The Other Thing SCOTUS Did This Week

Not recommended.

NOTE: My title is not to imply that the current hot topic with SCOTUS is not important, or somehow less important than this topic.  However, I think the other sources on marriage equality have done a pretty good job of covering the issues, and while I do have an opinion on the topic, well, that's not what I've chosen to write about today.

...and I use the word "write" pretty loosely.  If that isn't apparent to you by now, you obviously aren't familiar with my work.

...and I use the word "work" pretty loosely.

ANYWAY.

What I'm writing about today is Florida v. Jardines, the recent SCOTUS decision that held that a dog sniff is a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.  Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority.

A lot of people have pretty strong feelings about Justice Scalia, and not all of them are good.  What I have always appreciated about Scalia, though, is that it's never a boring read.  Well, sort of.  Yes, I tuned out a good bunch of the arcane references in the putting-the-GPS-device-on-a-car-Batman-style case, but there were some good tidbits there and I didn't finish confused about the holding, even if I did not immediately understand the reasons why.

But even when Scalia writes a scathing dissent in a decision that rights all the wrongs of a million years of pain and villiany, boy howdy, it's fun to read.  I don't listen to talk radio in large part because the same old flamethrower language is used in uncreative ways.  There's no wit, it's just stuff that will deliberately draw the response of "YEAH!!!" or "FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, HOW CAN SOMEONE BELIEVE THAT?!"  There's no in between, no new material, it's completely uncreative on every level.

When Scalia takes up his venom pen, the spiteful words are almost like music.  Clearly a master craftsman at work.  In fact, his dissents are even more clear than his opinions, and more fun to read.

Then there's the rare opinion, a 5-4 majority where, not only is Scalia on the side you wouldn't expect, he's writing the opinion.  Of course, this isn't as rare as one might think, considering Scalia's "founding fathers" approach to certain issues puts him in the same camp as the left, even if for completely different reasons.  If that makes any sense, especially coming from someone who claims to be neither Democrat or Republican, and therefore, arguably, does not have a full grasp of what it means to be on the left or the right.

...Just checking; yes, I did remember the "not recommended" warning at the top.  You can't blame me if you're still reading, though clearly you need to raise your expectations of what you ingest with your eyes, even if this is just the Internet.

In Jardines, I got to a chunk that I was so giddily stunned over that I had to post it right away (or as right away as one can get while including all the garbage I just posted only to get to this point):

We have accordingly recognized that “the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds.” Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626 (1951). This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters. Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 16).

But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else. There is no customary invitation to do that. An invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation assuredly does not inhere in the very act of hanging a knocker. To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to—well, call the police. The scope of a license—express or implied—is limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose. Consent at a traffic stop to an officer’s checking out an anonymous tip that there is a body in the trunk does not permit the officer to rummage through the trunk for narcotics.

Florida v. Jardines, ___ S. Ct. ____ (2013) (emphasis added).

I put in bold three nuggets in particular that I find compelling in their clarity and simplicity.  Let me explain them when they don't need explaining, and as a result, make them more complicated!

Nugget #1: Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters understand the custom use for knocking on the door of a stranger.  It's not some difficult concept that requires any legal analysis.

Nugget #2: If you saw someone trying to search your lawn or your patio with a dog or a metal detector, we can all agree that's a little creepy.

Nugget #3: It's pretty easy to see if there is a body in the trunk, so no excuse to go rummaging through the trunk once you open it and in fact see there is not a body in the trunk.

The point is, these examples are incredibly clear, and they have the effect of being so clear that one finds it nearly impossible to disagree.  And I hope we can all agree that clarity in any writing--but especially legal writing--is a good thing.  I guess one might say it follows--I do, but others would very likely disagree--that there is at least one good thing about Justice Scalia.

The People v. Ray Lewis

Note: this was intended to be a response to a blog post by Nick Lannon (who has a great blog, by the way, www.nicklannon.com) shoved carelessly into Facebook.  Then I decided to blog it instead.  Of course, with the exception of Nick's website, none of this is recommended.

Lots to say (that I probably won't get to):

 

First: someone else read "How To Be Good"?!  I guess I shouldn't be surprised--it is Nick Hornby, after all, which is why I read it.  But I didn't like it, in part because I don't think I got it.  It was easy enough to walk away with something--that the protagonist kinda sorta figured out how her career fits in with "being good"--but even this part is sort of murky.  And I'm not willing to reread it to try and figure out what I missed.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of people read "How To Be Good" but no one talks about it because it wasn't as good as "High Fidelity," "About a Boy" or "Fever Pitch."  But maybe I just travel in the wrong circles.

 

OK, now about Ray Lewis and redemption.  People see that Ray "got off", that he took a plea deal (hating plea agreements is ridiculous, by the way) and didn't get what he deserved.  And his redemption story is exactly the kind of story that inspires me to do my job, both from a professional and spiritual standpoint.

 

Let's assume that Ray Lewis is guilty in the involvement of the death of these two men.  Let's say that Lewis deserved to be convicted and punished for his involvement, and that he absolutely did not deserve the success and attention he received that followed this incident.

 

And yet, that's not what happened.  Lewis was not convicted, was not punished, and is incredibly successful (and as Nick pointed out, on the cusp of starting another incredibly successful career).

 

So what did happen?  Did justice fail us by letting a man go?  Or did something else happen, perhaps as big as divine intervention, that gave Ray Lewis a second chance (that neither he nor anyone else deserves)?

 

Was Ray Lewis shown forgiveness?  Isn't one measure of a man what he does with forgiveness?

 

If you assume Ray Lewis is guilty, and you believe in a merciful, loving God but reject Ray Lewis because he "got off" ... why?  Why can't we celebrate in his redemption?  Is this attitude not unlike the son who stayed, who was angry when the Prodical Son returned and the father put on a feast?

 

Being a part of the process where someone who doesn't deserve forgiveness (which is all of us, by the way) gets it and has the chance to turn things around... that's a huge part of why I do my job.

 

In my job, I will never actually know if a client gets a good result because God wants to do something with that.  I will never actually know if they use that opportunity--God given or not--to make change for good.  Similarly, I never actually know if someone I perceive as a nice or good person is supposed to go to prison for a non-violent offense for way too long.  I don't know God's plan (I talked about this before in another post).

 

But what I've seen at least some evidence of is that, despite what happened with the case against Ray Lewis--divine intervention, bumbling prosecutors, or actually honest-to-goodness innocence--Mr. Lewis appears to have turned his life around, and dramatically.  Is this merely a ruse?  I will never know.  But it is hard to deny that, if Ray received forgiveness, a second chance to do something different, he grabbed the opportunity with both hands and never let go.  And I think that should mean something, especially to followers of Christ.  As Nick pointed out in his blog, Ray's story is one of redemption.

Sometimes, When There Are No Videogames...

...I read.  And this time, I read Game of Thrones and Ready Player One.  And now I will discuss them.  And none of this is recommended (4 out of 5 dentists agree).

I don't pleasure read very often, so I can't really compare one book to another or say if an idea is original or played-out.  But here goes.

Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin

Based on the HBO series (ok, other way around), this is the long beginning (750+ pages) to a multibook series and it feels that way, too.  In other words, most times it seems like a big set up rather than an individual story.  Characters are introduced, you learn how they tick somewhat, but there are a lot of them.  At first, I was worried I wouldn't remember all their names and keep them straight, but this didn't turn out to be a problem after all.  However, don't go in expecting some sort of resolution--in fact, things are murkier at the end than they were at the beginning.  That said, it's still an entertaining ride, mostly, I guess.

The back of the book says "At the center of the conflict lie the Starks of Winterfell, a family as harsh and unyielding as the land they were born to."  ...Huh?  Did we read the same book?  Eddard Stark, the head of the House of Stark and Lord of Winterfell, may be honorable and duty bound but by the standards of the day, he's one of the most compassionate characters in his position.

See, apparently men are all about going to war and nailing other chicks while they're away from their wives, and there are a ton of disenfranchised bastards (in the literal sense) roaming around.  The King, Robert Baratheon, apparently has a ton of them.  These bastards have to fend for themselves for the most part--maybe the receive unknown assistance through back channels in some instance, but they never know their fathers and they definitely aren't in line to inherent squat.

Eddard Stark, though, only has one bastard, and rather than support him from afar (or ignore him completely), he brought him home with him and raised him with his other children.  His wife didn't like it, but Eddard would never reveal the information about the woman with whom he conceived this child, either to his wife or to the child.

Eddard also strongly believes that, if you're going to sentence a man to die, you should be the one to swing the sword.  Don't send another man to do your dirty work.  This is also unlike every other ruling man in the book.

So Eddard is interesting and presumably the protagonist, except there really isn't a protagonist.  Each chapter is told from another character's perspective: Eddard; his bastard, Jon Snow; his wife, Catelyn; his son, Bran; his daughters, Arya and Sansa.  Other perspectives are Tyrion Lannister, known as "the Imp," a dwarf born to a powerful family who are generally at odds with the Starks and sundry others.  We also see things from the perspective of Daenerys Targaryen, one of two remaining members of the last king who was overthrown by Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark (but actually killed by Jaime Lannister, now known as "the Kingslayer.").  Her role in the book is separate from the rest, as she does not interact with what one might call "the main story" or "main players."  Rather, she's on a separate island, involved with a militaristic horse tribe that fears the sea (and therefore is never a threat to "the main players.").  Yet, it is perhaps her story and her character that are the most compelling--even though it's outside of everything else, I got excited when the chapter was titled "Daenerys."

But it is also Daenerys's story that points back to the obvious truth of this book: it's a set up for a series, and does not do much (if anything) standing on its own.  Clearly, she is going to have to get involved with "the main story" at some point, but that she does not do it at all in his book frustrates, like seeing the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie without knowing in advance they were making a third one for sure.  (Sidenote: Back to the Future II avoided this conundrum, I think, but I could be wrong.)

And her story is only the most obvious one, but as things are supposed to be "wrapping up," it's clear that nothing is resolved at all.  Everyone is in a considerably more chaotic situation than when they started, and the outcome is incredibly unclear.  Which is fine if you're dedicated to reading the series in advance, but I learned through Game of Thrones that I prefer books that can stand alone, even if they are part of a series (like Harry Potter).

I am intrigued with the story and I want to know what happens, but I'm also half-minded to read Wikipedia entries about the characters I care about rather than read the series.  Part of the problem involves jumping from perspectives each chapter.  I was excited for chapters from Eddard, Bran, Tyrion and especially Daenerys.  But whenever it was labeled Sansa or Catelyn, I found myself mentally checking out because I didn't find those characters compelling.

So, I guess if you're into reading a large series of books, Game of Thrones won't disappoint.  If not, you still might like this book, and maybe it will help going in that there won't be any resolution.

Ready Player One by Ernest Cline

This book came out of nowhere and changed my life.  OK not really, but I found it really compelling and very thought-provoking.  Yet, at the end I wondered if I really liked the book, or if I was just so happy with myself because I caught most of the pop culture references involved (especially the more nerdy ones).

One of my top five favorite movies of all time is High Fidelity, along with The Truman Show, Roman Holiday, The Princess Bride, and Saving Private Ryan.  Actually I can't swear by that list--the only safe ones are High Fidelity and The Truman Show.  I could also throw in Napoleon Dynamite, Good Will Hunting, Garden State, and even Juno if I was feeling a bit frisky.

But the important part is High Fidelity, both because the top five list was a reference to High Fidelity itself, and because it's chock full of references and pop culture stuff, most of which I don't understand but appreciate on a greater level because it's beyond my understanding.  See, I'm not a music lover on the level of Rob Gordon, so I can appreciate his love of music as he relates it to me even though I don't share that love.  One of the things they talk about, if only briefly, is that Rob, Dick and Barry divined that it's not what you're like, it's what you like that matters.  Cartoons, music, TV shows--having this in common is even more important than who you are.  At the end, Rob figures out that that's not really the case--that he loves Laura for reasons he can't explain but he fully realizes that the music part (and other things they like) doesn't matter.

But the idea, and the idea of pop culture references, of getting the inside joke (or even appreciating the inside joke even if it's over your head) creates this feeling of belonging or this aura of respect for those that do that you also want to belong.

Ready Player One is about a billionaire video game creator that invents the ultimate MMO video game that eventually takes over the world, voluntary "Matrix" style.  Everyone is logging in to escape the harsh reality of real life.  The billionaire dies, and his will is really a contest to retrieve three keys, open three gates and find this "Easter egg."  The winner wins his estate valued at $250 billion dollars and control this video game, called the OASIS.

In addition to the individuals searching for the egg, there are also egg hunting clans and one super-evil egg hunting corporation called IOI.  This corporation fully intends to better monetize OASIS, which the billionaire programmer sold individually for 25 cents and no subscription fee.

In order to find the egg, these egg hunters (or gunters as they are called) research everything they can about this billionaire's life:  his childhood, the video games he played, created, his musical tastes, etc. etc., anything that will give them a clue as to where to find these keys.  So naturally, there are stacks and stacks of references to movies and music from the 80s, even Dungeons and Dragon modules.

As I read through this book, I got the references (most of them), which enhanced my experience and made me think the book was genius.  And maybe it is, but I'm second guessing myself if only for this reason: what would the book be without the references?

High Fidelity includes musical references from a generation before me.  Music I've only heard if it was REALLY good, but generally heard by everyone ten years older than me.  There is a quiet reverence for this music and its fans, even if it's not my music.

Ready Player One's references are arguably still a generation before.  See, I've played Adventure for the Atari 2600... once.  I didn't beat it, and I certainly never found within it the very first video game Easter egg.  I've heard of Intellivision, I actually owned a Colecovision though I couldn't figure out how to make it work (I just used the Atari 2600 add on instead).  I played Pac-Man but never mastered it.  My generation was really the Super Mario Bros. generation (and probably more accurately, Super Mario Bros. 3).  Regardless of whether it's actually my generation or not, it resonates with me either because it is or for the same reason High Fidelity resonates.

It made me think: what if someone wrote this same book ten years "later" in its chronology, and the references shifted from Voltron to the Power Rangers?  From Street Fighter II to Pokemon?  Would it be the same, would it resonate?

The answer is no, not at all, not even close.  Not only do I not know those, I don't even respect them.  Those things--Power Rangers, Pokemon--don't come close, don't have the same depth, are mere imitations of the things in my childhood that were great.  Right?  Or is that just my perspective--I see the things in my generation as the original and all the followups as ripoffs?

Will people a generation or two before me like Ready Player One?

If I strip away all the pop culture references that I like and understand, is what's left still a good story?  Is it original?

As far as I can tell, the answers to those questions are probably good, but probably not original.  But thankfully, I don't have to read the book without the references, so even if the book is not an unqualified masterpiece (but rather, a qualified, perhaps limited to a certain group of readers type of book (as most probably are, I suppose)), if you grew up a geek in the 80s or 90s, you will probably enjoy this book.  Perhaps immensely.

Next books on my list: NONE.  Back to video games.  And wishing that the World of Warcraft would somehow be as good as the OASIS.

Replacement Refs and Fantasy Football

And non-titillating titles.  Not recommended.

The NFL is back, baby!  And this year, the NFL locked out its referees in a dispute over money, or at least, that's the only real piece of information being discussed because we don't know the numbers, etc.  The NFL says that it's going to be paying more money, but the refs did the math and say the get the greasy end of the stick in the long run.  Who is right?  Not sure.  But it's important to remember that the referees are locked out, not on strike.

(The other issue being discussed about the lockout is the hypocrisy of the NFL and its stance on player safety.  How can you lock out the most experienced refs but claim safety is a top priority?  But  you can read about that somewhere else.)

Replacement refs are calling the games; they did in preseason and they continued to do so in Week 1.  How are they faring?  Mario Williams blasted the refs for letting the Jets offensive line hold him on every play.  The Seattle Seahawks got an extra time out in the fourth quarter.  There were some other issues here and there, though it does not appear as if any of the flubs altered the outcome of a game... yet.

But even the presence of inexperienced referees is a signal to NFL teams, particularly coaches: try it, see if it works.  As Jim Rome said, if you're not cheating, you're not trying.

My favorite law professor played basketball with a guy who was great to play pick up with.  He played fairly, would admit when he fouled, etc.  But throw in a referee and the guy was a terror.  When someone else was charged with enforcing the rules, this guy would bend or break the rules in hopes a call went his way to gain the advantage over his opponents.  In other words, the referee became a "player" in the game, because his level of skill now had something to do with the outcome of the play, perhaps the game.

NFL teams--and NFL coaches--know that the referees are replacements, that they don't have the experience and training that the real referees have, and I guarantee you that factors into how they plan for the game.  It's one thing to call an extra time out and hope the referees are dumb enough to give it to you, or worse, not know what's supposed to happen if you call for a time out but don't have one.  It's one thing to tell the linemen to hold on every play.  But what will more creative coaches do to take advantage of the inexperienced refs?  I expect we will be surprised at the strategies we will hear about as the season progresses, unless the lockout ends soon.

While you're figuring out how that will affect your fantasy team and who you put in, I'll go ahead and talk about what I did in fantasy football this week.

I have three teams; on two teams, I had Matt Ryan and Peyton Manning.  Ryan's Falcons were taking on the Chiefs, who I read had a good secondary.  Based solely on that information, I benched Ryan for Manning.  What I neglected to read before making that decision is that two of the best Chiefs defenders were sidelined with injuries... which might explain how Ryan scored four touchdowns and torched them badly.

Thankfully, that didn't matter, because Manning played very well (just not as well as Ryan).  This week, Atlanta plays Denver, and I have no idea who I will start... Except that I am a Denver fan and really should start Manning, though biases like that are what turn one into fantasy football losers.

In my third league, Cam Newton started and was summarily exposed by his opponents.  I freaked and looked at the waiver wire for a new quarterback... Until I saw RG3 sitting on my bench.  Cha-ching.

Anyway, that's it.  Sorry it lasted even this long.

Big, Important Things!

I was browsing my Facebook news feed when a friend linked an article where one of the presidential candidates (and it will be transparent to most who this is, but this post is not about him so I'm omitting his name) indicated he would put a filter on all new U.S. computers to block pornography.  My first instinct was to respond with this:

How much taxpayer money will be spent on a filter that can never possibly work?  How much taxpayer money will be spent on laws and litigation for people who bypass the filter?  How much will the value of old computers go up because they are "filter-free?"

People have values that they want to sell during an election, that's fine.  But if you're serious about it, have a REAL plan, right?

I didn't post that because I didn't really want to fight about it, mostly because there are probably really transparent answers to all those questions: 1. the filters exist already in some form; 2. the filter is optional, but included automatically so parents can protect children; 3. see #2, it's a non-issue.

But the part that would remain unanswered, or maybe I just wouldn't be satisfied with the answer, is the last questions: if you're serious, have a REAL plan, right?  (Which may only be technically called a question because it does in fact end in a question mark, though really it is probably only a statement.)  That's kind of what this post is about.

People running for office, incumbents or otherwise (though perhaps this problem is more likely to occur in fiction rather than reality), seemingly often have plans to do X, Y or Z.  Often these comments referring to this plan seem to indicate that the plan is going to be mind-blowingly awesome, linked to iterations of "when I'm president," the plan will go into effect, and everyone will win.

My problem with this is, why is the plan conditional upon winning office?  One thought is that, as awesome as the plan is to the candidate, in reality the plan is only awesome for one party or those who lean left or lean right, and that the other party will find the plan horrible and dedicate time and resources into defeating the plan.  This makes sense on its face, with the example of the pornography filter: there are a lot of folks, many of which fall on the left side of the aisle, that don't want their internet content regulated by the government.  The plan is great for some, but awful for others.

But what if the candidate truly believes the plan IS great for everyone, regardless of political ties and impending opposition?  If you're American enough to believe that you love the country so much that you are the one most qualified to lead it, doesn't it follow that any plan that would benefit America is a plan that shouldn't wait, that shouldn't be conditional upon your winning office?

If you have a real plan to block pornography on the internet, why not try to implement it now, regardless of whether you get credit for the idea?  If you have a plan to fix social security, if you have a plan to boost the economy, if you have a plan to improve education, why should it wait?

I think I understand the idea that, once you're in power, you have the ability to do these great things; without that power, these things may not come to fruition.  At the same time, if a candidate, through his power as the party leader and/or the potential president, could use that status as candidate to sway other politicians to start implementing the plan... I mean, doesn't being the party front runner and potential election winner carry enough weight to get the ball rolling?  If you roll out an awesome plan and it starts to get implemented even before you're in office, isn't that a signal to the electorate that you can in fact deliver on these great plans once you get even more power?

Don't we as Americans deserve your effort to those ends, anyway?

I would love it, love it if a candidate said "I want to fix the pornography problem in America (sidenote: I know that presumes that there is a pornography problem in America, so that's obviously an ideology thing, but keep reading because that's not the important part, just the example).  I don't know how to do that at the moment.  The ideas we have aren't there yet--I can't just install a button that blocks pornography on every PC.  It's a complicated problem from a technical and legal standpoint.  But I'm dedicated to getting it done, and my colleagues and I continue to brainstorm and research how to reach this end.  If we figure it out before I am elected president, we won't hesitate to do what we can to implement it now."

Maybe candidates do say things like that, on perhaps more important issues that everyone already understands is complicated technically and legally.  Or maybe they avoid statements that will be pointed to as failure if they don't get it done.  Personally, I'd be impressed with the sentiment and the honesty.

I've rambled on long enough, am out of time, and can't salvage this anyway.  Did I forget to say this wasn't recommended?  Sorry, but maybe you should have known better?

Necropost: Tim Tebow is my Homeboy

Note: While I was contemplating a new post, I looked through my old posts and realized I started something on 4/23/10 on the eve of the NFL Draft where the Broncos drafted Tim Tebow, but I never finished it or posted it.  So what I'm gonna do is leave in the original post, then follow up.  This, of course, is not recommended.

THEN: 

Right?

Last night: "The Broncos drafted Tim Tebow IN THE FIRST ROUND??????"
Today: "Hey, the Broncos got Tim Tebow! Sweet!"

What changed? The flavor of the Kool-Aid.

But the pick is refreshing, and here's why. Towards the end of Mike Shanahan's reign, I felt he was a reactionary. Screw up a few times, you're gone; I'll go with the devil I don't know over the one I already know (I stumbled over that, but I'm reversing a well-known phrase for effect and it was bound to be clunky). He took a big chance on Plummer, and in my opinion everything was working... until he allegedly bombed in the AFC Championship (you can't ignore that the whole team was awful, but the QB took the heat). Somewhere in Plummer's three meaningful years there, Shanahan lost his edge and just started booting people. Bertrand Berry and Trevor Pryce are two good examples (though Pryce may have been gone before Plummer arrived, I can't remember). The rotating door at RB is perhaps the only area where Shanahan was trying to be proactive... but he let his past success with Terrell Davis boost his ego to the point where he thought he could do it again, and it never really panned out (and he never gave it the chance to, either).

Josh McDaniels? He has his issues, but his moves have been proactive. Remember, moving Cutler was always his idea, it just didn't work out the way he initially planned. He is Belicheck-esque in his demeanor: he's the boss, if you're going to run your mouth, you can do it somewhere else. That's why Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler are out of town despite their talent. But you know what? McDaniels isn't going to wait for their "talent" to let us down to get rid of them (and let's be honest, what did those clowns do for Denver while they were here? Three 8-8 seasons? Some talent.).

Long story short: Even if Josh McDaniels is wrong, at least he's making proactive moves he feels are necessary, rather than  (abrupt end of post)

NOW:

Well, I never got to expound on why I thought Tim Tebow himself was a good pick for the Broncos, but I probably didn't even know.  But today, here's where I stand:

I'm a card-carrying member of Tebowmania, way more so than at the time of the original post, except for that there is no club, no memberships and no cards.  Still, I'm sold, I hoped he would remain a Bronco, but Elway's ego got in the way.  Hey, I'm looking forward to the Manning era in Denver, no doubt, I only hoped Tebow could be the back up and learn from the master.  But I got to see Tebow play the Steelers in the playoffs in person, got to see the overtime victory, got to see the great run of wins that shouldn't have been.  Tebow has swagger, and his inspiration is his faith.  I want to see great things happen for him, and I want to see him do great things.

I stand by my comments about Shanahan.  He's still washed up, and he shouldn't have been so quick to shove Plummer down the stairs.

I was wrong about McDaniels, though not entirely so.  Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler, I'm still not fans of theirs.  But McDaniels did a poor job of replacing them--his draft picks didn't hold up.  I guess I can still admire his pluck, even if he was wrong, he did it his way (or Belichick's way, or something, or whatever).

Hopefully Elway and Fox know what they're doing, and hopefully Manning leads the Broncos to the playoffs each of his five years under his contract.

Master of Orion, 18 Years Later

Absolutely not recommended.  Seriously.  You will regret reading this.  If you think this is sarcasm, you are wrong.

Back when mom bought our first real computer (it ran Windows 3.1 but did not have a CD-ROM or a sound card), I played "Master of Orion," a 1993 game described as "4X": explore, expand, exploit, exterminate.  It is a space strategy game where you build an empire of star systems, build a fleet, interact with other races, create alliances, go to war, research technology, etc. etc.  You win by earning 2/3 votes of the population (which is made far easier if your empire constitutes 2/3 of the vote) or by destroying your competition.

I start playing this again after I stumbled upon a community of people that still play and have taken it to the extreme, so to speak.  They've played this game so many times, they can usually beat this game on the "Impossible" setting, they know certain exploits (and some refuse to use them even when others think their use is fair game), and they keep playing not necessarily to win but to see how the computer's AI works with each race of aliens.  There are a handful that are creating an unofficial patch that will correct some of the computer's AI issues.

So, like a fool, I thought it would be fun to play again.  I have no interest in joining this little community--one video game addiction at a time, if I can help it--but I found it all fascinating and wanted to reminisce by playing the game.

Here is where this post takes a turn for the worse.  Non-gamers, avert your eyes.

I started small, literally: I played in a Small galaxy on the lowest difficulty setting against four opponents.  I played as the Psilons, who research technology at a much faster rate than any other race, and are largely considered to be the best if not overpowered alien race.  This game ended quickly with a win.

My second game was a Large galaxy, average difficulty, five opponents, still as Psilons.  I learned from the few posts I read on this website that early expansion is the biggest key to survival, let alone winning.  I encountered a few races with larger empires but much lower technology.  They chose to go to war with me, I usually got the better of them and my empire expanded.  That was a win also, but the large galaxy took much longer to conquer--not just because of the amount of systems necessary to take over, but because the game still moves slower when you have such a big galaxy (you have to run this game in a DOS emulator; if there is a way to speed the game up, I haven't figured it out yet).

Next, I tried a Small galaxy, average difficulty, five opponents.  Because space is limited here, this presents a different kind of challenge: get out there fast, fortify what you've got, because at least one race if not several are wanting to expand right away.  I played as the Meklars, a cyborg/gecko race known for increased factory controls (more production).  The Klackons, an ant-like race with their own form of increased production, quickly stole my third system without even a declaration of war (and bringing their total to six).  Knowing I misplayed my opening, I admitted defeat and started a new game.

...I played as the Klackons.  Fleets were built, wars were waged; in the end, I owned seven systems to my next closest opponents six.  A total conquest victory was not in sight when voting time came; of the 19 total votes available, 6 were cast for my opponent and 5 for me before accounting for my 8 votes (two other empires disliked the Silicoids more than they disliked me).  With a race built for more production, I expected a bloody ending.  Not so, it seemed--the game ended in 2474, or 174 turns.

With this in mind, my next game was the same except I played as Humans.  Their advantage is in treaties and trading--I fully expected a peaceful "council" end (council means a winner by vote).  And I played to the Human strengths: I expanded to three systems to make contact with other races.  I entered into trade agreements with four other races, and our relations were slowly getting better.  Things were very even: each race was close in size, population, fleet strength, technology, etc.  At one point, I had four systems, the Darloks (a spy-like race whose advantage is, you guessed it, sabotage and espionage) had four systems, and everyone else had three except for the lizard-like Sakkra, isolated to one planet (and whom I did not even have contact with, our systems were so distant).  I was friends with everyone and expected a diplomatic victory very soon.

The problem was, everyone else was friends with everyone, also.  No one was at war, which was fine while everything was balanced.  However, the balance soon teetered when 1) the Darloks came within a vote of winning the game by council vote, and 2) the Darloks researched or stole the technology for building colonies on radiated planets, three of which were available.  They quickly expanded from four to six systems with a seventh in sight when I knew I had to take action or risk losing at the next vote.

I implored two other alien races to declare war on the Darloks.  The Psilons with their advanced technology were eager to do so.  The Meklars agreed only after I gave them some new technology for their ground troops.

The three empires--my Humans, the Psilons and Meklars--began to tear apart the Darlok empire.  War inspires war, it seems; soon the Psilons and Meklars were at war with each other.  Then the Meklars wanted to war with me.  I destroyed the newest Darlok colonies (that I couldn't take over without their technology) and finally their homeworld, leaving them with a handful of underdeveloped colonies.  At some point, they were down to one colony when the other races laid off and let them be.  As I found out (and then reloaded my game at an earlier point), finishing off an alien race--genocide--is a major faux paux in intergalactic war.

So far, this "peaceful" game was far bloodier than the last.  What started out as a sure victory by vote was turning into a race to conquer systems.  My empire far outstripped the others at the next vote, but the other empires feared my power and voted against me (except for my lone Psilon allies).

The Mrrshans--the cat-like race of superior gunners--tried to make a system grab then pretend everything was OK.  I responded by taking two of their three systems while occupying their third, preventing them from doing anything else but not landing a killing blow.  Out of desperation, it seems, the Mrrshans invaded the last Darlok system, committing the dreaded genocide.  But now that the Mrrshans had two planets, I could take the one I already occupied without committing genocide and alienating the other empires.

Not so.  My allies, the Psilons, attacked their new planet on the same turn.  Apparently their attack went through first, so when I took over the planet I was already at, it was their last and I was the one "guilty" of committing genocide.  The Psilons ended our alliance and tensions rose.

Four empires left: my Humans, the Psilons, and finally the Meklars and Sakkras, each with one planet and each at war with me.  Since everything was a complete and utter mess diplomatically, I turned my sights to destroying the Meklars and Sakkras (more importantly, their votes) so my empire would by itself have the required 2/3 vote necessary to win.  A cosmic space crystal destroyed the Meklars last planet, though it appears as though the game will not let an empire die this way, so I when I sent some ships to merely occupy the planet, the colony was destroyed and I got credit for another genocide.  Next turn, the vote came and I elected myself the new Galactic Emperor of this tiny galaxy, winning the game in 2674--374 turns, or more than twice as long as my Klackon victory.

...How did all of this happen?  How do the militaristic Klackons get enough support from other empires to get an early diplomatic win, while the diplomatic Humans had to slug it out, committing two accidental genocides and forcing a third (the Mrrshans ending the Darloks)?  How was this story created--either in the game or in my mind--from actions and reactions from five computer AIs attempting to act in their own best interest?

But is that really how it happened?  In the Klackon game, I merely responded to provocation and only attacked when others declared war against me.  In the Human game, I urged others to destroy my main competitor when it appeared I would lose at the next diplomatic juncture.  I created war where there was none, because I wanted to win.

Does this say something about me in general (I hope not)?  Does it say something about the way I play games (my wife would say yes, definitely yes)?  Does this mean anything at all?  Probably not.  It's just a game, two different playthroughs of the game (so a small sample size) and there are a lot of other variables to consider.

Still, it's fascinating (to some, maybe just me) and it's why I get sucked into this and other games.  But it doesn't seem like it would make a lot of sense to most people, which is a large part of why this article is absolutely not recommended.  It's bad enough I think of all this stuff with this ancient computer game; it's worse that I was compelled to sit down three different times (because I didn't have enough consecutive minutes available to write this all at once) and write a stupid post about it.

Ghost writer for Twitter!

I think it would be fun to ghost write for someone's Twitter account. Here are some samples:

Learning to play guitar but will not play for you. sx2bu

Mmm... Sushi!

Yuck, sushi.

Sushi... meh.

You are FOOLS to have come here!

Kid with runny nose. Ew boogers are gross.

Ran out of stamps. Gonna try stickers.

No stickers either. Gonna draw a stamp.

I suck at art.

Past due? How about let me pay through twitter.

What is a mailbox? Why do we still have them?

Whoa I am up late LOLOLOL

Baking cookies but you can't have any. sx2bu

Ate a lot of cookies today. Mmm... cookies!

Ate too many cookies today.



...Nevermind, I don't think this would be fun after all.

My Job and My Faith

NOTE: The following content is deserving of several careful edits. But that's not how I'm rolling this morning; I'm working against two clocks and I want to get these ideas down before I lose my chance. Perhaps I will edit later. As always, not recommended.

God is all-powerful. In my Spanish-English Parallel Bible, the term for this is "todo poderoso," and based on my limited Spanish, that seems to mean or come from something like "able to do all things."

That God is all-powerful seems like an easy concept, yet sometimes we struggle with this. It is easy to say God is more powerful than the Quran, especially if one does not believe the Quran is anything special. The same can be said if one said God is more powerful than the Book of Mormon.

But what about saying God is more powerful than the Bible? Of course he is, yet to some I am all of a sudden comparing two very similar things. They're not. One is all-powerful; the other is a book, though God-breathed, that is still a thing and not a sentient being. That the Bible is, to me and some others, the primary written authority on who God is does not change that God is ultimately more powerful. Some might say that the Bible defines God, and how else can we learn about him? But clearly God exists even if there wasn't a Bible, simply because God existed before there was a Bible. I mean, he is the subject matter, clearly he predates it.

What does it mean to say that God is more powerful than the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bible? In the very primal sense, it means God will conquer those things, overcome them. More than that, however, it means that God is stronger than the intents and passions of the writers of those books or documents. Meaning, even if the writer meant to convey one thing, God can make it so the reader learns a completely different thing.

Since God is more powerful than these epic tomes, clearly he is also more powerful than a novel, a book written by a Christian author, or a book written by someone who definitely sought truth even if it is unclear if ultimately she found truth.

I use that last strange description because I can't think of a more significant way to describe Simone Weil and her book that God used to change my outlook on one of his most important commandments.

I learned about Simone Weil in a Christian Mysticism class in college, taught by a professor who I felt possessed a clear distaste for modern Christians. Yet, he still had a passion, even if only academically, for Christian mystics, and I learned a lot even if I didn't know how to apply it.

Simone Weil was a compelling individual, and I'm typing this from memory of a course I took almost ten years ago so I apologize if I mess up her short bio. I believe she authored several books, including "Waiting for God" which was required reading in my course. From what I remember, she embraced Jesus but had difficulty accepting that the God of the Old Testament were one and the same. She rejected baptism. She dabbled in and/or embraced Marxism, though not the antireligious aspects of it--what I mean is, I think she believed that Marxism was a better way to run a Godly community... I can't remember. The point is, she is a controversial individual for a number of reasons.

Regardless of what you think about Weil, she wrote a book that I was required to read, though I only read portions. One of the portions so compelled me you would think I would read the rest of it, but that wasn't the way I worked then and I can't say it's the way I work now.

She wrote about what it means to love your neighbor as yourself, and I am paraphrasing from memory, but this is what I remember. When you see a homeless man, and you remember to love your neighbor as yourself, you are compelled to help the man. Some would think "I offer food to this man because I love God." Others might say "I offer food to this man because I love him." Weil said "I offer food to this man because I love myself," and when I am hungry I do not hesitate to feed myself because I love myself. If I am to love this homeless man as myself, I will feed him because he is hungry, period. Because that's what it means to love him as I love myself. That's how you fulfill God's commandment.

(She says it a million times better than that and probably considerably less heavy handed. I'm shooting for a concept here, the one that latched on to me and hasn't let go, though admittedly more in my head than in practice.)

I can't remember much about Weil, as my convoluted paragraph above proves. I don't know if she has any "authority" when speaking about God (I use quotes because I disagree with the concept of someone having authority to speak about God--either God is using that person or he isn't, it has nothing to do with how good they are or how much they have studied or even if they have any idea what they are talking about, which is really my point with all of this); what I do know is what she wrote spoke to me and I believe it was a message from God that I needed to hear.

God can use books that are written by strangers or even enemies to reveal his truths. Yet God does not even have to use a book. God is more powerful than literacy; he can reveal himself to someone who can't read. He can do it in any way, but one of those ways is through their life experience.

The lesson God taught me through Simone Weil's words, as well as the belief that God can use any situation to reveal himself to a person, are just two of the reasons why I work as a public defender.

Several people have asked me, Christian and non-Christian alike, how I can defend someone I know to be guilty. I don't have an answer memorized but it is something like this: I am guilty. I have sinned against God and deserve nothing but punishment. There is nothing I can do to earn my way out of that situation, no amount of good that will cover over my sin. Yet, my sin is forgiven through Jesus Christ, who in spite of my shortcomings and my sin still wants to save me from eternal punishment. These guilty people I defend, I am one of them. If I am to love my neighbor as myself, I must defend them. Not because love God, not because I love them, but because I love myself, and God has commanded me to love my client as I love myself. Which means I must defend them from accusation regardless of their guilt.

In doing so, I hope that they receive less punishment than what they were facing at the outset, and thought the parallel is imperfect, I hope whatever portion of forgiveness they receive only leads them to the ultimate forgiveness that Christ offers. Even if that doesn't happen, I know that God is working in a person's legal situation in ways that I cannot understand. God placed me here to do this work and I am his tool to be used for his purposes. So even if I strive mightily to get my client an acquittal or an incredibly favorable plea agreement, it still might be God's goal to have me fail because of a greater lesson he wants to impart upon my client. Because God is more powerful than this defense attorney, and though I walk away frustrated with a case where it seems I had no impact whatsoever on the outcome, I have to believe that God has a purpose for that, maybe for me, maybe for my client, maybe for all of us or someone else entirely.

Just so it is clear (especially to those who know me in the legal community), it would be unethical from a professional standpoint and incredibly belligerent and assuming from a faith standpoint for me to think that I know what God wants to happen in a particular case or for a particular client. My goal with any case is always the same: get the best outcome for my client, period. For me to act in any other way is unethical and unprofessional, and it means I am placing limits on God because if I were to act that way, it means I don't believe he is more powerful than my own efforts for my client. For this reason, my beliefs do not and will not affect my duties to my client. My actions in my case will always have that one goal in mind: get the best result for my client.

Man, I thought I was going to get out of this without a legal disclaimer, but I think that last paragraph was necessary in the end.

MLB All-Star "Vacation"!

Huge thanks to my mother-in-law, Kerry, who gave Katie and I tickets to all the MLB All-Star events! Here's a rundown of what went on:

MLB Fanfest: I couldn't go but Katie went with Kerry, Isabelle, and a former student studying to be a sports journalist. Lots of good stuff. I'll let her talk about that on her blog (link on the side there, somewhere).

The Celebrity/Legends Game: I haven't watched this in the past because following celebrities is not one of my hobbies, but we had tickets and the spare time so we decided to check it out. Having never seen one, I can't compare the quality of celebs in past years. But this year's batch didn't do much for me. Nick Jonas may have been the biggest celebrity there. I was happy to see Chord Overstreet (Sam from Glee) and he made a pretty awesome play, but I don't think he's a celeb. Jennie Finch "pitched" (slow pitch softball) but despite her gold medal in Olympic Softball, she's still just a local celeb. There were some random dudes I liked (Matt from Heroes) but no celebrities, really, save Jonas.

The Legends were pretty good, though. Of course there was Luis Gonzalez and Mark Grace, and Matt Williams made an appearance. Probably best of all was Rickey Henderson, who had a leadoff home run off of Jennie Finch. He played hard and brought personality.

There was a mini-homerun derby that pitted Jonas and Henderson against some dude and Gonzo. Jonas and Henderson each hit one HR, some dude hit two, so Gonzo only had to hit one to win it all.

The whole thing took maybe 65 minutes. Given the price of admission (which I won't list), I don't think the fans got their money's worth. But it was a gift to Katie and I and we enjoyed it. Like I said, I can't say if there are usually bigger names there and I can't say if SB 1070 played a role in keeping other celebs away.

MLB Home Run Derby: !!!!! This. Was. Awesome.

Katie and I are NL fans, mostly because of the Diamondbacks but also because we don't care for the DH position (I'm more ambivalent than Katie is but I tend to lean against the DH). So our natural inclination in all things, even exhibitions like the HR Derby, is to cheer for NL.

However, Prince Fielder made that nearly impossible. This year, for the first time ever, the HR Derby had "captains" that chose three teammates from their league to try and outscore the other league (even though there is only one winner in the end). The captains were the previous two winners, Prince Fielder for the NL and David Ortiz for the AL.

Prince Fielder, a 275 lb. vegetarian, weighed his options for power on his NL team, and he came up with Matt Holliday (good choice), Matt Kemp (meh) and... Rickie Weeks, a teammate of his on the Brewers, not known for his power but whatever. Why is this horrible? He did not choose Justin Upton, an Arizona Diamondback who hits long home runs in the same field on which the HR Derby would occur. Nevermind any home field advantage, nevermind getting the fans on your side... let's choose Rickie Weeks cuz he's my homeboy.

Arizona fans were not amused. Fielder was booed all night, Weeks (who didn't deserve it) was booed too, only hit 3 HRs in the first round and was summarily eliminated. After Round 1, it was 3 AL players against one, Fielder. He was eliminated in Round 2.

But you know what? That only added some story to a night that would have been spectacular without it, because this HR Derby was quite the show, thanks to Robinson Cano and Adrian Gonzalez. They were hitting bombs all over right field. I can't figure out how to describe it. It was so steady and consistent that you expected the home run, yet you were in awe that they were able to keep doing it over and over and over again.

The ESPN article about the HR Derby captured part of it: one guy nearly went over a wall trying to catch... his fourth HR ball. Another guy made the catch of the year: he caught a HR ball, landed in the pool with bikini-clad hotties... and didn't spill his beer. Um, how can it get any better than that (and I don't even drink)?!

The HR Derby was absolutely worth the price of admission. Katie and I watch this every year so we're somewhat biased, but if this wasn't the best one we've seen, it was at least on par with the Abreu and Hamilton derbies, and even better than the Tejada/Berkman derby because we got to see it live.

My only complaint: there needed to be an extra charity boost for hitting a home run into the pool, and it's a tremendous oversight by MLB and all charitable organizations that that no such portion of the contest was included.

MLB All-Star Game: It's amazing because the best players play against the best players... right?

Except they didn't: Sunday's starting pitchers couldn't play, and Jeter is a wussbag, and A-Rod is hurt or getting surgery, and Jeter is a wussbag, and Chipper Jones couldn't go, and Jeter is a wussbag.

There was still plenty of star power, but then there are the guys I'd never heard of from teams in last place. Even so, they surprise you: Starlin Castro from the Cubs stole second then third, and Hunter Pence threw out a guy at home with a perfect toss from left field.

The score wasn't close and there weren't enough "OH MY!" plays, but it was great to be there and see all the fans from all over enjoying the game. That was really the best part: cheering with other fans instead of against them.

All in all, a good experience. There's plenty more I could say; maybe I'll add more later.

Excerpts from Encyclopaedia Herbnostica

Foreword: These excerpts, like the rest of the Encyclopaedia Herbnostica, were composed when the author(s) were supposed to be sleeping.

Horny Captain Bearded King: Captain of the Pirate Ship A242, known for his adoration of the fairer sex, his beard, his pirate hat/crown, and his way with words.

First Mate Ocho the Committed: First Mate of the Pirate Ship A242, so named because 5 and 3 are 8, and because he was engaged to be married during his service aboard the ship. Others have speculated that he was "committed" in another sense, but whatever.

Dopplar, the Mutant-Ribbed Cabin Boy: Cabin Boy aboard the Pirate Ship A242, named for his love of science and his mutant rib that jutted out worse than the glacier that sunk the Titanic.

Half-Beard the Chaste: Held no official title on the Pirate Ship A242, leading some to speculate that he inhabited the Crow's Nest, or was a passenger, or a prisoner, or a combination of the three. Though clearly Half-Beard lent credibility to the rest of the crew by virtue of having "beard" in his name, unlike the others... except for Horny Captain Bearded King, so nevermind. Named because he could only grow a beard on one side of his face, and because unlike the others aboard, held no special affection for women (or men, for that matter).

Herb F. Garcia: A curmudgeon known to live in spacious hallway closets, sneaking out at night to post mediocre scores on N64 games like Hydro Thunder. Is rumored to be quite amorous with the ladies despite living in a hallway closet, though none of those rumors were ever confirmed, or even widely circulated. Not to be confused with Herb D. Garcia; it is important that you ask which one you are talking to should a "Herb" answer the phone.

This Post Is Boring and Irrelevant

You have been warned. As always, not recommended.

No, seriously. This is going to be like most people's posts, random thoughts about stuff that doesn't matter. And the thoughts are not even original or interesting. They're just things I wanted to put down on paper, but I don't want to waste paper, so I'll "waste" internet space.

"The King's Speech" lives up to the hype. Must see.

1998 was a very loaded Oscar year, but I didn't realize this at the time. This doesn't change how Jim Carrey deserved a nomination (not necessarily a win) for his performance in The Truman Show.

For instance, I didn't realize/remember until looking at 1998 at filmsite.org that "Saving Private Ryan" did NOT win Best Picture that year. Neither did "Life is Beautiful." No, that honor goes to "Shakespeare in Love." ...Really? Either of the World War II era films I just mentioned would have beaten Gladiator hands down, but I'm not so sure that "Shakespeare in Love" can do that. Loaded year, right?

(I really enjoy Gladiator but I don't regard it as a "Best Picture" quality film. It wasn't as good as Braveheart, though it drew comparisons to that film. It won in a weak year (he says without looking at the actual evidence...).)

Roberto Benigni won Best Actor for "Life is Beautiful," edging out Tom Hanks (Ryan) and Edward Norton in American History X.

Steven Spielberg won Best Director for "Saving Private Ryan," beating the directors of "Life is Beautiful," "Shakespeare in Love" and "The Truman Show."

Anyway.

I don't know what to think about BYU dismissing a star player in a year in which it could make the Final Four. On one hand, BYU showed integrity in making the move. On the other hand, I'm really interested to know when this transgression occurred and for how long BYU knew about it. Does it matter in the long run? Yes and no. Mostly no.

Will the NFL owners lockout the players? It does not seem as inevitable as we first thought. I think I understand the issues at play and I tend to favor the players in this disagreement, but how much of that is media spin? Arguably, ESPN.com and other sources are not nearly as overtly biased as we can imagine media sources were during the last baseball strike, when there was "no doubt" the blame for the strike was the fault of the players. Even so, how can we decide without knowing more information, specifically the information withheld by the owners--how much money is each team bringing in, what are their actual expenses for which they are asking for an additional billion dollars out of the $9 billion pot split between players and owners?

Will Arizona have even an illusion of rational leadership, ever? I'm so jaded by their perpetual failure that I will even consider joining the Start Our State movement if only they promise to observe Daylight Savings Time. Why? So I don't have to reschedule my World of Warcraft playing time every six months. That's how apathetic I've become about politics in Arizona: you can't really help me when it comes to the stuff that matters, so placate me with stuff that doesn't. Ultimately, I think they know it too, which is why the legislature wasted their time on choosing a state gun and creating a license plate for the tea party.

Well, from the Original Tea Party, I leave you with this final thought: A Very Merry Unbirthday To You!

Jordan, Magic Serving Their Legacies In Dissing LeBron

It doesn't get much simpler than that. Jordan, Magic, and Bird (if he follows suit) have nothing to lose and everything to gain by calling out LeBron for taking less money to play with another superstar teammate in Dwyane Wade.

First of all, let's not give them points for originality. The talking heads of sports were saying it days before Jordan parroted the comments, and Magic said it days after Jordan.

Second, making a comment at all puts their names on websites, blogs, maybe papers, etc. and makes them more relevant. Of course, those names will never go out of style, but still, it's free press.

Third, coming out and saying they would never do what LBJ did, that they were only trying to beat each other, is self-serving. The statements mean "we were so good that we didn't need each other to win championships." While that may be true, the statement ignores and belittles the contributions of those they played with.

Now let me interject and state that I'm not an NBA fan and I certainly didn't watch Magic and Bird play in the primes, if at all. I did see Jordan. And I know all of these guys had good support. Jordan had Pippen and Phil Jackson. Magic had Kareem. Bird had some good guys, I just don't know their names.

OK, so none of their teammates were as good as Jordan, Magic or Bird (except Kareem, though I know he was past his prime at that point). But they were still good, really good.

Who did LeBron have? Guys playing out of their minds at just the right time, sometimes? He was stuck in a perpetually bad franchise in a city beset with perpetually bad franchises. His team wasn't doing everything it could to help it win, either because they didn't know what that was, or because they weren't working hard enough. If there was a Pippen available, they weren't getting him.

And Shaq doesn't count. He pushed Kobe to greatness, he did the same for Wade, he couldn't do it for Nash, and he doesn't have enough gas in the tank for LeBron.

I'm losing my point here, but it's this: Jordan, Magic and Bird played for franchises who knew what they were doing, who surrounded their stars with talent, albeit not on the level of another (current) superstar. That wasn't happening in Cleveland. LBJ gave them seven years but they couldn't bring it together.

His options were to go to New York (because they have a great track record with winning...), New Jersey (same, arguably worse), Chicago (possibly viable, hard to say), and some other places. Or, he could go to Miami where established stars are playing. If we follow the "wisdom" of Jordan and Magic, LeBron should have stayed in Cleveland, OR gone to a lesser franchise, all in the name of greatness? There are other terms for that: arrogance, selfishness, egotistical, etc. To believe that you have to be THE guy on a franchise or it doesn't have the same value is simply ridiculous.

Finally, a question out into the void, because I'm not an NBA fan and don't know the answer: Were these two making the same comments about Shaq and Kobe? Didn't they do exactly the same thing, only they brought it together with Phil Jackson? Did Kobe somehow get out of their sights by winning with Pao Gasol? If so, how much of a discredit is that to Pao? The biggest difference between Pao and Shaq is Pao is not a me-first hog. He's smart, he's European, he flops, and after trying to be a superstar in his own right, he knows where his meals and his money come from. Is he as good as Shaq was? Maybe not, but maybe he's better because he knows how to play his role and shut his mouth (most of the time, anyway).

Anyway, the long story is that Jordan's and Magic's comments only serve to increase their legacy, and it comes at the price of the reputations of their supporting teammates and coaches. Shame on them.

EDIT: My brother Nick chimed in on Facebook:

The NBA is about the individual marketing the individual (Jordan created this phenomenon). LeBron was setting himself up to be the talk of the summer. It is genius for his personal Brand and the Association as a whole. The NBA needs this type of hype during the off-season. When is the last time ESPN has ran multiple days worth of NBA coverage in July? Stern knows that any publicity is good publicity in the summer, and that the superstars run the Association. Stern knows he can't attack the hype before the hype is ignited into a frenzy.

Jordan and now Magic are both trying to serve themselves up to the public as the quintessential superstars that stuck through the good times and the bad times to create winning franchises. They were in great markets with great coaches and had team owners that spent the money to win. If Jordan went to Portland as the first pick in the draft we all know that he would have got out as soon as possible to go to a team where he had a chance to win.

I have to agree for several reasons, but mostly because Nick knows more about basketball and the NBA than I do.

Not Guilty!

I've done a total of two trials so far, and I won my second trial! My client was accused of six counts in total. One was dismissed per a Rule 20 motion after the state rested. The jury found my client not guilty of the remaining five counts at the conclusion of the case. Those counts were Aggravated DUI x 4, and Criminal Damage (a misdemeanor).

I never expected to win a trial so soon in my career, especially an Aggravated DUI trial. But this is very exciting and very emotionally rewarding. I already felt like my decision to attend law school was validated when I got this job, but this reaffirmed that.

Banned Books and Advanced Placement

Not recommended (and note that the quality of writing goes down when passions are up and time is short).

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/censored/Content?oid=1092825

That's old news. What's changed? "Another Country" was on the 2010 Advanced Placement (AP) exam again, a year and a half after Empire High School* pulled the book from its curriculum.

I don't practice Education Law, and I only took one course in the subject area. So at the time this happened, I believed that the Pico decision controlled this issue, and that the district failed to contact their lawyer before taking action.

Well, I was probably wrong about both things. What happened in Vail School District is distinguishable from Pico, and probably only because the district sought legal counsel, who advised them to make changes to keep them nominally distinguishable from Pico. In Pico, the school board yanked the book out of libraries. In Vail School District, the principal* yanked the book out of the curriculum, but it was still available in the library.

Not being an Education Law scholar or practitioner, I don't know if that difference is meaningful. And anyway, this happens all the time: only 20% of books pulled for the wrong reason are ever challenged. This most likely occurs because one must have constitutional standing to bring a claim, only students have standing on these issues, and no one educates them about their rights.

Does it matter that the banned book appeared on the AP test this year? Probably not, but it should. The book already appeared on an AP test before, and it didn't matter when this decision was made. It didn't matter because the decision was not made based on the educational value of the book, per the standard set in Pico. In fact, the decision was made for the reasons expressly forbidden in Pico. Google Pico, 457 U.S. 853, and look at some of the passages from books that were banned but that were found to have educational value.

What's the point, Herb? The point is, if I were a student who was kept from reading and discussing "Another Country," and I was unprepared for the AP Exam as a result, I would feel robbed of the fruits of my education. The responsible parties should make amends for future generations.

Things I Learned Off Facebook Today

Not an ongoing series, and definitely not recommended.

Thing 1: Being a lawyer is hard. That's not new information, but I got several reminders today (and yesterday). Unfortunately I cannot go into too much detail about what actually occurred, but I can say how I felt. During two hearings, I felt small and foolish, even though I was sure my argument was correct. In fact, I received confirmation that I was correct from a moderately unlikely source. My boss reminded me that the outcome of the hearings was next to null; even if I'd won the argument, it wouldn't make a meaningful difference to my clients. Still, it's strange to feel right, but foolish at the same time.

Those feelings may have stemmed from a meeting that occurred just before the hearings. I wasn't fully prepared for the meeting, in part because I didn't realize I needed to be, in part because the agenda for the meeting was not formalized ahead of time. I allowed a comment to cloud my vision and judgment, which deprived me of the full benefit of the meeting. My condition was apparent to at least two of my colleagues and the matter was addressed, but it had a dramatic effect on my day.

There were really good moments in the morning, but I can't relate them, except to say that they were unexpected and a good way to start the day.

Anyway, my career is hard, and it should be. Not bragging that my career is harder than yours, by any stretch. I have a tendency to show off but I do my utmost to suppress it. I fail often. But anyway, take my word for it: I don't believe I'm better than you, because of my job or for any other reason.

Thing 2: Star Trek: The Next Generation managed to write a compelling episode about homosexuality... without actually using or referring to homosexuality. And they did it all in 1992.

Now, I couldn't watch Star Trek: The Next Generation when I was growing up, because it didn't air until after my bedtime. I was able to watch reruns if they ran earlier or on the weekend, and sometimes my stepdad would record an episode. When I did watch it, I usually enjoyed it, even if I didn't understand it. The long term effect of this is, there are a lot of episodes I haven't seen, and I'm generally unaware of the quality of the show, especially since I didn't watch them as an adult.

So I was quite surprised to watch "The Outcast." The episode features a humanoid race that is androgynous. The main representative explains that its race used to have gender--male and female, of course--but they have evolved. In fact, they see races with gender as primitive, unevolved. Later, this character reveals that some members of its race are still born with predisposition as male or female, that these members are ridiculed and even beaten, and that her race puts them through some kind of "psychotectic" treatment to "fix" this "sickness". Later still, it tells Riker that "she" is predisposed to being a she, that she doesn't see it as a sickness, that she's felt this way all her life, and that she is attracted to Riker.

Throughout this dialogue, the language and rhetoric she uses is very similar to descriptions of homosexuality: that a person is born with it, that it's not a disease or illness (ok, that language is definitely dated, but the episode is almost 20 years old now), that it's perfectly natural, etc.

I'm doing a horrible job of describing it; the Wikipedia page does a better job (just Google "Star Trek The Outcast" to find it). It also confirms what I felt: the episode, while pretty good, didn't go far enough. All the actors of the androgynous race were played by women. Jonathan Frakes (Riker) stated, and I agree, that the main representative who falls in love with Riker should have been more masculine, even played by a man, to further drive the point of the episode.

I won't tell you how the episode ends; you should watch it.

Anyway, I found the episode interesting and compelling, mostly because of the air date. And I stayed up too late to watch it.

Thing 3: There's an episode of Food Wars with El Guero Canelo! I'm recording it.

Thing 4: The Star Trek episode made me forget Thing 4. I don't think it was that there should be a National (or International) Fart Day, the day when we can all fart as loudly as possible and not be ridiculed, etc. It would be a celebration of farts. I imagine there could be a contest with multiple categories. I don't think that was the thing I was going to share, mostly because I haven't done the proper research to see if there is already a National Fart Day. I don't want to take credit for someone else's idea, and something as brilliant as this has to have been thought up before now. I guess the real research is why this either didn't take off, or why it exists but remains relatively unknown.

Thing 5: Something's wrong with my appreciation for sports. The normal "sports me" would hate that Duke and UConn just won national titles in NCAA basketball. Yet, I found a way to rationalize their wins, even though their sports empires are akin to that of the Yankees (ok, not really, because they didn't spend their way to victory) or anyone else who dominates for too long.

With Duke, it's the respect for Coach K and his job with a less-than-talented Duke squad that wouldn't be favored if the remaining #1 seeds were still around. There is either one or zero future NBA first round draft picks on this team, yet they won the title. Also, Coach K took some heat for coaching Team USA in the Olympics because it distracted him from coaching the Duke team. But he managed to win gold (that's why they're called "The Redeem Team"), and two years later he won his fourth title. Like him or not, you can't deny his credentials, especially considering the stark contrast between his current Duke squad and Team USA. Some like to argue it takes a completely different mindset and coaching style to coach college vs. a team of superstars (partly how Phil Jackson gets credit for coaching his Jordan/Kobe star-studded teams--others haven't been able to pull it off with nearly as much success, even though one would think it would be simple). Coach K can do both.

With UConn, I have no rational reason. I don't really care for basketball, I care even less for women's basketball, but whenever a person or team is dominating the rest of the competition, it's compelling, even if it's negative publicity. I don't care about tennis, but I felt I should watch the end of the match where what's his face passed Sampras on the grand slam victory list. Why? I guess it's quasi-historical (every stat in sports is vulnerable and it's going to be beat later (if its even possible, some aren't, like Cy Youngs win total), so whether a moment is "historical" is subjective), so I feel obligated to watch. UConn just won a billion games in a row and had two undefeated seasons in a row, which includes two titles. I didn't watch a second of one game in those two seasons. Yet, their undefeated streak caused me to think about women's basketball for 10 minutes more than I would have under any other circumstance (which would be not at all). So, I suppose if a win streak can make me think about a team and a sport that I would otherwise ignore, that must be somewhat compelling.

Of course, if Butler or Stanford won, that might have equally caused me to think about basketball. But a hero is only as compelling as his villain. Without villains like Duke and UConn--if indeed they are villains, and let's face it, they probably are--no one would care about even a potential Butler or Stanford victory (except their students and alum, of course). If that's the case, I'm OK with my happiness/respect/whatever towards Duke and UConn, in just the same way that it's OK to like Magneto and the Joker.

Well, now it's definitely time for bed.

The Civic and the Citadel

Not recommended.

I own a 1994 Civic VX hatchback, teal in color. My good friend Tedd is helping me maintain and tinker with it. So far we've added a rear sway bar and rear lower control arms, though I've bought parts to do more. I managed to install a front tower bar, Del Sol seats, speakers and a radio by myself. No credit to me--that's how easy it is to work on a Civic.

Anyway, I have plans to do more. I have a front sway bar and a power steering system to add; it's just a matter of finding time to do it. I also want to buy new tires. The tires I have now are the correct size for all Civic hatchbacks made this year except for the VX, which uses smaller tires to achieve it's ridiculous MPG--it should get between 45 and 50! Right now it's been 40 and 42. It needs the tires and probably the correct spark plugs before I can try and figure out what else can change. Of course, in AZ I use the air conditioner 7 months out of the year so I can't expect to get 50 MPG then.

I digress. Tires--the tires I have are still good, but they're the wrong tires. Katie finally pseudo-agreed to allow me to buy tires, and even though she wasn't totally on board, I got a coupon for $50 off a set of four and decided to act. Long story short, Discount Tire didn't follow through like it said it would, so I have no tires and the coupon is expired. Maybe that's for the best, but still.

Another goal is to get a new gas tank. The stock gas tank holds 10 gallons. At 50 MPG, that's plenty; at 40 MPG, it's definitely good enough. The aftermarket tank, however, holds 13.5 gallons! So even if I'm stuck at 40 MPG, that's still over 500 miles of range, which is probably enough to get from Tucson to Anaheim without stopping for gas. Is this important? It depends on your perspective. On one hand, if I'm ever driving to California, I'll have Katie with me, and we're going to have to stop to pee. On the other hand, if I don't have to worry about finding a gas station, we can stop anywhere, including the super fast food complex in or near Indio (?) that DOESN'T have a gas station. Anyway, that's why I want a bigger gas tank.

Today I was poking around and discovered I can replace my old filament lights with LED lights. I thought it would be more complex, like I would have to rig something myself to keep the OEM lights with LED bulbs, but there are more than a few companies that sell LED lights that fit in the normal sockets. There's a lot of crap out there, though, and unfortunately I don't have the tech skills to tell the crap from the good stuff. However, there's at least one brand that seems to be trusted by everyone who has gone through them (so far), so I'm considering changing over all my car lights (except for the headlights, cluster lights, and dome light) to LEDs. Why? Practically speaking, they can be brighter and use less power, which converts to more efficiency and safety. But really, it's because it's a modification I can probably do myself that will be fun.

Finally, the Citadel. Sadly, I am speaking of Icecrown Citadel, the final raid zone in the current World of Warcraft expansion. Ten of us in my guild managed to beat the Lich King and complete the zone this past week, which is sort of like beating the game, if such a thing were actually possible. Even so, it's a big deal for me, because I wasn't playing WoW before the first expansion, and I came nowhere near to beating the "last boss" in the first expansion. It made me happy. OK? Fine then.

Things I Learned On Facebook Today #2

Part Two in an ad infinitum series. As always, not recommended.

Thing 1: It can be misconstrued if you "like" that Jaime Escalante passed away. Mr. Escalante is the real person portrayed by Edward James Olmos in "Stand and Deliver." Probably people mean that they like Mr. Escalante, but you know, context and whatnot.

Thing 2: The radical right is more likely to create domestic terrorists than the radical left.

Thing 3: No one takes you seriously when your status is "Dying. Please help."

Thing 4: People tend to post a lot about their children. Will this cause anti-Facebook backlash in the next generation? "I refuse to take part in social networking--or society at all--because my parents subjected my entire life to the entire Internet."

Things I Learned On Facebook Today #1

Part One in an ad infinitum series. As always, not recommended.

Thing 1: Picking up hitchhikers can be fun, exciting, and rewarding. However, if there is one fear that most people seem to cling to, it's the fear of picking up hitchhikers. A casual "this is what happened to me today" status update turned into a torrent of harsh scoldings with short breaks of praise for the original poster (hereafter, "OP"). The OP stuck to her guns, which I found inspiring. Will I pick up a hitchhiker any time soon? Probably not. But I'll at least consider it more than I did before.

And in general I agree that hitchhikers get a bad rap. I mean, I've watched an unknown number of Criminal Minds episodes, and there are tons of creepy dudes out there, but very few of them have been hitchhikers. And since art is holding the mirror up to life, it must be that there are very few hitchhikers who are also serial killers/rapists.

Might I remind you that analysis like this is why you either came here in the first place, or ignore this website like hitchhikers. Please reread the warning before you proceed.

Thing 2: It's OK to argue the Wal-Mart broadcaster's right to free speech should bar him from arrest, then join a group that is petitioning to get another group kicked off of Facebook for exercising their free speech rights. If you can do it in the same session, kudos to you.

Thing 3: Health care: people care about it. There are all these... um, opinions, or something, floating around. I don't even know what's going on. I can't tell if it's one more thing to throw on the pile of evidence that proves "Obama is evil, he will destroy this nation, he eats shakes composed of children for breakfast and lunch, then has a hearty child for dinner, and I swear I saw some stray hairs form the mark of the beast on his forehead," or if it's something I should seriously be concerned about.

(Sidenote: it's ok to hate Obama with the fire of a thousand suns, for the same reason it was ok to hate Bush with just as much intensity. But you should know that your hatred muddies the real message (if any) and you lose credibility. I think I've posted about this before, though I don't know if that was here or elsewhere.)

Thing 4: Nancy Pelosi is a zombie, and it's always ok to make fun of zombies, especially if they hold political office.

Thing 5: There is some uncertainty as to the true definition of MILF. I didn't check Urban Dictionary to verify; I can only imagine it will only make the issue worse. Anyway, don't just go throwing around the term MILF and expect everyone to know precisely what you mean. I guess there are variables to consider.

I guess those are all the things I learned on Facebook today.

But don't take my word for it!

More Posts For The Post Throne!

That will make sense to about 10 people; hopefully none of them waste their time here.

Anyway, I said I'd post more so here it is. Unfortunately, I don't have a whole lot to say. Things have happened to me and around me, but I don't have anything clever to say about them. I guess. Or whatever.

My office sent me and three other attorneys to Phoenix for training. This is the fourth such training, and each of them have been quite good. Even better, each time we go we make new friends. The first time, well, we met each other, because we had all just started working in our office. The second time, we met a delightful young fellow named RJ. He's just super. The third time, I didn't go--this was when we lost Hope. The fourth time, I got to know some other folks a little bit better than the last one or two times, such that I feel comfortable talking to them again.

Unfortunately, the Phoenix training is finished. However, because we're all indigent defense attorneys, we will have lots of opportunities to run into each other again, specifically APDA. Something to look forward to.