right track.
So health care reform
And reducing taxes
And reining in spending
Has got to accompany tax reductions
And tax relief for Americans.
And trade.

We've got to see trade
As opportunity
Not as a competitive, scary thing.
But one in five jobs
Being created in the trade sector today,
We've got to look at that
As more opportunity.
All those things.

Your head should be spinning at this point.

Julian Gough of the UK's Prospect Magazine opined facetiously this past December that "Palin is a poet, and a fine one at that. What the philistine media take for incoherence is, in fact, the fruitful ambiguity of verse." His example of this "fruitful ambiguity" is a found poem he termed "The Relevance of Africa:"

And the relevance to me
With that issue,
As we spoke
About Africa and some
Of the countries
There that were
Kind of the people succumbing
To the dictators
And the corruption
Of some collapsed governments
On the
Continent,
The relevance
Was Alaska's.

Gough elaborated on his tongue-in-cheek theory: "A great poet needs to leave open the door between the conscious and unconscious; Sarah Palin has removed her door from its hinges. A great poet does not self-censor; Sarah Palin seems authentically innocent of what she is saying. She could be the most natural, visionary poet since William Blake." Great poets, of course, do self-censor (even the Beats), at least during the editing process.

Gough's editorial got me wondering if there's any legitimacy to viewing Palin's peculiar speech as a sort of poetry, but I can't think of a poetic movement with which Palin has much in common. Almost all poetry--regardless of its aims-- strives for clarity, precision and some sort of communication. Even if a good poem is difficult, or even surreal, it's carefully crafted to be that way, in order to facilitate a type of understanding. Palin's speech, intentionally or not, works against understanding. Her tangle of folksy obfuscation is the antithesis of poetry, and perhaps more than any other public figure today, she's something of an antipoet.

I do think there are similarities between Palin's statements and a Buddhist ko-an--a deliberately provocative and unanswerable question like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" But whereas the ko-an aims at enlightenment, Palin offers delightenment--if that were like, you know, a word. Quote unquote. All those things. (Sigh)

NU Pre-View: Nebraska 2009

2009-07-16T10:15:00.000-07:00

Baseball is past the All-Star Break, so obviously it's time to be thinking about college football. Here is my far-from-definitive preview of the season. It's done in two ways. First, I break games into categories - Better Win (BW), Should Win (SW), Might Win (MW), and Won't Win (WW). Better Win games are the cupcakes, games you assume NU will win. Should Win are games which could cause problems, but generally you expect NU to win most, if not all. Might Win are games which really could go either way, and you'd expect NU to split through the season. Won't Win are games where a Nebraska win would be a huge upset and cannot reasonably be expected.

I'm also going to give a "Fearless Forecast" as to the outcome of each specific game. We'll see at the end of the season how things shake out.

FLORIDA ATLANTIC: The Owls are a respectable team, one that was bowl eligible last year and brings back a solid quarterback in Rusty Smith. Plus, this will be Zac Lee's first game at the helm of the Nebraska offense. The game is a bit of a banana peel, but the 'Huskers talent superiority should ultimately win out. SHOULD WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

ARKANSAS STATE - Another bowl-eligible team last year (although they didn't get an invite), the Red Wolves have a respectable defense, but are likely to struggle offensively against the Blackshirts. BETTER WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - WIN

@ VIRGINIA TECH - Don't look now, but Nebraska's most talented 2009 opponent might be the Hokies, not the Sooners. Tech's defense should be outstanding, and Tyrod Taylor has had a year to mature and become a leader. It doesn't help that Zac Lee's first road game is in Blacksburg. WON'T WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Loss

LOUISIANA-LAFAYETTE - A bit of a trap game between Virginia Tech and Missouri, but the 300th sellout celebration and the super-cool throwback uniforms NU will be sporting should keep the 'Huskers focused enough to dispatch the Ragin' Cajuns. BETTER WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

@ MISSOURI - The first of three pivotal swing games for Nebraska this season. With the departure of Chase Daniel and Jeremy Maclin, this game represents NU's best opportunity to take some momentum back from the Tigers. Columbia is a tough place to win, but Missouri's talent drop and a get-well game against ULL put Nebraska in a great position for this game. SHOULD WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

TEXAS TECH - Coach Leach, I have some bad news. Michael Crabtree ain't coming through that door this year. Of all the teams in the Big XII, the Red Raiders are poised for the biggest fall, and NU fans might be able to get a little redemption for the 70-10 game back in '04. SHOULD WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

IOWA STATE - A few years ago, Dan McCarney had the 'Clones in a position to be the best team in the Big XII North, if only he could have recruited a kicker. After the disastrous handling of hiring and firing Gene Chizek, Iowa State is now in consideration as the worst program in the conference. This one could get ugly. BETTER WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

@ BAYLOR - Game Two of the pivotal series of games for Nebraska this year. The Bears have a lot of speed and a lot of talent on that team, and Waco will be a hostile atmosphere second only perhaps to Lubbock. Nebraska has better overall talent, but this is a game that could get away from NU in a hurry. MIGHT WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

OKLAHOMA - OK, we get it, Sam Bradford is good. And he's a little ticked off about the whole "getting embarrassed by Florida" thing. While the Gators showed that Bradford handles pressure poorly, the Sooners simply have too much firepower for a rebuilding 'Husker squad. WON'T WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Loss

@ KANSAS - This game could not come at a worse place in the schedule, as it is THE pivotal game of the season. NU's struggles in Lawrence have been things of legend lately (did KU just score again?), and this game will likely be for the out-and-out North Division championship. KU has a senior quarterback and, while I'm not sure of their overall talent level, the Jayhawks will make things very difficult for Nebraska. MIGHT WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

KANSAS STATE - All you 'Clone fans can be thankful for the Purples. Had the soap opera in Manhattan not being transpiring, we'd all be talking about Iowa State as the joke of the North. But ISU can't hold a candle to the mess Ron Prince made of Bill Snyder's legacy. Bring the Purple Savior back was probably their best alternative, but remember that Snyder was losing a lot of games at the end of his tenure as well. Another game that could get ugly quickly. BETTER WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

@ COLORADO - Back in '04, the Buffs brought hammers to Lincoln to put the nail in the coffin of Nebraska's consecutive bowl streak. This year, Nebraska could be bringing those same hammers for Dan Hawkins' career in Boulder. I thought he was a great hire, but his "style" simply hasn't translated into talent. Colorado should be a premier program in the conference, but Ralphie is a long way from that. SHOULD WIN
FEARLESS FORECAST - Win

That leaves four "Better Wins," four "Should Wins," two "Might Wins," and two "Won't Wins." If we assume NU wins all the BW, almost all the SW, splits on the MW, and none of the WW, that puts NU at 9-3 for the 2009 campaign.

The Fearless Forecast is a little bolder, at 10-2. I am assuming wins at Baylor and Kansas, and when looked at individually I still go back to those picks. But both those game terrify me, and it is awfully ambitious to think NU will be able to put everything together enough to run that table.

So, my official prediction is 9-3 for the 'Huskers this year, which is more than respectable. This year's schedule is more challenging than last year's, and to improve on the regular season record with a more difficult schedule would be a real accomplishment for Nebraska.

Is it September 05 yet?

GBR, baby.

When can you assassinate?

2009-07-15T08:37:00.000-07:00

Interesting article by Juliet Lapidos of slate.com on the legality (or lack thereof) of CIA assassinations. Presented without comment, I just thought it was interesting.

------

Last month, the Central Intelligence Agency canceled a secret initiative, authorized by the president in 2001, to capture or kill senior al-Qaida operatives. Although the program was never operational, its existence raises the question: Can we assassinate anyone we want?

No, but the exact regulations are murky. Gerald Ford's 1976 executive order on foreign intelligence activities (issued after the disclosure that the CIA had plans to do in Fidel Castro) explicitly prohibits government employees from engaging in "political assassination." This certainly rules out killing heads of state through covert means. It's unclear, however, who else is off limits. The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a congressional resolution that grants the president the right to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those who helped commit the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, arguably licenses the CIA to go after terrorists with impunity.

The way international law might apply to the secret program depends on whether the United States is technically at war with al-Qaida. If one takes the resolutions passed by Congress as declarations thereof, it would be indisputably lawful, under the Geneva Conventions, for one uniformed soldier to kill another uniformed soldier. It would also be lawful for a soldier—on the battlefield or operating a drone from afar—to target someone out of uniform who's nonetheless directly participating in the hostilities. Yet it would not be OK for nonsoldiers such as CIA agents to engage in killing of any kind, since the fact that they're not in uniforms could be interpreted as "feigning … noncombatant status." That is a violation of the laws of war.

Some proponents of international law argue, however, that the global war on terrorism is not a war in the legal sense. In that case, sending soldiers or other operatives to pick off terrorists would be an extrajudicial, paramilitary action against a private group—no different from sending the CIA to Italy to murder suspected members of the mafia—and a violation of the basic notions of state sovereignty. Of course, a neocon might argue that if the CIA kills a terrorist in a foreign country (even if that country does not condone our presence), it's kosher because it's a form of self-defense, where the "self" in question is the United States of America. It doesn't matter whether the terrorist is currently engaged in fighting—only that he's a terrorist. This reasoning adopts a classic aspect of law-enforcement philosophy to justify an otherwise blatantly criminal action.

The Israeli military regularly engages in targeted killings. That country's Supreme Court has ruled that these are legal so long as the targets are actively engaged in fighting or else work as full-time militants. Such killings would be considered illegal, however, if the target only pitched in to fire rockets from time to time and was not (at the moment of the killing) engaged in such work. It's also well-known, though not officially acknowledged, that the Mossad carries out hit jobs. For example, Canadian engineer Gerald Bull, who designed a supergun for the Iraqi government, is commonly understood to have been assassinated by the Mossad in Brussels, Belgium, in 1990. The fact that Israel does not acknowledge such episodes may be a tacit acknowledgement of their illegality.

Can't she even get quitting right?

2009-07-13T08:19:00.000-07:00

Really interesting article by Shannyn Moore of HuffingtonPost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/sarah-palins-constitution_b_230390.html) explaining how soon-to-be-former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation may end up causing a constitutional crisis in Alaska, due in no small part to some of the weird and petty politics Palin was a part of prior to her resignation.

It is truly astonishing that such a woman holds any position of authority, and amazing that one of the two major national political parties in this country thought she should be a John McCain heartbeat away from the Presidency. And remarkably enough, she still has a hard core following of supporters. Interestingly, her followers are a little bit like hockey fans - hard core, died-in-the-wool, but never enough to get out of the fringes.

Mmm, irony.

-------

When Senator Bill Wielechowski came on my radio program this week, he dropped a bomb I wasn't ready for; in order for Alaska to avoid a constitutional crisis, "The real solution...is for the governor to say...'I will withhold my resignation until the legislature can meet.'"

Dead air...please explain, Senator.

Wielechowski pointed out that this was the first summer in years that the legislature was not called into a special session. Lawmakers made plans. Plans to fish, plans to visit friends and relatives Outside, plans to just enjoy an Alaskan Summer. Getting everyone together prior to July 25 (Palin's last day as governor) is almost next to impossible ("...we estimate we can (meet) first-second week in August...").

For some reason, nothing seems simple in Alaska. It would seem with the governor's resignation, the Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell, could simply take his seat. The appointed third-in-line would then slip into Sean's chair and we could get back to business.

Sorry. According to both parties, Alaska sits on the edge of a constitutional crisis because of the "chain of command vacuum" created by the governor's abrupt resignation.

The perfect storm of events lined up on February 6, 2008. Senate Resolution 5 passed 16 - 1. It found Todd Palin and the governor's aides guilty of contempt of the State of Alaska Senate. Their refusal to co-operate with subpoenas during the Branchflower Investigation came with no penalties; just the finding. Four days later, Attorney General Talis Colberg resigned. Colberg purportedly advised those found in contempt to ignore their subpoenas.

In February 2007, Palin appointed her AG, Talis Colberg, to serve as successor to the Lieutenant Governor. The legislative body confirmed him. His resignation called for not only a new AG, but a new successor as well.

On April 16th, the nomination of Wayne Anthony Ross for AG was defeated after a long, controversial hearing. Commissioner of Corrections, Joe Schmidt was confirmed as "third in line" in the event the governor or lieutenant governor were unable to fulfill their duties.

Hey, great, constitutional obligations met! Not so fast...

When the governor resigned, Joe Schmidt, who had lobbied for the job and sent thank you notes to those who voted for him, decided "Thanks, but no thanks." Schmidt, a high school friend of Palin's, was a controversial nomination after a 514-19 vote of "no confidence" by the Alaska Correctional Officers Association in 2008. Their lack of confidence had to do with cover up of a contagious bacterial infection, MRSA, among prisoners and guards. In May, the ACOA filed a lawsuit against Sarah Palin's administration for purposefully dragging its feet in getting the legislature to appropriate pay increases, thereby sabotaging new contract arbitration.

It's hard to know why Mr. Schmidt declined his previously sought duty, but a replacement was named by the governor quickly; Alaska National Guard Lieutenant General Craig Campbell.

Last August, just days after Sarah Palin's VP nomination, then Major General Campbell told the AP the governor had no control over the Alaska Air National Guard. He continued breaking down the meme of her experience in an interview with the Boston Globe. Two days later, on Friday, September 8th, Campbell flip-flopped on Fox news. He sang the governor's praises. The following Monday, Palin promoted him to Lieutenant General in the Alaska National Guard-a rank only recognized in Alaska. Now she has promoted him for his loyalty again; this time to Lieutenant Governor.

Here is where the constitutional crisis has a head on.

With Palin's resignation, Joe Schmidt declining the Lt. Gov job, and Mr. Campbell not being confirmed by the legislative body...we are left with one leader, Sean Parnell, and no spares. According to the Constitution we have to have a spare. The only way to get a spare is to have a special session and confirm Mr. Campbell. Palin's newest attorney general appointee, Dan Sullivan, formerly of the Bush Administration, supports the un-confimed succession of Mr. Campbell. Mr. Sullivan has yet to be approved by the legislature.

Oooh, lucky us! An oh-so-special session! Wait!

Governor Palin's $28.6 million veto of federal stimulus funds for energy assistance and weatherization is on the desk waiting for next year's session to start. The legislature has 5 days to override the governor's veto, or forfeit it. The decision was made not to have a special session to flip her decision-not for the lack of votes, but because of the expense.

As more information rolls out, Palin's excuses for leaving office become weaker. The ethics complaints were to blame. "Millions of dollars" have been sifted down to less than $300,000-$296,042.58 to be exact. The ethics complaint Palin filed on herself in a political attempt to derail the Branchflower Investigation cost the state $187,797. That means all of the other complaints combined cost the state $108,245.58. But wait, Alaskan Frank Gwartney's "travelgate" complaint forced Palin to cough up $8,143.62 back to the state coffers. So the net cost of all of the ethics complaints, excluding Palin's expensive political stunt, was $101,101.84.

On June 26, 2007, a joint special session was called to fund a program for low income seniors. The cost of the one day meeting? $103,500.

Here's the rub; Governor Palin aborting her term will end up costing Alaskans more than all of the non-Palin ethics complaints combined. Former legislators I spoke with estimated this session would cost somewhere north of $150,000. $150,000 just to sort out her mess! Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers I've talked to see this "July Surprise" as an expensive constitutional train wreck. Most are projecting the session needing at least a few days.

Let's do the math:
Branchflower Report: $75,000 (Legislative investigation that found Sarah Palin guilty of abuse of power.)
Palin's own ethics complaint: $187,245.58 (A political tactic filed in an attempt to de-rail the Branchflower Report.)
Special Session (Low estimate):$150,000
PALIN'S cost to the State of Alaska? $402,245.58
"FRIVOLOUS ETHICS COMPLAINERS" cost to the State of Alaska? $101,101.84

Maybe we need to start AlaskaPAC.

If the solution to averting a constitutional crisis is for Sarah Palin to stay on as governor for a few weeks, as one Democratic Senator suggested on my radio show, Alaska should be a reality show. "Help, I'm A Celebrity Governor, Get Me Out Of Here!"

LTG 07-08-09: What about the children?

2009-07-13T08:18:00.000-07:00

From the Omaha City Weekly, July 08-14, 2009

http://omahacityweekly.com/article/2009/07/09/law-talking-guy

------

Law Talking Guy
Jacko's kids... what now?

By: Patrick Runge
Issue: July 8, 2009

Never let it be said that your faithful Law-Talking Guy is afraid to follow the herd.

Yes, gentle readers, this is a Michael Jackson column, adding my voice to the thousands and thousands of others filling up copy space in newspapers and hours on television talking about the departed singer. But, hey, E! has been running this for a week straight, and I’m only doing one lousy column. So cut me a little slack here.

Actually, the circumstances surrounding Jackson’s death present a teaching moment for some interesting and important legal issues. Most pressing of these is the fate of Jackson’s children.

Jackson had three children, two from ex-wife Debbie Rowe and one from an anonymous surrogate mother. Currently, Jackson’s mother, Katherine, has temporary guardianship over all of the children pending further hearing.

Now, pay closer attention to the previous sentence. Notice that Ms. Jackson has “guardianship” over the children, not “custody” over the children, as has been frequently reported. There’s a difference, and it’s significant.

The difference comes from the fact that parents get a huge advantage over non-parents when it comes to their children in the courts. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the constitution includes within it the right to parent your own children.

(As a quick aside, if you take a browse through the constitution, you won’t see those actual words anywhere in the document. The Court read a number of different portions of the Bill of Rights together to create the “constitutional right to parent.” You may be thinking the conservative haters of “judicial activism” would be all up in arms about the Court creating a constitutional right out of whole cloth without any text in the document to support it. Yet strangely enough, the conservatives don’t complain about a judicially-created “right to parent.” Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?)

Because there is a constitutional right to parent, any dispute about children between a parent and a non-parent really isn’t a fair fight. In many states, Nebraska included, this unfair fight is called the “parental privilege” principle. It means that, unless the parent is unfit or has abandoned his or her child, a parent will win a dispute over that parent’s child over a non-parent.

That’s why the words “custody” and “guardianship” have different meanings. Parents get to have “custody” over their children, meaning a parent is the one who will make legal decisions for that child. Non-parents don’t get to have “custody.” The best a non-parent can do is get “guardianship,” meaning that a judge appoints that non-parent to make legal decisions on behalf of a child.

But, you may ask, doesn’t that end up in the same place? Well, as ESPN’s college football analyst Lee Corso would say, not so fast my friend. (Whom I raise primarily to point out that college football is only nine weeks away, of course.)

The difference is the stability of the order. If a parent gets custody of a child, that custody will stay in place unless another parent shows there has been a material change in circumstance since the previous order and that a change would be in the child’s best interest, or unless a non-parent shows the parent to be unfit. Conversely, a guardianship can be undone by a parent simply by that parent proving to a court that the he or she is no longer unfit.

Big difference. So the next time you see Matt Lauer on the “Today Show” talking about Jackson’s mother having “custody” of Michael’s children, you’ll know better. Lauer will still make more money and eat at better restaurants than you, but you’ll know better.

So, how will this all fit into the controversy surrounding Jackson’s children? After all, there might be a couple of bucks involved with taking care of the children of the King of Pop.

From all accounts, Rowe, the mother of the oldest two children, has had no contact with them for a number of years. As a result, Rowe is functionally a stranger to the children even though she is their biological mother. Even so, Rowe’s constitutional right to parent her children is intact, and the California court will have to return the children to Rowe unless it finds a reason sufficient to overcome that constitutional right.

I know that seems a little strange, because we’ve all come to think of decisions about children centering around the best interests of the child. And when the people disagreeing about that child are equal, that’s the test that gets used.

But when there are unequal contestants to a child, the constitution kicks in, and the court doesn’t really look at the child. Instead, it looks at the parent and bases its determination on the parent’s actions or lack thereof, not on the child’s interests.

Doesn’t sit well, does it? Well, keep in mind the chaos that could arise if anyone could try to get actual custody of anyone else’s children. People desperate for children of their own would start bringing actions against other parents as a means to end-run the adoption process.

Flawed as it is, the current system makes a lot of sense. After all, Madonna and Angelina Jolie have enough kids already.

LTG 06/24/09 - No DNA test for you!

2009-06-26T04:35:00.000-07:00

From the Omaha CityWeekly, June 24-July 01, 2009 (http://omahacityweekly.com/article/2009/06/24/law-talking-guy)

------

Law Talking Guy
5-4=Catch 22

By: Patrick Runge
Issue: June 24, 2009

Here’s a puzzle for you numbers junkies. How does 5-4 lead to a Catch-22?

Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the due process clause of the Constitution does not give a person convicted of a crime the right to access DNA evidence to prove his or her innocence. In this case from Alaska, awkwardly titled District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, the Supreme Court actually overruled the lower court’s decision granting Osborne the right to a DNA test to challenge his conviction for rape and murder.

A little procedural history is probably important. In this case, Osborne offered to pay for a more sophisticated DNA test of the evidence against him. The prosecutors agreed that the test would definitively demonstrate whether Osborne was guilty or not. But they still refused to allow the test, because Alaska is one of four states that do not have a law in place allowing post-conviction DNA testing.

Nebraska, thankfully, is not one of those four states. Go Big Red.

Osborne appealed, arguing that the due process clause of the Constitution should require the state to give him access to the testing. The Court of Appeals agreed with Osborne, but the prosecutors successfully appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which started off sounding pretty good for Osborne. Roberts wrote of the “unparalleled ability” of current DNA testing to reach a factual determination of guilt or innocence in criminal cases, technology that was not available at the time many people were convicted.

But things quickly got worse for Osborne. Roberts went on to discuss how states across the country were actively pursuing various means of providing an avenue to use post-conviction DNA testing to guilt or innocence. Establishing a Federal constitutional right to DNA testing, Roberts wrote, would be “leaping ahead” of the states in their pursuit of justice.

Roberts never quite got around to explain why that was a bad thing, of course. But apparently it is.

The part of the majority opinion I found the most disturbing, however, was when Roberts discussed why focusing just on the actual guilt or innocence of those asking for post-conviction DNA testing wasn’t the most compelling thing.

“A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man,” wrote Roberts (whom we will have to pardon for his unfortunately sexist choice of nouns). And because a defendant convicted of a crime does not have the same “liberty interests” as someone who was not convicted (see how easy it is to use more inclusive language?) states have more “flexibility” in deciding what rights to grant or deny to a person wanting to challenge their conviction and prove their innocence.

So, here’s the Catch-22. Let’s say for the purposes of this discussion that I have been wrongly accused of a horrible crime. I go to trial, and there’s DNA evidence out there that would prove I’m innocent. I’m convicted of the crime, and the day after my conviction a test is developed that would prove my innocence.

The test wasn’t available at the time of my trial, so I couldn’t use it then. But after I’ve been convicted – without the benefit of that DNA evidence, mind you – the fact that I’ve been convicted means I can’t use the DNA evidence to prove I shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place. Either way, it means that the Supreme Court is doing the judicial equivalent of sticking their collective fingers in their ears and shouting “LA LA LA LA LA” to the DNA evidence that could exonerate me as I make the slow walk towards Ol’ Sparky.

In fairness, Roberts was correct in telling us that a person convicted of a crime (gender neutrality is easy!) doesn’t have the right to continually re-try his or her (well, sometimes it’s a little awkward) case. The actual test as to how much post-conviction relief a convict should receive is that a denial of that relief “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”

Let’s see. We’ve got a person in prison. We have a scientific test that even prosecutors agree could definitively prove that person’s innocence, a level of certainty that cannot be gained from a trial without that evidence. In other words, we have an objective, scientific test that can tell us if this person is innocent – and could very well be executed by the state without that test.

And yet, according to Roberts, denying a person access to that test is not something that “offends some principle of justice.” I’m not sure what dictionary Roberts is using, but if “making sure we’re not executing the wrong person” isn’t justice in its purest form, then I don’t know what is.

But I will let Justice John Paul Stevens’ words in his dissent summarize the problem with Roberts’ opinion.

“[T]here is no reason to deny access to the evidence and there are many reasons to provide it, not least of which is a fundamental concern in ensuring that justice has been done.”

Patrick Runge has practiced law in the Omaha area since earning his degree from Creighton University in 1994. He has also written for the Omaha Pulp, Millard Avenues and UNO’s Gateway. E-mail him at thelawtalkingguy@gmail.com.

LTG 06/10/09 - There are terrorists, and there are terrorists

2009-06-22T09:57:00.001-07:00

From the 06/10/09 issue of the Omaha CityWeekly (http://omahacityweekly.com/article/2009/06/11/law-talking-guy)

------

Law Talking Guy
Terrorism in the Heartland
By: Patrick Runge
Issue: June 10, 2009

So, when is a terrorist not really a terrorist?

On May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller was murdered as he was handing out brochures at his church in Wichita, Kansas, as his wife was singing in the choir. Tiller was famous for being one of the few physicians in the country who would perform late-term abortions.

The suspect in custody for Tiller’s murder, Scott Roeder, is a long-time anti-abortion activist with a history of criminal behavior. If Roeder did in fact kill Tiller, and did it because Tiller was an abortion provider, then Roeder’s murder was to advance a particular political view through the use of violence. That, gentle readers, is the textbook definition of terrorism. And Tiller’s killing isn’t so much a murder as it is an assassination.

If Roeder did kill Tiller, it certainly wouldn’t be the first incident of anti-abortion violence. According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been 6,143 incidents of violence against abortion providers in the United States and Canada since 1977. Of that number, there were eight murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings and 175 arsons. Plus, Roeder has told the Associated Press that he knows of more people in the anti-abortion movement planning more violence in the near future.

Think about those numbers for a moment. Taken as a whole, it’s staggering. But what do you think the country’s response would be if those numbers were committed by al Qaeda in America rather than by anti-abortionists?

You know what would happen. We saw what happened in the wake of 9/11, with the passage of the PATRIOT act, the militarization of law enforcement, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention of “suspected terrorists.”

We were told after 9/11 that we couldn’t possibly have a “law enforcement” reaction to terrorism. We were told that in a post-9/11 world, we had to surrender certain liberties and give the government certain powers to keep us safe. Trust us, we were told by those in power, as they used our fear to remain in power.

So, if that’s the proper response to terrorism, then where are the similar calls to such action in response to Tiller’s assassination? If terrorism can’t be stopped without resorting to – shall we say – extra-constitutional methods, then why haven’t we employed such methods to stop anti-abortion violence?

As soon as you stop and think about how that would work – employing Special Forces to “rendition” American citizens and black-op agents to kick down doors of American houses – you realize exactly why we don’t do that. Even the hardest of the security conservatives would realize that it would be completely unacceptable to allow American citizens to be swept off the streets and detained indefinitely on suspicion of being involved in terrorism.

But isn’t it interesting that we’re willing to accept exactly those kinds of police-state procedures for one kind of terrorist, but not at all willing to accept them for another? Why?

It certainly isn’t because we haven’t used law enforcement tactics before. After the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, law enforcement was able to locate and arrest everyone involved, locking them away in Federal prison and keeping us safe. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in 1995, killing 168 people, law enforcement was able to locate and arrest him, locking him up before a death sentence was imposed in 2001.

And, of course, Roeder was arrested hours after Tiller’s assassination. By law enforcement. No black-ops, warrantless wiretaps, or any other nonsense was needed, just solid and smart police work.

Please, don’t understand me to be saying that all anti-abortionists are terrorists. Far from it. As I discussed in a previous column, I struggle with the ethical and moral issues surrounding abortion. Like President Obama told the graduating class at Notre Dame, there are reasonable people on both sides of the debate and we must all work to find what common ground we can on the issue.

Unfortunately, Roeder is right. We are likely to see more violence – more terrorism – targeted towards abortion providers. And we will continue to see law enforcement respond to prevent the violence they can, and prosecute the violence they cannot prevent.

Why, then, do we continue to tolerate a disregard of our basic liberties when it comes to the “War on Terror”? See, this is what happens when you attempt to declare war on a concept. If the war goes beyond metaphor, then the lines get blurred. People get scared, rules get changed, and we move step by step towards a totalitarian state and away from the very freedoms we claim to be fighting for.

We must always, I believe, remember what Benjamin Franklin told us, that “those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Patrick Runge has practiced law in the Omaha area since earning his degree from Creighton University in 1994. He has also written for the Omaha Pulp, Millard Avenues and UNO’s Gateway. E-mail him at thelawtalkingguy@gmail.com.