For Informational Purposes Only - 2009 NFL/College Football Season Predictions (version 1)

It's August and August means I make football predictions.

During the season I pick lots of games in this space.  I finished dead flat even in college games last year, going 9 under .500 during the regular season and 9 over .500 picking the bowl games.  I was better than that in the NFL.

But For Informational Purposes Only - investing in a single football game is usually a bad idea, there's just too much uncertainty.  Looking at the season as a whole, however, can be fruitful.

Time permitting, I'll revise all of this prior to the start of the seasons and offer limited commentary.  For now, here's my college football top 20 and four over/unders you might want to take a look at.  Plus, my NFL season win totals and the over/unders that look like decent selections.

Yes, sometimes I'm railing against the right wing noise machine and sometimes I'm talking about the german suplex.  And mainly I'm giving Glenn Beck the nickname Simple Jack. That's how I roll.

2009 College Football Top 20.

1. Florida
2. USC (my team, and for a weekend, my undergraduate school, for those unaware)
3. Texas
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Ohio St.
7. California
8. Georgia Teach
9. Virginia Tech
10. LSU (my girlfriend's team. We like her despite this.)
11. Clemson
12. Alabama
13. Auburn
14. West Virginia
15. Boston College
16. Florida St.
17. Notre Dame
18. Miami
19. Penn St.
20. Oklahoma St.

Consider the following: Ole Miss under 9 wins.  Nebraska under 8 wins. North Carolina under 8 wins. Illinois under 8 wins.

2009 NFL Picks

AFC East
1. New England 12-4
2. New York Jets 7-9
3. Miami Dolphins 7-9
4. Buffalo 5-11 (under 7.5 wins)

AFC North
1. Pittsburgh 10-6
2. Baltimore 9-7 WC
3. Cincinnati 6-10
4. Cleveland 4-12

AFC South
1. Indianapolis 12-4
2. Jacksonville 9-7 WC (over 8 wins)
3. Tennessee 8-8
4. Houston 8-8

AFC West
1. San Diego 12-4 Super Bowl Champs (over 10 wins)
2. Kansas City 7-9
3. Oakland 5-11
4. Denver 5-11 (under 7 wins)

NFC East
1. New York Giants NFC Champs 11-5
2. Philadelphia 9-7 WC
3. Dallas 9-7
4. Washington 8-8

NFC North
1. Chicago 10-6 (over 8.5 wins)
3. Green Bay 10-6 WC
3. Minnesota 9-7
4. Detroit 5-11

NFC South
1. New Orleans 8-8
2. Carolina 8-8
3. Atlanta 7-9
3. Tampa Bay 7-9


NFC West
1. Seattle 9-7
2. Arizona 7-9 (under 8.5 wins)
3. San Francisco 6-10 (my team, for those unaware)
4. St. Louis 6-10 (over 5.5 wins)

Repost - The Rest of the Wrestling

I've watched three new candidates for MOTY, 2009.  I've placed them in the MOTY 2009 post which is where I'll add the matches through the rest of the year. 

That allows me to shoehorn the wrestling posts from the other place into one box, this is that box.  I want to knock this out prior to my SummerSlam preview which I'll write for the benefit of Kirk Hiner.

There's nothing of any social relevance here.  It's largely just my talking graps. 

The Top Ten Matches in Rumble History:

1. Kurt Angle d. Chris Benoit (03)

-Angle was the heel, Benoit the babyface, Angle went over, Benoit got the standing ovation postmatch - this is the best WWF match since WM X, with the possible exception of Bret/Austin at SSeries '96.


2. HHH d. Cactus Jack (00)

-This was top of his curve Hunter, when, like he did with Rock before, Cactus helped give HHH credibility by putting him over in two real good garbage matches at the top of '01; this was the end of Foley's full time career. Hunter's level of work has been in decline ever since.


3. Chris Jericho d. Chris Benoit (01)

-This was their ladder match, Jericho, as the babyface, took the IC from Benoit. It's underappreciated - if there's a better WWF Jericho singles match, it does not presently occur to me - perhaps last year's Jericho/Michaels ladder match or their Mania match from a few years prior.


4. Royal Rumble Match - 2004

-This was Benoit's Rumble, went the whole way, it's the best battle royal of all time. He became number one contender and won the strap at XX. A couple years ago, I watched every rumble match again; I'm confident in this selection.


5. Royal Rumble Match - 1992

-This was Flair's Rumble, largely considered the best battle royal of all time, but I slot it behind '04. He became WWF Champ.


6. Bret Hart draw Diesel (95)

-This was for Diesel's strap, it was a 27 min. draw - stopped after interference where both guys, both babyfaces, were attacked by the heels they were feuding with (Owen, Backlund, Michaels, Jarrett).


7. Quebecers d. Bret/Owen (94)

-Owen had started his turn at Survivor Series, he and Bret seemed to make up, tagging together to take on the champs - but Bret's ankle, hurt at that Survivor Series match (all of the Harts against Michaels and guys in masks) couldn't hold up and this match was stopped at 16:30 - Owen, upset with Bret - attacked him. And that was how we got to WM X.


8. Rockers d. Orient Express (91)

-19 min tag - babyface Rockers went over.


9. Hardys d. Dudleys (00)

-This was short, 10 min. tables match, were there a match at this year's Rumble as good as it could possibly be, it could slide in and be better than this match.


10. HBK draw HHH (04)

-Michaels and Hunter were feuding over HHH's strap, this was a last man standing match where neither guy got up before the count of 10. This was why when Benoit won the rumble later in the night, the Mania match was a 3 way.

In today's WON, Meltzer examines what apparently is a current list (voted for by the WWE Universe!) at the corporate site of the top 25 matches in Starrcade history, timed to coincide with the release of the Best of Starrcade DVD next week.

So, instead of that list - here are the actual top 10 matches in Starrcade history. The parenthetical lists where the match ranked on wwe.com.


Oh - I'll also be posting my ballot for the WON Awards when I've made those decisions.


1. Shinjiro Otani d. Eddy Guerrero '95 (15)

2. Ultimo Dragon d. Dean Malenko '96 (apparently unranked, I'm gonna assume I either missed it from WON or Meltzer missed it from wwe.com)

3. Jushin Thunder Liger d. Rey Mysterio '96 (18)

4. Ric Flair d. Harley Race '83 (3)

5. Roddy Piper d. Greg Valentine '83 (6)

6. Magnum TA d. Tully Blanchard '85 (2)

7. Ric Flair d. Vader '93 (1)

8. Sting d. Vader '92 (13)

9. Ric Flair d. Lex Luger '88 (16)

10. 3 Count d. Jung Dragons/Evan Karagias/Jamie Noble '00 (8)

Survivor Series is Sunday from, let's say Boston.


For those of you who did not read my Summer Slam preview, this is largely just written for Kirk Hiner http://www.appletell.com/apple/author/kirk/. Kirk is my longtime writing partner http://www.spoonmillionaires.com/; we met freshman year in college and one of the ways in which our friendship was formed was our mutual affection for Owen Hart. We spent more than one WWF PPV Sunday together at some area watering hole (no, that's not a euphemism, we went to school in rural Ohio) and used to sneak into his religious fraternity in the summer of '91 to catch All-American or Superstars or whatever WWF programming it was that was on at that time. Following college, as all of us do, we had choices to make regarding our wrestling fandom. Kirk gradually moved away from the sport (although we did attend the greatest Survivor Series of all time, Survivor Series '96, together) for more grown up pursuits like marriage and children and mortgages and the occasional sausage biscuit; whereas I...well, I am not hooked up right

whatifwrestling.blogspot.com

For the better part of the past 15 years, I've sent Kirk a preview/review of the "big four" WWF PPV's; I think beginning with WM 12 or maybe the Summer Slam that followed, we haven't missed a single one. And now, as I've fully adopted the "why say anything that isn't in a blog" ethic, I've moved those previews over here.


So, for those of you who aren't Kirk, you can stay, but I'm not really talking to you.


Here we go:

- RAW Title Match: Chris Jericho © vs. John Cena

At Summer Slam, recall, Jericho was in the middle of his hot program with Michaels; that seems to have ended with Jericho going over and Shawn going back to his life carrying Hunter's bags. Back in September, Jericho (grown up, all heeled out Jericho) took the strap (his 3rd run with this belt) in a multi-man match that the champion (Punk) didn't compete in. Jericho's subsequently defended against Punk, giving his run legitimacy; he lost the belt to Batista last month, but then retook in a RAW cage match a week later.


Cena's still the top guy in the company; he's been gone all summer with another steroid related injury (presumably). They've kept him off TV save for a series of vignettes with clips of people talking about how great he is. People have apparently enjoyed these clips, Cena's a big star and Boston's his hometown, so one assumes he'll get a pretty significant reaction here.


John Cena's everything that's wrong with everything.


The doctrinal divide between wrestling as sport/wrestling as entertainment has taken another turn in the past year; currently, there is a body of opinion that bad is the new good. Meaning, it used to be that the lines were clearly drawn - sure, maybe you liked Hulk Hogan, but you didn't confuse his matches with workrate. N Sync made a ton of money, but no one suggested they deserved a boatload of Grammys.


John Cena won Wrestler of the year last year, which combines box office and work ability; and there has developed a body of opinion around his matches (and Hunter, and Undertaker, and most of the top WWF guys) that they aren't just the equivalent of Hogan (popular but crappy) but instead worthy of critical acclaim.


This, I'd suggest, is error.


Ring of Honor, as I've mentioned, is my all time favorite North American promotion, as close to a Japanese product as we're ever going to see. They fired their booker a couple of weeks ago and have decided to book a more traditional product. More comedy. Less workrate, particularly in the undercard. Basic face/heel storylines. More accessible. You know. Rasslin'.

And the depressing part is the number of "smart" fans, those most closely situated to me, in the continuum of wrestling fans, who are ready to embrace that change.


Bad is the new good.


It's a longer conversation as to how we got here. A combination of corporate brainwashing (WWF has won the ideological war about what wrestling is) and Benoit blowback (don't work hard, work smart - Eddy and Benoit are dead, Kevin Nash is still drawing a paycheck).


Regardless, I hate me some John Cena (he's not terrible, actually, I'm forced into some hyperbole because of the intensity of his push, it's a Kirk Hiner Hates Madonna situation) and I'm rooting for his next injury.


I assume Jericho keeps. I assume it's not clean. Were Orton to cost Cena the win (or maybe a Batista turn) that wouldn't surprise. I'll wind up giving this match about 3/4 fewer stars than anyone else.


Smackdown Title Match: HHH © vs. Vladimir Kozlov v. Jeff Hardy

-Hunter's on his 7th run with this belt; he's been champ since April, taking from Orton in another multi-man match. He took the belt from RAW to Smackdown, switching shows given Smackdown's move from CW to MyNetwork. It's been a fairly low wattage run, largely he's been fending off Jeff (both are babyfaces) he's gone over Jeff a couple of times; there was a solid match between the two a couple of months ago that people loved at a 4 star level (I went 3 1/4, it's an example of the aforementioned death of workrate thoughts). Hunter's skills have atrophied almost completely, but there are people who still buy the act. Both Hardys continue to be popular despite largely being booked as losers most of their careers; Jeff's managed to avoid flunking a drug test since Mania and is getting pushed hard right now - beating the Undertaker and Hunter in successive weeks to earn his spot in this match. Kozlov is doing an Ivan Drago gimmick. He's just a guy; I might not hate him as the power half of a tag, but there's no reason to think he can put together a good singles match.


I don't have much sense of where they're going. Jeff's taken on a harder edge recently, but they can't turn him - Hunter turns eventually, but they aren't there yet. The wild card is Edge - he's the hot act on Smackdown, they've taken him off the show (smart) to keep him from going stale and (perhaps) to time his return to a Christian storyline (his TNA deal is up and it's a jump ball what he'll do next, I'd like to see him come back now). I'd guess Hunter keeps, I'd guess he keeps with a clean pin over Kozlov. If this is more than 3/3 1/4 I'd be surprised.


Casket Match: The Undertaker vs. The Big Show

-The Show turned heel, sliding into Edge's role with Vicki Guerrero (still heel GM, she does a good job in a largely dead gimmick) in the program with Undertaker. Show's got the best of it so far, in matches that I liked (again) far less than did others. It's a slow, plodding, deliberate feud (not awful, Undertaker, if used sparingly, is a good enough worker). I don't hate it, but I don't need to see it. I don't know offhand, but I'd guess the Taker's Casket Match record is not good - I'll say he loses this one too and they keep this program going.


-Survivor Series Rules Match: TEAM BATISTA: Batista, CM Punk, Kofi Kingston, Matt Hardy and R-Truth vs. TEAM ORTON: Randy Orton, Cody Rhodes, Shelton Benjamin, William Regal and Mark Henry


Then come the elimination matches.


Hey, Coldplay broke up. This is a dark day for all of us.


Survivor Series means elimination matches. They don't do workrate any favors, but it's always helpful for my Counterfactual. http://www.whatifwrestling.blogspot.com/. Batista and Orton are the top guys here and they're feuding (Orton's sort of feuding with everyone, faces and heels, he's been out all summer but has been appearing on TV). Neither guy is very good in the ring, both guys are good characters - Orton actually is a great, a great heel character. He and Edge can stand with any heel characters in company history. Punk and Kingston are babyface tag champs, they took from Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase's kid. Punk was, as mentioned, RAW Champ this summer and he and Kingston are now simple babyface tag champs, not really in a program. Rhodes is feuding with Orton, even though both are heels - it's possible they're building for the formation of a second generation stable - Afa the Wild Samoan's kid is aligned with Rhodes/DiBiase. Lots of other kids are sprinkled throughout the company (Hennig, Bulldog, Snuka, Anvil's daughter, a second DiBiase kid, probably someone I'm forgetting...did Mike Rountdo's kid sign...) it doesn't take much imagination to see how they might all be used in a program.


Matt's ECW Champ, I guess he's still feuding with Mark Henry, from whom he took the belt. Matt's got a knee he's working though. Benjamin's the US Champ, now a cocky heel, he's feuding with Ron Killings, who has arrived from TNA doing a rap gimmick. He raps through the crowd, which is encouraged to join. He's on a mission of some sort.


The best wrestler in the WWF is Regal, who just won the IC. They teased a Regal/Punk thing on Monday, which would be terrific. They should let Regal keep the belt forever and just beat bitches up. I'll say heels go over.


- Survivor Series Rules Match: TEAM MICHAELS: HBK, Rey Mysterio, Cryme Tyme and The Great Khali vs. TEAM JBL: JBL, Kane, MVP, The Miz and John Morrison

-They made a nice pivot with Shawn's character in the Jericho program, giving him some depth - and have maneuvered right back to the flippant HBK that is not so much interesting in 2008. He's just started a Bradshaw program, which looks DOA, as has every Bradshaw program since he made his return. Dude needs to shut it down. Rey's been in a pointless program with Kane; Kane can't do anything really, and it hasn't done Rey any favors. Cryme Time's a black tag team doing a babyface "we steal stuff" gimmick. Apparently, one is better than the other, but they haven't had a good match yet. Khali is the monster Indian who just turned babyface and is the worst wrestler you've ever seen. Miz and Morrison (was Nitro) are a good heel act and improving in the ring (Nitro's really good, Miz is now acceptable) Miz got a tag fall on Michaels Monday. And then there's MVP - who is a strong worker, a strong act - and they've decided to spend the last several months burying. He'll be eliminated first and quickly. Faces win here.


-Survivor Series Rules Match: TEAM RAW: Beth Phoenix, Kelly Kelly, Mickie James, Jillian Hall and Candice Michelle vs. TEAM SMACKDOWN: Michelle McCool, Victoria, Maria, Natalya, and Maryse


-I assume there are programs. There are two women's champs now. Some of these women don't look like trannys. The match will be inoffensive.


That's it.


It's not a good looking card. They've left off a couple of their top workers (Kendrick, Finlay) and another is hurt (Sydal, now named Bourne). From either side of the divide, there's not much reason to look forward to the show; none of the matches are appealing from a work perspective, and there currently isn't a hot storyline. People will enjoy seeing Cena's return and the Survivor Series gimmick has nostalgic value.


But as a show, it's not one with much juice - certainly when juxtaposed with Brock's winning the UFC strap last weekend (good stuff) this show is lacking wattage.


Here are the Top 10 Matches in Survivor Series History.

1. Bret Hart d. Steve Austin ('96)

2. Bret Hart d. Shawn Michaels ('92)

3. Bret Hart d. Diesel ('95)

4. Shawn Michaels d. Bret Hart ('97)

5. Eddy/Chavo d. Angle/Benoit and Edge/Rey ('02)

6. Jericho/Christian/Orton/Steiner/Henry d. Michaels/RVD/Booker/Dudleys ('03)

7. Bob Backlund d. Bret Hart ('94)

8. Sid d. Shawn Michaels ('96)

9. Strike Force/Young Stallions/Rougeaus/Bees/Bulldogs d. Hart Foundation/Islanders/Demolition/Bolsheviks/New Dream Team ('87)

10. HHH d. Ric Flair ('05)

I have not seen every wrestling match since 1980.

I have seen every significant WWF match, ECW match, ROH match, TNA match.

I think I've seen every significant NWA/WCW match, but there may have been a few in the 80s that slipped past the goalie.


I've seen as much puroresu and indie matches as I could get my hands on.


I've seen relatively little lucha.

Just because a match is not here doesn't mean I haven't seen it. My records work like this; I have a record of everything that's 4 1/2 and up, thinking of all of those as superpremiummegaelite matches. For the PPVs from the US companies, it's everything 3 1/2 and up.


If it isn't in those categories, I still probably have it rated if it's 3 and over, but that would require a little legwork, most likely physically finding the actual DVD on which I have the match.

Do with all of that what you will.

1982

Dynamite v. TMask

Dynamite v. TMask


1984

Steamboat v. Flair


1985

Liger v. Sano


1988

Takada v. Maeda


1989

Steamboat v. Flair (NWA Chi Town)

Steamboat v. Flair (NWA Wrestle War)

Steamboat v. Flair (NWA)

1992

Liger v. Samurai


1993

Toyota/Yamada v. Kansai/Ozaki

Misawa/Kobashi v. Kawada/Taue


1994

Kobashi v. SWilliams

Misawa v. Kawada

Kawada v. Williams

Bret v. Owen (WWF X)

Shawn v. Razor (WWF X)

1995

Misawa/Kobashi v. Kawada/Taue


1996

Kobashi v. Kawada

Taka/Kaz/Togo/Teioh/Sho v. TM4/Delfin/Naniwa/Hamada/Yakashiji

Sasuke/Kaz/TM4 v. Taka/Delfin/Naniwa

Misawa v. Kobashi


1998

Misawa v. Kawada

Misawa v. Kobashi


2001

Misawa v. Akiyama


2002

Danielson v. Low Ki (ROH)


2003

Kenta/Marufuji v. Liger/Murahama

Misawa v. Kobashi

Kobashi v. Yuji

Benoit v. Angle (WWF - Rumble)


2004

CIMA v. Yokosuka

Kobashi v. Akiyama

Kobashi v. Taue


2005

Kobashi v. Sasaki


2006

Danielson v. Kenta (ROH)


2007

Marvin/Suzuki v. Romero/Ishimori

Taka/Togo v. Madoka/Kota

Briscoes v. Strong/Pac (PWG)

Danielson v. Nigel (ROH)


2008

Yuji/Nakanishi v. Tanaka/Otani


2009

Kenta v. Nakajima

Kenta v. Akiyama





Wrestlemania XXV is Sunday from Houston.

For those of you who haven't read my previews before; I write them for the benefit of my friend and on again off again writing partner, Kirk Hiner.

http://www.appletell.com/apple/author/kirk/ His birthday was a couple of days ago. You should acknowledge that by reading his stuff.


Kirk and I met in our freshman year at Ohio Northern University; the cornerstones (can there be multiple cornerstones? This is why my buildings keep crashing) of our now 20 year friendship (tied for the longest of my continuous friendships with a couple of other people I met as a freshman; I remain friends with a couple of people from high school, but lost contact with them for most of the 90s) are similar tastes in comedy (we started a not entirely unsuccessful comedy troupe in college and had a play produced a couple of years ago) and an affection for professional wrestling.


Wrestling was difficult to follow from our then position (not only was there no internet, our dorm rooms did not have cable) to follow the narrative required persistence; to actually watch matches required more than that (the occasional breaking and entering was not uncommon; nor was watching a PPV at a local watering hole). We were a peculiar subculture unto ourselves; one filled with Red Rooster references and my spending uncomfortably long stretches wearing a Hercules-like chain around my neck (Why did no one take the chain away? How did I get to that place?).


In fact, my very first internet based project, over the summer of 1995, was putting together a 64 man all time WWF tournament in which I'd set the angles for the matches for which Kirk would then pick the winners.


Since just after WM XII, I've been sending previews/reviews of the 4 traditional WWF PPVs to Kirk (actually, it used to be every PPV, and WCW and ECW as well; we used to be single) without, to date, missing a show. Now, as all right thinking people have, we largely communicate entirely through our own blogs, so I write the preview here (the review, however, remains in personal correspondence, largely because it's peppered with references to Peggy McKarns. Who was cuter than Peggy McKarns? This is the question I pose to you people.)


Kirk has almost entirely stopped watching; he's part of the adult audience who has drifted away from Vince (and reasonably so). I've made a slightly different choice.


http://www.whatifwrestling.blogspot.com/ (Counterfactual XXIV will be up by showtime).


So the previews involve some degree of backstory that will seem rudimentary to those of you who have seen, I don't know, the big Dragon's Gate PPV (still on my hard drive; I'm not thrilled with Shingo's losing the belt to Doi last year. Discuss).


For future shows, I'll just cut and paste this preface.


Additionally, I've got a ranking of the top 10 matches in Mania history, and then an unranked second ten just for fun.


With that:

The Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels

-They haven't announced match order, one would assume Hunter's match (the lineal WWF Title) will be going on last; but I sort of see the heel going over in that one and I'm unsure that's how they want to end the show. So I would be unsurprised if instead the choice they made was to do this. This is an all legend babyface match and has been built as such; Undertaker still has his unbeaten streak at Mania, now 16-0 (most of them just terrible, unwatchable matches - actually, his two best Mania matches have been in the past two years, which says something good about the arc of the Taker's work) and, interestingly enough, he's never pinned Shawn in a TV singles match. It's not a complicated story and they haven't tried to complicate it. The build's been fine (Shawn's outsmarted the Dead Man a little bit) others are more rhapsodic about it than am I (I've seen all the "ooh, spooky" Undertaker related stuff I'm ever going to want to see; I'm a grown up, get out of the cemetary) and the level of work is unlikely to be as good as others believe (2009 Shawn is maybe the most overrated wrestler alive). But it's been entirely solid; the match will certainly be solid, probably at the level of the Undertaker's last two Manias (neither of which make my top 20 of all time, but both of which were good matches) and the Undertaker will certainly win.


WWE Title Match: HHH © vs. Randy Orton

-As mentioned, this is the presumptive main event and the lineal WWF Championship. Hunter took in February at No Way Out in an Elimination Chamber Match (Edge walked in as the Champ, recall, he took from Jeff at the Rumble). It's Hunter's 8th run with this belt, which, unless I'm missing one, is a new record, breaking a tie he had with Rock (since they have two title belts they consider primary world title belts, the historical line isn't much discussed - the only number that seems to exist is Flair's 16 world titles and Hunter's run at that (he has 5 runs with the other belt). This has gotten the main event build - Orton is now really, really good as a devious heel (just character stuff, not talking about the work) and they pulled the big trigger for this program - Orton took out Vince, Skippy, and then the Princess. That resulted in the disclosure (for the first time in the storyline) that Hunter and the Princess are married. Hunter's seeking revenge. They've done a good job of explicitly discussing the backstory of Orton as Hunter protegee in their previous Four Horsemen like heel stable (Orton became youngest champ ever, the stable then turned on him) and the idea (somewhat far fetched) is this is Orton's payback. It's gotten the most TV time; it will be the longest match; they'll give them enough freedom that it will be a good match, despite the weaknesses of the workers (Orton's okay; Hunter can't do much of anything anymore). As mentioned, I sort of think Orton's going over, which makes it less likely, for me, that it's the main event. There could be an angle here with the Princess.


World Title Match: Edge © vs. The Big Show vs. John Cena

This is the match I'm going to hate the most.


Edge has lost his heel steam in recent months, despite holding a world title (the same night he lost the lineal WWF Title, as just mentioned, he won this belt in another Elimination Chamber match. It's Edge's 4th run with this belt; he also has 4 runs with the other belt). Edge's act has been watered down a little bit, maybe a little lost in the heel shuffle with Orton and Jericho's acts. His work has deteriorated a bit; it's hard to tell, given the WWF style constraints (which render the product almost unwatchable except for top end matches) how good he is right now. Edge is still married in the storyline to Eddy's widow Vickie, who is now the figurehead general manager for both RAW and Smackdown. I am unabashed in my dislike of John Cena, his character is entirely geared toward children and I firmly believe those who admire some of his work have been taken in by the big corporate propaganda machine. He is no longer an awful wrestler, but he is just a guy. He's the top guy in the company; he has the most mainstream penetration and apparently makes the company some money. He still sucks; the distance between his perception and his reality has reached Kirk Hiner Hates Madonna levels for me (and who was cuter than Peggy McKarns? I can't imagine!).


The Show is the Show.


They've added an extra dopey angle to this one - the Show and Vickie apparently had some version of an affair. So the stip for this match is the winner "gets" her. Even if that winner is Cena, which pretty much guarantees that he wins and then they do comedy. They love to do comedy. I hate wrestling comedy.


This will not be a good match and it will probably be short.


Chris Jericho vs. Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat and Rowdy Roddy Piper w/Ric Flair


This is the Mickey Rourke match. Jericho has found a nice heel character, and his current focus is a dislike of the leech veterans, hanging on for a little more glory. The original idea was this would be the big mainstream match, bootstrapping off the Mickey Rourke movie (which I haven't yet seen, but will soon. I have seen Synecdoche, however and would like to write about it if I ever get time). But Rourke pulled out during the Oscar campaign; he's still expected to show up, but hasn't really been part of the program (which has involved Jericho punking out Hall of Famers).


The work won't be good (I think the stip is Jericho has to beat all of them) except, maybe, for some Jericho/Steamboat stuff - I am looking forward to seeing that in a hard way, both for the real life reasoning that Steamboat hasn't worked Mania in a couple decades and hasn't had a match in years and years and years - and for the Counterfactual for next year.


http://www.whatifwrestling.blogspot.com/.


I sort of sneaky expect Steamboat to look good and for this to be entertaining. Flair isn't in the match, as they're upholding the retirement stip.


The HOF is, of course, the night before (Austin, Steamboat, Funks, Von Erichs, Koko, Bill Watts, The Fink) I wouldn't be surprised to see some involvement of those guys. If the match ends with a Stunner and beer drinking, don't say you weren't tipped.


Extreme Rules Match: Matt Hardy vs. Jeff Hardy

This will be good, provided it gets time, since they're doing the garbage stip. I assume both guys will be highly motivated to steal the show, and this is a show that can be stolen. The program is DOA; Jeff was attacked by an unknown assailant multiple times - it was supposed to be Christian's return (which would have not only made sense but would have been good) but they switched it up to make it Matt - who cost Jeff, recall, his strap at the Rumble.


It's not a bad idea (although people don't want to hate Matt Hardy) and they could do Bret/Owen with these guys if they built it more slowly, but it hasn't worked at all. It's the first match of the program which would mean heel win - but they're doing the crazy gimmick stip which would seem to mean a blowoff to the program. I'm gonna say Matt wins and it's the best match of the show. But it could be 11 minutes and disappointing instead.


Money in the Bank Ladder Match: CM Punk vs. Kane vs. Mark Henry vs. MVP vs. Shelton Benjamin vs. Kofi Kingston vs. Christian vs. Finlay

-This match is good every year and I expect it to be good again. There's no program beyond the winner gets a title shot; they've built it a weird way, having them all wrestle each other multiple times. There are always good spots and they have enough guys in the match who can do spots that the match will be good. There aren't a lot of programs going on here; Punk lost the IC so this is all he has going. Kane's big and red and evil. Henry's bigger but somewhat less red; he and Fit are in a program I guess. MVP ended his losing streak, turned face, and beat Benjamin for the US Title. That means MVP won't win this match and Benjamin might. Kingston has nothing going on. Christian's gotten buried hard upon coming back, losing multiple falls to the ECW champ, Jack Swagger. However, he's looked really good - being a clear step above, almost every non Regal on the roster at doing the WWF style. Christian oughta win - if he wins and switches shows at the upcoming draft they can work to undo the damage they've done to him. I'm gonna optimistically say in a moment of clarity he does win and it's the second best match of the night.


Title Unification – WWE Tag Team Titles vs. World Tag Team Titles – Unified Tag Team Title LUMBERJACK Match: The Miz and John Morrison © vs. Carlito and Primo Colon ©

-I am entirely in favor of unification matches. I'd like to see more of them. If you'd like to see more of them, check out Counterfactual Wrestlemania XXIV at

http://www.whatifwrestling.blogspot.com/


Miz (the Real World kid, he's really improved. Ups to Miz) and Morrison (formerly Johnny Nitro) have had the lineal WWF tag belts since taking them in a house show in December from Punk/Kingston. They used to have the other tag belts, holding them for most of 2008 - but they dropped to Hawkins and Ryder (who were Edge's flunkies) who dropped to the Colon brothers on Smackdown last September. This has been a good in ring feud - the program is they're feuding over girls - twins, actually. I don't much care about that, but the work has all been good and I expect this will be good, but too short. The lumberjack stip is so everyone not on the show can be on the show - which is not as helpful to the Counterfactual as was last year's pre show battle royal. I assume the babyfaces go over.

IC Title Match: JBL © vs. Rey Mysterio

-This was hotshot - Bradshaw took from Punk and they threw Rey at him. Bradshaw apparently is shutting it down again; it's entirely possible that this is his last match for this run. The WGN Thursday show starts soon, maybe he does the color announce for that show, or in the draft they move guys around (maybe Lawler loses the RAW gig edit - since I wrote this Taz got canned, so there you go). Rey beat Bradshaw in a non title Monday, so I'd expect Bradshaw to keep and then announce his retirement in the ring. He might take the IC belt with him. This will probably be short and not that good - they don't know what to do with Rey - his last 3 programs have been with big guys. Not tough to put him in the ring with a worker and let them have good matches, but what do I know?


Divas Battle Royal

-They're gonna take all the women, including some returning for the night, and have them do a couple of minutes.

I'm hoping they add a match. Maybe Swagger/Kidd v. Dreamer/Sydal from ECW. At least dark.

Kid Rock's going to sing. Someone from the Pussycat Dolls sings America the Beautiful. The HOF is Saturday Night. People are down on this year's Mania for the lack of oomph - I tend to think it could be good, Hardys and MITB will have enough spots to be good. Taker/Michaels and Orton/HHH will have enough time and leeway in what they're allowed to do to be good. If there were 4...3 1/2 ish matches, that's good enough for a 2009 WWF PPV. The tag title probably won't get enough time to go that far, but it will be good for what it is. Rey is good - and if it is Bradshaw's last match, they might pull one out. Could be 6 3 star+ matches there, and now it sounds like a nice, solid show. Plus, what I'm most looking forward to is seeing Steamboat wrestle. There's unlikely to be a great match, but great matches are few and far between in the current WWF.

Speaking of...


Here are the Best Matches in Wrestlemania History:

1. Razor Ramon d. HBK (10)

2. Owen Hart d. Bret Hart (10)

3. Bret Hart d. Steve Austin

4. Ricky Steamboat d. Randy Savage (3)

5. HBK d. Bret Hart (12)

6. Benoit d. HBK d. HHH (20)

7. Kurt Angle d. Shawn Michaels (21)

8. Edge/Christian d. Hardys d. Dudleys (16)

9.Randy Savage d. Ric Flair (8)

10.Brock Lesnar d. Kurt Angle (19)


(Additional matches at the same level as #10, such that you could call it a tie were you so inclined):


Money In the Bank from XXI,

Eddy/Angle from XX,

Edge/Christian v. Dudleys v. Hardys from XVII

Angle/Benoit from XVII,

Austin/Rock from XV,

Bret/Piper from VIII,

Warrior/Savage from VII


That makes a total of 17, so if you were rounding at a top 20 - I'll say..

Austin/Rock from XVII,

Austin/Michaels from XIV

Hogan/Savage from V.


That concludes the preview. Coming up before the end of the weekend - my baseball predictions, and, over at the other place - Counterfactual Wrestlemania XXIV.

I was inexplicably thinking today about taking wrestlers and turning them into a basketball team. If I had a "dream team" of wrestlers in 2009 that made up a 12 man basketball roster, I think it would look something...a litttle...like this.

C Morishima

C Samoa Joe

-If I have to go big as a matchup situation, I can slide Joe to the 4, as he's mobile enough to bang inside; my preference (both in wrestling and hoops) is to watch small athletic guys as opposed to the bangers - so, I have no trees, really, and I'm inclined to split the minutes between my two bigs.


F Yuji Nagata

F Bryan Danielson

F Nakamura

F Nigel McGuinness

F Steve Regal


Yuji would slide to the bench when both Joe and Morishima are in the lineup together; he's the guy who can roll out of bed and give you 14 and 7; I trust him in my third straight road game when the other guys have been hanging out on South Beach. Danielson's my best player; there's no style where he can't be my guy; if I need him to go out and score 45, he'll do it - if I need him to guard the opponents best player, he'll do it - if he has to go inside and just body up against a bigger man, he'll do it - a full court, baseline to baseline, quickly paced game or a slog 'em out, halfcourt, defensive struggle - he's still the best player on the floor. He's Jordan. He's LeBron. He's my guy. Nakamura's my glue guy; he's a more skilled Shane Battier; there's not a floor configuration where he wouldn't help out. When injuries hit (I'm missing my 2 guard right now, for example) he can easily pick up another dozen minutes. I always want him on my club. Nigel and the veteran Regal are my second unit guys; Regal's my enforcer, when I need to rough up the opposing star, I send him in - and he also helps mentor Nigel, my star in training. My last forwards cut were Masato Tanaka and Shingo, which is sort of like Barkley not making the '84 Olympic team. With Nigel out the rest of the year, I'd add Shingo to the squad, the idea being that Regal only has a couple of years left in this spot.

G Kenta

G Marufuji

G Nakajima

G Low Ki

G Austin Aries


Kenta's my 1; he's Chris Paul - on any night he can give me a triple double. The ball's in his hands every trip down the floor. Marufuji is the silky smooth 2 guard, effortless - like Clyde Drexler, he just glides down the floor raining jump shots. Nakajima is the young combo guard - learning both to handle and to shoot - when Kenta needs a blow, he can step in - when Marufuji goes down with a knee (like right now, for example) he can play the off guard. Love him. The last two spots on double hard (AJ, Yoshino, London, Pac, Ultimo Guerrero just for starters - and the last guy cut was Rey, with the idea that he'd serve a Jason Kidd veteran backup point guard function - that he'd be the one guy guaranteed to have everyone on the club look up to him - I like the metaphor so much I'm almost willing to overlook the talent gap in 2009). Low Ki's a pain in the ass - he always wants to start, he always wants the ball - he's crazy, crazy talented - he's Vince Carter - if I put him in he scores 50, but it's hard to integrate him into my team concept. I have to have him though - he pushes Danielson, and I don't want to face him. Aries is really my backup point guard, a floor general type of guy - diving for loose balls - firing up the opposing crowd - like Danny Ainge - he's gonna get into fights, Tree Rollins will bite him on the leg - he's always extra fired up, and if we're dragging, he's a good energy guy for my second unit. With Marufuji down...I'm gonna say Styles is who I'd want to pick up, just for the crazy athleticism.


Coach: Kobashi


Can't really find a spot for the greatest wrestler ever in the lineup - but I could see a Bill Russell player/coach situation - if it's Game 7 and we gotta have a win, I want the ability to make him active and feed him the ball down low, over and over again.


Hopefully, I won't spend the time it would take to reconsider any of this. Did I mention I'm teaching 7 classes this term?

The Modern Day Holocaust (oh, and some baseball picks!)

I'm a little ashamed.

I have a history degree after all, and while I wouldn't call myself a World War II expert I'd like to think I have at least a lay knowledge of the basics of the Holocaust.

But in all the years I've been teaching, I don't recall ever covering that really what the Nazis wanted was universal health care.

Today's Greenwald provides the clip of Limbaugh comparing Obama and Pelosi to Nazis.

Moreoever, the article and this one, by Joan Walsh place in context the sheer volume of the Nazi talk that has existed about Obama coming from the right since the end stages of the campaign (and the lack of mainstream media interest in that talk) with the mainstream firestorm when a random entrant in a contest equated Bush with Nazis a few years ago.

You're allowed to be against a national health care system. I disagree and disagree strongly.

But neither one of us is a Nazi because of it.

Obama doesn't hate white people (quoting Glenn Beck, who to make a reference to the movie Tropic Thunder, has apparently gone "full retard". I may start calling him Simple Jack. I don't have any idea what a "Glenn Beck" + "Simple Jack" search would yield, but I'd like to see it grow with the speed of my "Michael Jackson" + "William Appleman Williams" google) because he timidly offered that maybe we don't arrest black professors in their homes for arrogance.

Since the last days of that dying, absolutely blown out in the popular vote McCain/Palin campaign, the voices on the right have been yelling socialism, and secret Muslim, and not born in this country, and now racist, Nazi, who wants to use this health care program as cover to murder old people.

It is madness.

I've referred multiple times to the Mike Judge film Idiocracy, which is largely crappy, but increasingly prescient about our increasing level of collective duh-ness.

I just made that up this second by the way. Duh-ness. Feel free to trade with your friends.

Here was Sarah Palin, just today, on her facebook page. Now, this is not a joke. This is from last year's Republican candidate for the Vice-Presidency of the United States:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

I get a lot of mail from the left. Obama. The DNC. Moveon.org. Robert Greenwald. Michael Moore.

I've read Chomsky and Zinn and Barbara Ehrenreich.

I don't like organized religion. I don't like the Electoral College. I think Ronald Wilson Reagan was a terrible president.

I don't like the Star Spangled Banner.

I don't believe in Jesus. If it ever came up for a vote - I'd take your guns away and raise your taxes.

I'm full on lefty, pro gay marriage and animal rights. I'm most of the things you don't like.

There is no death panel. Someone would have sent me an email. Or a tweet.

@deathpanel: "Kill the babies. And the grandmas. Especially the white ones. Who heart Jesus."

It's made up. Fully and totally. 'Cause that's all they got. Crazy ass made up stories. That's what's left of the Republican Party. Its Vice Presidential nominee says Obama wants a death panel to decide to kill babies with down's syndrome. That's where we are in 2009.
Unrelated - 50 games left in the MLB season - here are my playoff picks and the current WARP3 All-MLB Team for the season:

P Dan Haren (NL) Zach Greinke (AL)
1B Albert Pujols (NL) Justin Morneau (AL)
2B Chase Utley (NL) Ben Zobrist (AL)
SS Marco Scutaro (AL) Hanley Ramirez (NL)
3B Evan Longoria (AL) Casey Blake (NL)
OF Matt Kemp (NL) Ichiro Suzuki (AL)
OF Ryan Braun (NL) Adam Jones (AL)
OF Shin-soo Choo (AL) Jayson Werth (NL)
C Joe Mauer (AL) Yadier Molina (AL)

My MVP votes are Pujols and Longoria/Mauer

AL East - Yankees
Central - White Sox
West - Angels
WC - Red Sox

NL East -Phils
Central - Cards
West - Dodgers
WC - Rockies (I mean, Giants! Go Giants! Grumble.)

Sotomayor.

(Sotomayor gets confirmed today, which isn't a surprise; it's also not a surprise that the hearings played out in the way that I anticipated...well, admittedly, the Ricky Ricardo impression caught me flatfooted, but the lack of intellectual seriousness wasn't a surprise.  Note that my prediction that Republicans would completely ignore the impossibility of criticzing her as an activist while criticizing her vote in Ricci was entirely correct.  John McCain announced this week he'd be voting against her for that specific reason - that she's a judicial activist.  I'd love it if she were a judicial activist.  Just as during the campaign and now the first 6 months of the Administration, I'd love it if Obama were a wild eyed radical leftist.  That's the country I'd like to live in - the country I do live in however is one where no matter what Democrats do - Republicans will label them as socialists, which means the ideological continuum stretches from the most extreme form of right wingism to the milky moderate Democrats.  I've been making the same argument for fifteen years - the left should go as far left as it can if for no other reason than the widen the space of acceptable argument; media frames everything as "this side says this, and this side says that, so the truth must be in the middle" -- Remember when somehow CNN was the Clinton News Network, despite their employment of Pat Buchanan?  It plays into our desire for fairness, for moderation - I've been standing in front of students and teaching government for a decade, virtually every student believes "the truth is somewhere in the middle" - Republicans understood that early on, they recognized that if they moved further right - then the middle - where media and the public will seek - would then also move further right.  The more extreme they got - the more Democrats, accomodationists to the end - would move to the center.  It was the entire story of the 90s and hasn't stopped with the Obama Administration; the Sotomayor hearings, to double back to the below post, illustrated that perfectly - Republicans said "you're an activist!" and instead of Democrats saying "actually, she's not, she's in the middle - who the activists are are you guys, the radicals are the conservatives on this court" - instead they said, "nah, she's good, she locks up criminals and is pro business just like you guys like."  The result - Sotomayor becomes the limit of the acceptable left, she's defined as the outer edge of left wing judges who are able to ascend to the Court - and the left/right continuum shifts even further right.  These town hall disruptions are excellent examples - the right shouts and shouts and shouts - labeling what is going to wind up as a watered down, corporate friendly health care policy as socialized medicine - and the Democrats quietly accept that definition.  No single payer health care for us.  That's too radical.  Too extreme.  Un-american. 

Regardless, here's the Sotomayor piece - and then some torture stuff too.

http://www.slate.com/id/2222092/pagenum/all/

An excellent piece discussing the Ricci decision is here, in Slate, by a Stanford Law professor. I'm less interested in discussing the merits of the decision (I'm with the minority - which, you know, received 4 votes as opposed to 0, despite what you might have heard on Fox) than reiterating a point I made prior to the decision in predicting this outcome (correctly).

Ricci could not possibly be a more activist decision - it is a decision that (1) substitutes the justices judgments for that of a democratically elected legislature and (2) forges brand new constitutional interpretation where law appeared to be settled.

That doesn't necessarily make it a bad decision on the merits, there are plenty of "activist" decisions that I love and think reflect the best parts of who we are, you can go to the Slate piece to read discussion about the merits, the point here is about Sotamayor and the rhetoric of the right about judicial activism. The truth is that the right labels as "activist" decisions it doesn't like in an attempt to say, "not only don't I want this result, not only don't I agree with this result, but this result is illegitimate, this result is not correctly within the purview of how judges should behave."

It's almost always a nakedly political argument; one could have a debate about the proper role of unelected judges within a democracy - but we don't have that debate, the debate we have is that conservatives criticize decisions they don't like by calling them activist.

Note that, in the Slate pieces and like minded pieces from the left to disagree with Ricci on the merits, you won't see similar demagoguery; you'll read disagreements with constitutional interpretation and notions of what justice requires, but instead of saying "only liberal judges are real judges - conservative judges just act politically" what you'll read (or should) is that all judges act politically. If I'm a judge (I won't be) I'm going to rule in ways that I feel are compelled by my understanding of what law and justice is.

The additional irony of Ricci is the opinion is loaded with (dare I say it) "empathy" for the white firefighters - which is related and also perfectly reasonable - effectively, when a court "empathizes" with a party, it isn't saying "I don't care about the merits, look how cute they are" a court is saying "there are qualities about the facts and circumstances of this party and this case of which judicial notice should be taken to serve the interests of justice."

However, none of this is likely to be understood by the US Senate in the Sotomayor hearings - conservatives will make a case against her based on her being "activist" and "empathetic" while simultaneously using the reversal in Ricci, which completely undermines their argument, as evidence to support these attacks.

Granted, nothing that will be said in the Senate is likely to be as, well, sad is the adjective I'm going to use because there isn't hyperbole sufficient to speak to it, as sad as Rush Limbaugh's reaction to the Ricci decision, which is that the Supreme Court ruled that Sotomayor was a racist.

I don't care if he's big or fat, and while I don't find him intellectually compelling, I don't think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, but he's just not a serious minded individual. His role in our national discussion should be on par with Bubba the Love Sponge as opposed to William Buckley (did you hear him blame the Obama stimulus package for Sanford's "crossing the ultimate line - the sex line"?) and his place at the adult table makes the Republicans look like a dying party.

This is why I like writing about sports, and particularly using sports as a vehicle to write about everything else (the NBA Drafts have been good like that; I've been pleased with how those recaps have turned out) because you can see these same shortcomings in how the Sports Industrial Complex talks about things like chemistry.

Chemistry is bullshit, a label that sports media throws around when it wants to attribute dramatic elements to their made up narratives. Kobe wasn't a good teammate before and it fractured the Laker locker room and that's why they didn't win titles. Then Kobe won a title, so, he must be a good teammate now. Teams win not because of talent and execution that can be quantified and understood by sports fans - no, teams win because of a peculiar, mysterious alchemy that is only understood by sportswriters who are in locker rooms or at games and can look deeply in the faces of the athletes to read their body language and levels of heart and guts and moral fortitude. You know the essential position of the Catholic Church that helped lead to the Reformation was the Church was required to serve as mediator between you and god - you can't understand the holy book on your own - here is this entire structure that serves as a go-between - it will tell you what god says - the Church effectively said "there is universal truth - but you need us to tell you what it is." Conservatives claim a similar interpretive power over the Constitution - that only they are able to divine its meaning, that the framers had a clear and plain intent that must be followed - and they are the ones who are able to explain it. That it happens to line up perfectly with their political beliefs, that the same way they'd vote if they were legislators unconstrained by judicial robes, is entirely coincidental.

The self serving nature of that is evident - if you could figure out the truth yourself - if it were knowable without the church - then you don't need it.

If sports are quantifiable - if you can use statistics and your own observation to destermine who the best players are, who the best teams are - then you don't need the mysterious men in the giant robes on Around the Horn to tell you about the great chemistry of winning teams.

You should read/listen/watch sportswriters the same reason you should go to church, for the entertainment value of the stories.

But if you're looking for truth you're better off with math or science books.

Congratulations to Senator Al. Who would have thought that it would be the 20teens that would be the real Al Franken Decade? 60's a nice number, but the number of Democrats who belong to what the late Paul Wellstone used to call "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is significantly smaller than that. Good to see (hopefully) one more.

A great piece from Glenn Greenwald on an interesting word choice from an obit in the NYTimes. American hypocrisy has not been so nakedly apparent on such a large scale in a very long time as it is when talking about torture.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/08/torture/


What function do conservatives have in our national discourse? They aren't the limited government party, check the size of the military and the level of domestic surveilance they support. They aren't the personal freedom party, wanting complete state control over what you do with your body. They aren't even the "Country First" party, given the recent polls on the percentage of them that would like to secede (half of all Texas and Georgia republicans want their state to leave the union. It's 1840 all over again. I think John C Calhoun was at that pizza party they had in Virginia the other day. Calhoun/Palin would be a helluva ticket.)


But the traditional values party? Come on. If progressives definitionally want to move forward, don't conservatives have value in retaining tradition - in keeping us grounded on what makes America great?

You just can't believe that torture is okay. You just can't believe that. Not and pretend to uphold morality.

Americans have been tortured. And those who tortured Americans have been punished.

It's a moral issue. Black and white. Right and wrong. Conservatives are the people who understand the meaning of those terms, they're the party that scorns Foucault, that scoffs at the idea of "evolving standards" of "living documents" they are literalists - the Bible, the Constitution - words have fixed and unchanged meanings. Right?

So, if it was torture then, it's torture now. You break the law - you get punished.

What's more traditional than that?

LeBron walking off the court without shaking Dwight Howard's hand and the assassination of the abortion provider in Kansas struck me in a similar place.

(You: What?)

A skill that has faded from our public discourse is gradation among various levels of response. "I dislike this" doesn't need to always turn into "that person should die a painful death in the street."

Obama isn't just a President whose policies the right disagrees with, he's a Marxist/Communist/Fascist preparing re-education camps. The Texas (Edit, this was Rush Limbaugh from Wednesday June 3: "If al Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they better hurry, because Obama's beating them to it," That's kinda exactly what I'm talking about.) governor didn't just disagree with the bailout proposals, he raised the idea of secession. Sonia Sotomayor, whose judicial record, if anything, lacks the level of overarching progressive philosophy that I really, in a hard way, want to see from this first nominee (and she's 55 and diabetic, just saying) somehow became David Duke mixed with Bill Brennan on a bender.

There's probably some distance we should travel before we get to that spot.

LeBron James didn't show a lot of the "sportsmanship" that we've collectively decided is required of athletes following close out games of playoff series'. The reaction of sports radio was as if he had raped some teenage chambermaid in Colorado.

Yeah, you, for whatever reason, want to see LeBron shake hands. That's weird to me, but okay. And if he doesn't, maybe the proper response should be "that's too bad, he showed some immaturity" as opposed to "goddamn disrespectful punk - Magic woulda never done that."

Barry Bonds (here we go again) used steroids (along, clearly, with everyone else) and to some extent that aided in his performance. Sports Illustrated conducted a jihad against him. The level of rhetoric associated with Bonds at the height of the scandal far surpassed, say, what was hurled at Ray Lewis. If you did a survey of US sports fans attitudes toward athletes a year ago, I would guess Bonds's favorability rating would approximate OJ Simpson's.

Yeah, you, for whatever reason, think that Bonds's records are tainted. I'd point to innumerable conditions that made his pursuit more, as opposed to less, challenging than the nearest contenders, but okay. Maybe you react a little less harshly than "blackball him from the game, no Hall of Fame, tear down any sign of him at the Giants ballpark, throw a needle at him when he's on the field."

A student, not too far back, was upset with a professor of my acquaintance about something which blew away pretty easily. His first step was neither to bring it to the professor's attention, nor to make an appointment to see a supervisor, but instead to storm from class, demand that the other students follow him to the administrative offices, and demand that the professor be fired.

It was the second class meeting of the term.


Maybe, you know, a "can I see you for a second" request after class might have been a more appropriate response than "he must be fired immediately!"

I don't have a moral problem with abortion (or steroids, or LeBron, etc..) I could see where others might, and where the aborting of a fetus might be disturbing to some.

But we've created a debate where fetus is used interchangeably with baby - hell, we've got a debate where blastocysts and zygotes are used interchangeably with baby. It's not much of a leap, if you're going to say zygote = baby to say abortion = murder to say abortion doctors = Nazis to say "well, what would your moral obligation be if it were 1935 and you could kill Hitler?"

I've had, multiple times, conversations with students who make absolutely no moral distinction between a blastocyst and their Uncle Bill. None. They've seen the blown up pictures after all. They look like babies!

Sure, sperm are swimming around too. Blow them up (that's a photographic reference) and sperm sure look like subjects for moral consideration.

But those aren't thoughts they've ever had. They were taught that fertilization = person. The same way they were taught the earth's 6,000 year's old.

I'm not arguing for moderation or even civility. Sometimes, extreme language (and action) is needed. But you can't Chicken Little every proposed top marginal tax increase of 3%. Every moderate judge isn't a threat to the republic. Every poor display of athlete's behavior isn't Rae Carruth. Every OBGYN isn't Mengele. Our ability to determine when we are actually being threatened, when we are actually in peril, when we should actually be shouting from the rooftops, taking dramatic action, stopping normal behavior because normal behavior is taking us on a bullet train to hell is impaired when we're constantly barraged with hyperbole.

Which is probably the point. A little misdirection paints the extreme with the same bad brush. If the right yells "Obama's a secret Muslim, he's a sleeper agent, it's the Manchurian Candidate" and the left says "waterboarding is torture" the easiest thing for people to do is say "pah! look at how partisan both sides are."

Everything winds up funneled in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" place that we comfortably go to. Feels fair. We like things that feel fair. "Teach both sides" of how humans got here feels fair. That's how it was taught to me as an undergrad taking a freshman level Biology course "either, the collected body of science is correct and we've evolved from simpler life forms, a theory that has approximately the same strength of support as gravity -- or, Adam and Eve were placed here and lived at the same time as dinosaurs and all people came from their loins. Both are views. You can make up your own mind. Equal time for everyone."

Feels fair. You go into math class and say, "8x7 isn't 56, my religion says it's actually 52. Teach the controversy!" and presumably no one would pay attention to your demand of equal time, but maybe. Try it kids!

Abortion's either a fundamentally recognized right that women have dominion over their own bodies - or we're Nazis. That's the frame in which the debate sits. The rhetorical box in which we're stuck.


Well, not George Tiller. He's not in any rhetorical box. The box he's in is real.

Emptying The Steroids Bucket - The Rest of The Steroid Reposts

(Bill James recently came out entirely on my side in the steroids dispute (1) the impact of steroid use in MLB is overblown (2) in context of the history of baseball, from changes to ball, to park, to segregation, to amphetamine use, it's just without merit to argue that the record book reflected a level playing field that has now been tarnished by the steroid era (3) steroids weren't against the rules of baseball prior to 2003; the 90s memo by Fay Vincent that some now prop up as being evidence to the contrary is an attempt to give the commissioner a power he did not possess and most importantly (4) history will look at us as foolish, that this moralism of classifying steroids as a "bad, evil drug" is temporary, that future generations will not view their use as anathema but as part of an anti-aging regiment. 

I've been steadfast on all of these issues for years; life is long, we change our views; the next time a member of the BBWA says "none of these guys is ever going into the Hall of Fame" - just remember that; ARod will still be on the ballot 30 years from now - virtually everyone who currently has a HOF vote will be long gone; our lives will have changed in literally unimaginable ways (for example, until the age of 29 I never owned a computer; I'm not 38 and make half my living as an online college instructor; the next time I read the words I'm writing now will be on my phone - words that will circle around the globe seconds after I finish them; it took George Washington 2 weeks to find out he was President and I think I knew Michael Jackson had died before LaToya did - the idea that our view of steroids in fixed in the American consciousness forever because Mike Lupica says so is small)

Anyway - here's the rest of my old steroids talk)

In a typically unfunny and wrongheaded piece, Rick Reilly called for the MVP Awards won by those caught up in the PED hysteria to be turned over to the "clean" runners-up.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3915217

Putting aside that the degree to which the drugs aid performance in a statistically significant way has not been quantified, among the players Reilly chose as his new NL MVPs are Mike Piazza, Albert Pujols, and the player pictured above, Luis Gonzalez.

These are Gonzo's career home run totals for each of his 19 big league seasons:

0, 13, 10, 15, 8, 13, 15, 10, 23, 26, 31, 57, 28, 26, 17, 24, 15, 15, 8.

Should we play "one of these things is not like the other"?

I don't know what Gonzo took and I don't care, but it highlights the silliness of asterisk-mania. Yesterday's "A-Rod will give us a clean home run king!" becomes today's "look at how his lip quivers, that means he's telling a half truth!"

You don't know who took what, and you don't know what impact any of it had.

But yet, still, we are ripping and shredding away at a handful of guys, destroying legacies, threatening liberty. We've gone all Shirley Jackson, seemingly randomly choosing to destroy Player Y while leaving Player X intact. Barry Bonds goes to jail - Jason Giambi gets moustache day at Yankee Stadium.

It's foolish when placed in any kind of context.

In a baseball context, you have NL umpire Tim McClellan from Monday's Dan Partrick Radio Show saying somewhat bravely that he doesn't care at all about what anyone took prior to the drug testing policy in 2004.
McClellan's argument wasn't complicated. PED use wasn't against the rules prior to 2004 (and no, memos from commissioners didn't make it so, the office didn't have that unilateral ability - nor, of course, were the memos serious - there was never an attempt to enforce any type of PED policy, too much money rained down upon the owners for that to happen) and there has always been a boatload of actual breaking of the baseball rules, doctoring bats, balls, diamonds has always been part and parcel of our national pastime. Gaylord Perry's a confessed career long cheater; with full knowledge of that, the BBWA put him in the HOF. Whitey Ford cheated with winks and smiles, but his manipulation of the ball is legendary.

Patrick's response was typical, effectively saying: Can you really compare corking a bat to taking steroids?

Why not? Why no congressional hearings, meetings with the commissioner, years of outrage from sports pundits? When will Mike Lupica call Whitey Ford a disgrace? Isn't cheating cheating?

Patrick's additional response was, of course, that even if PEDs weren't against the rules, they were against the law - and that matters!

Know what else is illegal? Gambling. Is there a baseball clubhouse where illegal gambling doesn't occur constantly? Card games. NCAA pools. Golf. Constant violations of the law.

Where is the outrage?

I read Ball Four just like everyone else; I can never recall being a sports fan and not knowing that ballplayers gobbled speed like candy. Baseball players took illegal drugs to gain an advantage. They did it in the 80s, the 70s, the 60s and the 50s.

John Perricone, who has consistently and thoroughly been right about steroid use, recently unearthed a Sports Illustrated piece from 40 years ago in which the entire 1960s sports landscape was said to be awash in steroids.


Is there any debate about this? Taking drugs without prescriptions have always been part of baseball culture. And that's putting aside the gallons of cortisone athletes have pumped into their bodies their entire lives. Kirk Gibson gets shot up to hit a home run and he's a hero, Alex Rodriguez gets shot up to hit a home run and he loses his reputation.

How will the future regard this current hystorical period?

There's a book by Ray Kurzweil, called The Singularity is Near, the thesis of which is that by 2045, people will have merged with machines in ways that will effectively mean the end of the biological human being. The idea that when Alex Rodriguez retires ten years from now and then is first eligible for the HOF five years after that we'll still be consumed by what type of ointment he used in 2002 doesn't really seem worthy of serious discussion.

We've had a bad decade, you and me. There was a C-Span poll of American historians last week ranking each of the 43 US Presidents. I tend to distrust rankings like that, viewing American Presidents much like I view baseball managers - largely as fungible figureheads. The Phillies won the World Series in 2008 and Charlie Manuel was "in charge" but he deserves as much credit as McKinley does for "winning" the Spanish-American War. You can take the guy sitting in the dugout, I want Cole Hamels charging up San Juan Hill.

But there are exceptions. Malcolm Gladwell's new book Outliers discusses the commonalities of exceptionally successful people; I tend not to view the world this way; I see as outliers the people who are truly, painfully destructive - so painfully bad at their jobs that they cause incalculable harm. I didn't vote for Barack Obama because I thought he would bring hope to the hopeless - I voted for Barack Obama because George Bush spent 8 years destroying the ballclub. I don't need Obama to be Earl Weaver; I need him to stop giving Neffi Perez 450 plate appearances.

In two decades, historians may analyze the first decade of this millennium as the one from which the US couldn't recover. The economy never comes back, the engendered international hatred blows back time and time again - and the environmental collapse leads to conversations like "Remember when we had running water all 7 days a week? We were like Aqua Emperors! Now sacrifice the rabbit to Poseidon and pray we are allowed to bathe this week."

The American Empire was collapsing, will go the thesis of book upon book in 2030- and the media was consumed with Alex Rodriguez taking a variant of a drug that we now put in pre-natal vitamins. Instead of hearings about subprime lending and torture we hauled Rafael Palmeiro to Capital Hill. Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove got to walk free and Roger Clemens was a grand jury target. Dick Cheney, who hasn't left the US since 2010 for fear of being captured and hauled to the Hague for his much deserved war crimes trial lies in his hyperbaric chamber but Barry Bonds's trainer's mother in law had her house stormed by fifty-five federal agents.

We'll be owned by the Chinese. But at least Luis Gonzalez will have his MVP Award.

Slowly but surely, people outside of the traditional sports media, people less invested in institutionalism, are questioning the establishment view of the Bonds case. The sports media for years - for years - have treated Barry Bonds in a mocking, sneering way - the level of invective hurled at him for the better part of this decade has surpassed any for similarly positioned athletes. While NFL players who failed PED tests like Shawn Merriman and Rodney Harrison worked as network analysts last season, while NFL players like Ray Lewis and Leonard Little, implicated in actually serious crimes performed on the field week after week, while Kobe Bryant has been able to return to the life he had before Colorado - the sports media and an arm of the US Government has made it a mission to destroy Barry Bonds. Victor Conte got 6 months, but Greg Anderson did 12.


This is Jonathan Littman's article in Playboy entitled The Persecution of Barry Bonds; you'll read phrases like perjury trap and repeal of the 4th Amendment.

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/barry-bonds-2009/barry-bonds-p1.html


Many of us have recognized that the last decade has involved unchecked federal government power designed to suppress dissent, to attack those who would question it; and that government power relied on a compliant media, whose silence or overt support helped lead to as disasterous a decade as has occurred in our lifetimes.

Sports is not immune from this. The Jim Calhoun episode from last week is an excellent example.

Calhoun was asked at a press conference if, as the highest paid government official in the state of Connecticut, he'd join the Governor in giving up a fraction of his salary to help offset the billion dollar budget shortfall in that state.


To me, the story wasn't so much that Calhoun scoffed - screamed - told the reporter he was a clown and to shut up - to me, the story was the reaction of the sports media.


Reporters uncritically accepted Calhoun's line that he was beyond criticism given the 12 million dollars taken in by the UConn basketball program.


Beyond that Calhoun was wrong, UConn took in 7 million last year and spent 6 - Calhoun's implicitly taking credit for that money earned, despite never (far as I know) hitting a single jump shot.


But the sports media, having created this coach worship culture - where we are taught to lap up whatever pearls drip from the mouths of these great leaders of men - didn't make that distinction. Moreover, the question as to where that 12 million (actually one million) goes wasn't asked - it's not the science lab that gets that money, it's the UConn basketball program. Big time college sports is hermetically sealed - the success of a basketball program doesn't translate to success anywhere else on the campus - which is why at schools like UConn all across the country Universities are in the midst of hiring freezes and layoffs. I've previously written about the intense difficulties, really unprecedented difficulties, that PhDs are having in the professorship job market. This is a time when everyone employed by Universities - everyone employed at any level by state governments - are faced with salary cuts at the very least.


But if you ask the highest paid government official in Connecticut about his own salary - he'll tell you to shut up and do it to the full support of the media.


Sure, Calhoun's tone might have gotten him a tsk, tsk (not from Greg Gumble, however, he was just fine with the coach bully boy tone) but it was the identity of the questioner that was most slammed by the sports media - he was immediately marginalized as not a mainstream journalist - he wasn't from a real newspaper - he was a provocateur - he was a leftist, after all - he was once arrested for taking photographs at a parade!


In a different generation, we'd call him a muckraker, doing the job that the mainstream media used to do.


He gets bullied, he gets arrested, because we allow it. Because we have so little questioning of power in this country that any that occurs strikes us as offensive. And that's what most interested me - what most interested me was that the sports media spoke in one voice to rip the journalist for asking the question in the forum...a press conference...where he chose to ask the question.


'Cause why would anyone ask a serious question at a press conference? Craziness.


Talk about offensive rebounds. Like we do. Ignore the broader social issues. Don't you know there's an accepted narrative - a right way to think about everything?


Barry Bonds is a cheater and liar and doesn't deserve the home run record. The "story" isn't the San Francisco Giants building a stadium on his back and then throwing every trace of him out of it - the story isn't MLB growing at an unprecedented rate and then declaring those who caused it to grow weren't ethically sufficient to go to the HOF - the story isn't Babe Ruth hitting home runs off entirely white pitchers - and then Hank Aaron hitting home runs in a tiny ballpark in an era where bowls of amphetamines were placed in open view in clubhouses - the story isn't the US government, at a time when there are no hearings for torture, 2 unwinnable wars, environmental catastrophe and a complete collapse of the American economy spending 55 million dollars to chase Barry Bonds for 6 years -- the only story you're allowed to tell, over and over and over again, is how Barry Bonds cheated baseball.


I love me a daily newspaper. But if some of the "journalists" who have sucked up to power wind up without jobs, there's positive outcome of the collapse of that industry.


Edit: Here's 91 year old Marvin Miller - more right than anyone in the sports media about the persecution of Bonds - and the attempt at union busting in which the sports media has been complicit. If you aren't registered it may be behind the firewall.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/sports/baseball/02rhoden.html?_r=1


It really has been remarkable - dial back a handful of years and all you heard from the sports media is that the union was at fault for being too stringent about drug testing - too much in opposition to management. And now, after the 2003 test results somehow escape - the union is blamed for being too compliant - not standing up and fighting to get the results destroyed. I actually saw Costas make both points in the same breath on the MLB Network the day the ARod story broke. The Union is simultaneously too rigid and too compliant for the sports media - because, of course, it's really organized labor that's to blame for the media - as we watch the wealthy loot this country into oblivion.