Team Ownership

Reading through the morning's headlines, and having gotten past the obituaries (where I usually start, in the hopes of reading something that might make my day) and back to the headlines, I observed that Mr. Most High, through his various underlings, commenced with placing limitations on the salaries that Americans are allowed to earn. Salary Czar Ken Feinberg has established that the maximum salary that can be earned by most workers at what are now government-subsidized banks and automakers (notably GM, AIG, and Citigroup) can no longer receive cash compensation exceeding $500,000 a year.

This is not really that surprising, as capping salaries is the dark underbelly of entitlement culture.

Generally speaking, salaries are what they are based on demands of the market: cheap labor is cheap for a reason, and professional help is expensive because it requires a skilled professional. Real easy to decide to place limits on what a person can earn when you've never met them, don't know how hard they've worked to get to where they are, and never-mind that you yourself would probably be incapable of understanding what they do, much less do it yourself. Take professional athletes as the halcyon example. Alex Rodriquez really doesn't seem to work all that hard for his millions, does he? But that fact that he doesn't seem to work hard is irrelevant in light of a simple supply and demand consideration: there is only one guy on the planet that can do the things he can do, and that guy's name is Alex Rodriquez. The market has set a price for retaining his skill-set, based on levels of demand. By doing what he does - which nobody else can do - he EARNS his money, with his own skill and industry.

That's how a free market works: prices are set by market considerations, with demand establishing price, and where skilled, industrious, capable workers earn more and move up by dint of being better, and in more demand than their fellows. Where earning and lifestyle are based on the capability of the worker, such worker's earnings and lifestyle are limited only the capabilities of the worker.

But when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on 'entitlement,' those pesky groundings in reality go away. Rather, we profess morality and arbitrary determinations dressed as 'fairness,' where the expressed goal is to provide a 'minimum standard' of living. To 'balance the playing field.' Which is a total crock of shit socially and realistically, since no amount of boosts and reassurances can make different people equal. Yes, God and the law weigh us all equally. But bosses don't, and with good reason: all employees are not equal. This is a point which the Left feels it tantamount to blasphemy to express, since it's 'unfair' and 'immoral.' But the bottom line is that disparate salaries exist for a reason, and that reason is economic, not political. The failure to recognize the primacy of economics over idealism has always been, and will always be, the greatest shortcoming of the liberal mind.

This placing of salary caps is the backlash of this divorcing decisions from economics. Of course the government feels entitled to place these caps. They have the right because the government effectively owns these companies. And they have no problems justifying the decision as made in the interest of 'fairness.' What is it that those people do that really entitles them to more than $500,000 a year? Their work can't be that difficult! Not only is it justifiable to cut those salaries, it's practically a moral imperative!

Perfectly reasonable to a liberal. Again, when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on morality and arbitrary determinations dressed as 'fairness,' the expressed goal is to provide a 'minimum standard' of living. To 'balance the playing field. But when lifestyle is dictated from On High based on morality and arbitrary determinations dresses as 'fairness,' salaries no longer need have any relation to the skill, expertise, or industry of the job or the person doing the job. The end result is salaries being divorced from the capabilities of the worker, which is after all the goal of the entitlement mindset.

But raise your hand if you think this represents a sound economic precedent?

What this salary cap means is that the best and the brightest at these business - where there is no longer even the pretense that they are separate from the Federal government - are going to leave and go work for the competition. The chairs they fill at GM and Citigroup also exist at competing businesses, and it's only the government-owned ones that have these restrictions. This will necessarily create an economic trend: the best and the brightest will follow the higher salaries to other companies. The government-owned companies will then need to fill the chairs with the relative dregs of the candidates. They will lose their best employees to the competition, from whom they will inherit the worst employees. With the end result that the government-owned industries will have a substantial talent deficit in relation to their business competition.

Take the Baltimore Orioles, for instance. They get whipped on EVERY YEAR. Why? Because the teams they compete against (Yankess, Red Sox, etc.) spend a lot more on salaries, both on management and in filling the worker positions. The competition therefor has a hell of a lot more talent. From the top down, Baltimore is second-rate as a business entity. Feel free to substitute any of the Oakland Raiders, the Golden State Warriors, or the Minnesota Wild in place of the Orioles, but the ends result is simple: Congratulations, citizens, your taxdollars were and are being spent to subsidize the Baltimore Orioles of the banking and automotive markets.

The really funny part about all this is that the salary caps are not universal, as they do not apply to the top-25 earners, either at GM or at Citigroup. Merely to the 26th on down. Those at the top can still make millions. Which should surprise nobody who has been paying attention. If you have even the slightest doubt about Barack Obama having sold his soul and this country out to the benefit of his personal friends (not businesses or special interests, but INDIVIDUALS), read this article. Because all those guys in the (salary-cap exempt) top 25 at the big firms? Those are the limousine liberals that are playing the Obama administration like a harp.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

Bureaucracy

My brother Sneaky Weasel ('SW' hereinafter; as mentioned, we all have code-names) lives in a small town in the pacific northwest. It's nice up there. Green. I don't think I could ever live there (the nearest "civilization" is Eugene, OR, and if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand), but it's good for his outdoorsy lifestyle, and only moderately damaging to his kids. This way, he can be fairly sure that his kids are fucked up because of their family and upbringing, instead of their friends, school, or other societal factors. But it's good having him up there, since visiting is essentially a vacation in the woods, and about as stark a change from the Las Vegas deserts as can be imagined. It's fun sledding over the winter visits, and paintballing over of the summer visits. While it's (VERY) far from perfect, it does okay for SW and his family.

But at some point along the way, SW got volunteered or otherwise talked in to being a city councilman. For my other brother (GL), a government position would be endless schmoozing and having a good time, devoid of actual responsibility. But not so much for SW, who kinda likes to get things done expediently. Here's a little anecdote.

There is a cracked water main beneath one of the streets in SW's very small town. Not a gusher mind you, but still serious enough that there are standing puddles in the area, and as might eventually lead to some sort of subsidence, which is never a good thing in a downtown area. For most rational people, including SW, this seems like a pretty clear issue with a pretty clear solution. Unfortunately, it turns out that Oregon is essentially Massachusetts West in it's political leanings: SO FAR TO THE LEFT, THEY'RE BACK AROUND TO THE RIGHT. After all, this is the place where the modern tree-hugger was born. With such liberals calling the shots and making the laws, it is pretty much impossible to get anything done. Here's a dramatized account:

SW: "Hey, how about if we get someone to fix that cracked water main? We're losing money, and it would be good if we dealt with it before it gets worse."

Drone(s): "We'll need to get a licensed contractor."

SW: "Okay. How about if we get a licensed contractor to fix that cracked water main? We're losing money, and it would be good if we dealt with if before it gets worse."

Drone(s): "Well, to pick a contractor, we need to put the job out for bidding. Then we have to wait a period while bids are submitted. Then there's a review period for for the bids, and a vetting process. Then we'll have to address the bids and bid selection in a publicly noticed City Council meeting, so the public has a chance to comment and express their concerns. In the meantime we can get started on requesting the construction permits from the county and the state. Also get started on an environmental impact report, which we'll need to farm out to a state-certified inspector. Once we have a contractor selected, we can get in touch with OSHA so they can come out and look at the site for safety reasons, since the leak is beneath a public street..."

SW: "The city is losing money EVERY day from water just seeping into the ground. How long is all this going to take?"

Drone(s): "About three or four months to select a contractor. That should be long enough to get the permits lined up as well, so long as we pay the 'rush' fees in addition to the usual rates. I don't know how long the OSHA waiting list is at the moment. They won't even talk to us until we have a contractor selected."

SW: "And I guess that OSHA is not going to do their part for free, are they?"

Drone(s): "Nope."

SW: "Okay. So we have to pay peoples' tax-dollars to have all this contractor selection process. We have to pay more to get the permits. Then pay for the environmental impact study. Then pay OSHA for them to rubber-stamp the project. Probably a few other people to pay for rubber-stamps. We also have to pay for all the water we're losing while all this is happening. Then, of course, we still have to pay to get the work done."

Drone(s): "By a licensed contractor, yes."

(Several seconds of silence.)

SW: "How about if we just ignored all that shit. Have somebody go out there some night, dig up the street and fix the pipe?"

Drone(s): "That's illegal. The state would fine us."

SW: "How much is the fine? Is it less than the cost of doing it legally? Crunch the numbers. Be sure to include the value of the lost 300,000 gallons we'll have to pay for if we wait four months to start digging."

Our government bureaucracy has actually reached the point where corruption and blatant disregard for the law is the only way to get things done efficiently and cost effectively. Every lawyer in the country gets taught in law school about the theory of "efficient breach," which is the idea that sometimes it's more efficient to ignore a legal obligation (and bear the consequences) than it is to adhere to the obligation. That's what happens when a pro sports team fires a coach who is under contract: the team is still bound to the contract terms requiring them to pay the coach, which contractual obligation is unaffected by the firing. But when a coach really is that bad, and you're already on the hook for his salary anyway, sometimes it's better to just eat the loss of his ongoing salary and go in a different direction than it is to continue to let the guy 'work.' In situations like that, "efficient breach" has a long-standing tradition.

But it depresses the hell out of me that municipalities in this country are considering "efficient breach" arguments regarding the laws that theoretically govern their own actions and functions. Because things should not reach the point where those sort of de facto insurrections should be necessary just to repair a fucking leaking pipe.

But don't worry. Barack is going to fix everything. He's going to pass some legislation. Call for reform. Appoint a Czar and commission a special committee to perform a six-month study of the matter, and make recommendations. Don't worry. The matter is being addressed, but you really can't expect results overnight. Just give us time. Don't call us, we'll call you.

And that health care thing? Don't worry about that. Once that's under government control, it will be model of efficiency...

Dilemmas

As I trust is clear from various prior posts, I'm neither shy nor even a little apologetic that I own and enjoy shooting firearms. I think being an avid shooter goes a long way towards enjoying American heritage, as well as being a good skill to have when the undead start climbing from their graves. That was a joke. But a joke with a point: I will almost certainly never be in a position where being able to shoot is important, but if shooting is ever important, it's probably going to be REALLY important. And is a fun hobby in the meantime.

Since my own firearm aspirations are pretty much satisfied (with one exception), the only firearm shopping I really do these days is with (or for) other people, with varying results, and with the best results occasionally coming when people ignore my advice. But whatever. Then this morning, an old friend asked me about the merits of 9mm vs. 45.

Oh boy.

This is a subject that sees extended debate. Seriously; you would not believe the amount of discussion and arguments (which often devolve into flame-wars) online over something as simple as one-tenth of an inch of slug diameter. But there is heated debate, with the semi-traditionalists extolling the virtues of the Most Holy .45 to young whippersnappers in the 9mm mafia, who retort by criticizing weight, recoil, and ammunition capacity.

To be fair, both sides have their points. The generally accepted .45 gold standard is the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) round, fired by the universally recognized Colt .45 automatic pistol. Which is actually called the Model 1911, after the year of first production. Yes, the Colt .45 design is about a hundred years old, and is still in MASSIVE production by at least six major manufacturers.

The design was created in response to a specific challenge that was being faced by the United States Army, which was at the time in the process of "pacifying" various islands in the South Pacific, notably including the Philippines. The problem was that GIs were getting killed by crazed Philippino freedom fighters, who would charge the GIs through a hail of pistol fire to attack with machetes. At the time, the standard US Army pistol was a .38 caliber revolver. Although the .38 was fully capable of killing people, it sometimes took people minutes or hours to die from the fairly small holes it made in them. This just didn't work for the soldiers who, for machete-attack based reasons, really couldn't wait that long for results to come through. They kinda needed the 'bad guys' to go down as soon as they were shot.

Enter the Colt .45. Although there are some semi-exotic rounds in circulation (.454 Casull, .50 AE, etc.) the .45 ACP is by far the most common large-caliber pistol in the world. For day to day use by The Common Man, it is simply as big as it gets. This means several things. First, ammo capacity tends to be limited, since the cartridges are big, and the main design (the Colt 1911) pre-dates double-stack magazine designs. A 1911 will only hold 8 rounds in the magazine (but newer designs like the Glock 21 will hold 13). Second, both the ammo and the pistol firing it are fairly heavy. A 1911 weighs 2.5 pounds empty. Third, despite the heavy platform, recoil is fairly fierce, and even a guy my size can have problems keeping the thing reigned in, in event that several shots need to be fired in rapid succession. It is a fucking beast of a pistol. Finally, and most importantly, a center-mass hit with a .45 will in fact stop a crazed guy who's charging at you with a machete, whereas history indicates that a smaller round might serve only to further annoy him.

There is absolutely nothing subtle about .45 pistols, much the same way there's nothing subtle about a Harley, or a '69 Camaro. And in a similar vein, all of those things have an intrinsic amount of class and/or sexiness, regardless of age or circumstance.

Turning to the 9mm, it is first important to point out that the modern 9mm Parabellum round (the universally accepted "9mm," although there are actually a few different chamberings of 9mm) is ballistically very similar to the .38 US Army round that was replaced by the .45. The 9mm round does have a lot going for, primarily that it is a lot smaller and lighter than a .45. Whereas a .45 is a beast of a handgun, which places sizable physical demands on the shooter, a 9mm can be managed by just about anyone. Being much more user-friendly, it takes less strength, less practice, and thus less training time to learn to use a 9mm, all of which are important.

Whereas you need to practice at least occasionally to get and maintain the ability to really use a .45 (especially if you plan on firing more than one shot), even a casual shooter can reliably get good results with a 9mm. The US Army's switch to the M9 (the current-issue U.S. service pistol, which is essentially a 9mm Beretta 92F - think Mel Gibson in 'Lethal Weapon') was based at least in part on the fact that lots of soldiers (including many women, in the modern Army) don't have the physical strength to qualify with the 1911. Incidentally, this was not a new problem with the 1911; one of the reasons for the WWII-era development of the M1 Carbine to compliment the M1 Garard rifle was that officers and support personnel who didn't need a Garand and who couldn't qualify with the 1911 still needed a weapon to carry.

While the 9mm lacks the raw power of the .45, it is still fully capable of killing people, as evidenced by the fact that it is historically the most common combat pistol caliber in the world. While it might not stop a man in his tracks with a single pull of the trigger, it absolutely has the power to kill. And that acceptable killing power (while less than the .45) is compounded by the fact that the 9mm is easy to shoot. This means that a lot of people can shoot it, which means a lot of manufacturers build them, which in turn means that most modern pistol-design improvements are centered on the caliber. A lot of people believe (with good justification) that the best overall handguns in the world are made by Glock, which got its start by satisfying an early-80s German military design contract for a combat pistol to replace the WWII-era P38. Since that time, the original production model (the Glock 17) has become standard issue for many NATO armies, and is also the most widely used police pistol in the world. Glock has spun off multiple (mechanically identical) pistols in all sorts of other calibers, incidentally including the .45 caliber Glock 21, 37, and 38. (They're great guns; do a search on youtube for 'Glock torture test.' Fun stuff.) But in keeping with discussion of the 9mm, there is no denying that it is much MUCH more mainstream than the .45, especially in the global market, for ergonomic reasons. Besides being easier to shoot, the smaller round also leads to big benefits like a lighter pistol that will hold more bullets. A Glock 17, for example, weighs about 22 oz. empty, and will fit 17 rounds in the standard magazine. That's more than twice the ammo that a 1911 holds. If you have to shoot a lot, 9mm is definitely the way to go.

But this doesn't change the inherent problem that was faced back in 1911: small caliber handguns are easy to use, and fully capable of killing people. But if you're facing crazed people charging at you with sharp instruments (or similar dire circumstances), you will probably wish you had something bigger to shoot them with. (There's really no such thing as a 'minor wound' from a .45.) Unfortunately, larger bullets means fewer bullets, and a heavier, harder-to-use-well handgun. Like any other highly evolved field, choosing one or the other comes down to which design compromise works best for you. So maybe it's time to consult some experts, of which there are plenty, it turns out.

The modern structure of warfighting means that, in addition to the regular grunts who go out in the field with equipment that is issued to them whether they like it or not, there are now all sorts of people who go into battle with their own choices of weapons. Besides semi-mercenaries attached to NGOs, high-end special forces guys like SEALS and related units have broad discretion to choose for themselves what gear they are going to use. This actually leads to all sorts of interesting points. Take for example, vehicles. A SEAL team headed across the desert to blow some shit up can choose anything they want to get the job done. The standard U.S. military vehicle is the ubiquitous Hummer. But when they have their own druthers, SEAL teams tend to ride into combat not in Hummers, but in 4-door V8 Toyota Tundra pickups. They don't break, a little work gets AMAZING performance out the V8 engines, and the air-conditioning is much MUCH better than in a Hummer. Toyota cannot BUY press like that, which essentially asserts that the top-shelf special-ops truck in the world today is in fact a Toyota.

But the point is that if you really want to know what the best overall gear in the world it, the wonders of the internet means that you can just simply ask the best guys in the world what they use. They're not shy; they'll tell you. And, having looked into the matter, it strikes me that a lot of those guys carry 9mm Glocks, with the semi-compact Glock-19 at or near the top of the list. Likewise USAF pilots; they can choose what pistol to pack as a survival weapon, should they get shot down. The Glock 19 is the overwhelming favorite. I'm really not a Glock fanboy, since they just feel wrong in my hand. But I have recently partaken of the Glock Kool-Aid, and honestly speaking, if you're going to own just one handgun, it should probably be a 9mm Glock.

Unless, of course, you live in California. In which case, you'll need to go to a gunstore, and find out the current state of the law in that State, especially since there are all new laws restricting firearm sales. Those new laws - IIRC - mean that you can't own a 1911 OR a Glock 19. In terms of caliber choice, one of the principal high points of the 9mm round is that you can carry a lot of ammo. But California bans magazines which carry more than 10 rounds, thus obviating one of the biggest benefits of 9mm. Absent a lot of ammo, it's probably a good idea to make the ammo you have count, and lean towards a larger slug. With California's laws taking away most of the benefit of 9mm pistols, anyone living there would probably do better with something larger, meaning a .45. It's much more powerful, can carry about as many rounds as a CA-legal 9mm, and ammo is only slightly more expensive these days. It is absolutely NOT as easy and user-friendly to shoot, but is still quite manageable, and even fun to shoot.

So, if you're allowed to have one, get yourself a Glock 19. If you live in California, see if you can find a Glock 37 or 38.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Recently, I was given a copy of the infamous 'Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,' (hereinafter 'PPZ') and I'm most of the way through it, which is probably the reason for my recent zombie comments. For those who have never heard of the book (PPZ), it's a revision of the classic Jane Austen novel, with added fight scenes and plot-line based on a nationwide zombie-uprising in 18th century England. It is essentially the same story Austen wrote, with the same female lead and her four sisters (and other family) pursing love in rural England. Except material has been added and changed, to reflect the aforementioned story-line of an ongoing zombie apocalypse surrounding the same central plot events written by Austen. Notably, Liz and her sisters are all Shaolin-trained (think Kane from Kung Fu) zombie hunters.

I read 'Pride and Prejudice' (and some other Jane Austen stuff) back in the dark drunk days in Davis, and suffice to say that I'm NOT a fan. One of Austen's contemporaries called her writing "the glorification of the trivial," which fits EXACTLY. That's also the reason that I can't stand Jerry Seinfeld or (to a lesser degree) shows like 'Friends.' No matter what spin you put on it, and no matter how you try to dress it up, what it comes down to is people over-reacting to every-day events, and trying to sell it as drama. Not passing judgment on people who are fans, but I live all day every day in the same world as those characters (except that I have to occasionally leave the coffee shop and go to work), and when I want entertainment, I'm really not interested in a recap of trivial events we all face, no matter what spin and commentary are attached. Seriously, isn't entertainment supposed to be ENTERTAINING?!

So Austen has never held much interest for me, and I think it moderately amazing that 'Pride and Prejudice' was in 2003 judged by a BBC survey to be England's second-best-loved book (behind only 'Lord of the Rings'). WTF? Don't people read Bram Stoker any more? Or Shakespeare? England has shit-bags of great books to it's credit before you get to Austen. My theory is that it was a multiple-choice poll, with options arranged alphabetically by author, administered to people who were in too much of a hurry to read the whole list of options and really think about their selections. Hell, even the modern works of Rowling and Terry Pratchett beat the hell out of Austen's 'classic' stuff.

In any rate, Jane Austen's works were essentially the forerunners of modern mindless soap-operas, albeit presented with the literary skill of someone who should have been able to come up with a better storyline. The end result is that the writing is good, yes, but the plotline is UNBEARABLE. It's easy to APPRECIATE Austen's works as art, but boring as hell to actually read them.

So enter co-author Seth Grahame-Smith, who wrote the zombie portions of PPZ, while at the same time leaving Austen's general writing and story-line largely intact. He's an author I'd acutally like to meet, for a few reasons. First of all, the portions of the book written by him might have been written by a 15-year old boy who's knowledge of weapons, fighting, and martial arts is drawn solely from comic-books and anime graphic novels. It really is pretty bad, complete with all sorts of comments that even a passing knowledge of military history would have prevented. The Brown Bess was a single-shot muzzle-loader, Seth; they kinda can't manage a hail of bullets. And if you're going to make your main characters Chinese-trained - and then highlight a rivalry between Chinese and Japanese martial arts - you DON'T give your main (Chinese-trained) characters distinctively Japanese weapons. Maybe I'm just demonstrating my super-geek status, but still. I half expected to read that the handle of Liz's katana was wrapped in telephone cord. (A case of beer to anyone who knows this reference.) So I'd like to meet Grahame-Smith, to try to get a feel for whether the comic-book errors were intentional as part of the over-the-top outlandishness of the zombie theme, or included because he really didn't know any better.

Regardless of being intentional or incidental, the additions made by the 21st century co-author are - from a high literature perspective - really, REALLY bad. Again, we're talking cheap comic-book scenes and ideas, presented in cheap comic-book fashion. Aside from pure entertainment value, there is NOTHING redeeming about the additions made to the book, and everything between the covers that might legitimately be called 'art' or 'literature' come from the parts written by Jane Austen, circa 1815 (iirc). So I think it's hugely ironic that all the quality, admirable, tip-of-the-hat worthy ART of PPZ is from the original Austen book, which was TOTALLY unreadable until it included outlandish and amateurishly written battles with the undead, and mis-citations to Japanese and Chinese systems of honor and combat.

Go figure, but everything GOOD is from Austen, who's writing is not at all entertaining. But everything ENTERTAINING is from Grahame-Smith, who's work is not only not 'good,' but is downright BAD. Not sure what it says about me that I plan on getting the other collaborative work between these two authors: 'Sense and Sensibility and Sea-Monsters.' And no, I did not just make that up.

But it does suggest that there's money to be made by revising the classics (which are legally in the public domain) with addition of lowest-common-denominator action scenes, without even bothering to overmuch change the title of the book. That might be something worth looking in to, although I don't think I'd be able to pull off the over-the-top outlandishness of Grahame-Smith. He's got that market pretty well cornered. But maybe there's a middle-ground to be exploited...

Smokin' the Ganj

As I sat down at my desk today, tacitly to do some work, I happened to glance at ESPN online, where I noticed that Giant's ace (and 2008 Cy Young Award winner) Tim Lincecum had been busted for pot possession.

For me, the only real surprise this held was that anyone was surprised.

He's a career west-coast guy, grew up in pot-country, and went to UW as an undergrad. Besides which, have you seen the guy? Long hair. Squinty eyes. Fairly consistent goofy smile. He reminds me of That Guy from high school. You know; the guy who had been high since the 7th grade? He was probably at your school, too. He got around.

I'm not a huge believer one way or the other on the whole lets-legalize-marijuana thing, much the same way that I'm not a big believer one way or the other about the Jets vs. the Dolphins thing. Both sides have their attractions and selling points. Both sides have more than their fair share of zealous adherents. Both sides sometimes care more about hating the people on the other side than they care about the actual dispute, but I guess that's just human nature. And in the long run, I don't think either side of the argument is as strong as the proponents state. So I understand and accept that people are going to smoke the ganja in pursuit of a good time, and I think that such people should understand and accept that doing so is, in fact, still illegal, and that getting caught having such a good time means a criminal record, fines, and jail time. Or at the very least that the guys who caught you are going to give you a stern talking to, and a warning not to do it again as they confiscate your greenery for their own use.

All that having been said, I do think that the way this country handles the Mary Jane issue is nothing short of idiotic, based primarily on inter-/intra-governmental bullshit.

Generally speaking, enforcement of criminal codes within their jurisdiction is the exclusive purview of the individual states. States are free to make their own laws about personal conduct, and to enforce those laws, and are not bound by standards employed in other jurisdictions. For example: in California, it is possible to legally be a pothead, but you cannot legally purchase most firearms. In contrast, Arizona takes a hard line on the ganja, but you can legally own pretty much any firearm you want. Those states, as is their prerogative, take different stances on those issues, and within their boundaries, set their own laws accordingly, as they see fit.

But then, enter the Federal government. Historically speaking, the Federal government had almost no authority to prosecute criminal activity whatsoever, because the Consitution and Amendments thereto left the Federal government virtually no jurisdiction in which to exercise that authority. The Federal government's job was primarily to regulate trade and interaction between states, NOT within states, and so the primary job of the Fed's law-enforcement arm (the FBI), was to address crimes which crossed state lines: chasing criminals who moved from state to state either in the course of, or in between commissions of, their criminal endeavors.

Of course, history and human nature dictated that the Federal government therefor would be taking the lead in substance control, since their broad, multi-state purview placed on the Federal Government the burden of stopping interstate bootlegging and other smuggling operations. Necessarily so. As a matter of law, local cops cannot follow a criminal over state lines: their authority is limited to laws they enforce, which in turn are limited to the bounds of their own jurisdiction. It takes legal process (extradition) to forcibly move a person from one state to another, since neither state has authority within, or even jointly with, any other state. Cops have no jurisdiction across state lines. The jurisdiction of the Feds, on the other hand, is entered specifically BECAUSE state lines are crossed.

Slippery slopes being what they are, we progressed over the years to where Feds are now prosecuting all sorts of criminal conduct, which - in theory at least - should be the responsibility of individual states. Since the Fed and the states occasionally have different agendas, this leads to conflict. For example: so long as you have the right paperwork filled out and have gained all the right approvals and certifications, you can legally operate a pot plantation in California and under California law. Or Nevada. Or some other states as well. You can grow it, you can smoke it, you can sell it, and local law enforcement will leave you alone, even if they don't have anything else to do. The state - which is the primary doer when it comes to law enforcement - has decreed that so long as formalities are observed and taxes are paid, you are within the bounds of the law.

Of course, should you engage in that sort of behavior (or even substantially less offensive behavior, like smoking a doobie in your living room), your door might be kicked in at any moment by guys with guns coming to arrest you. Because even though California (or Nevada, or where ever) says it's okay, the Federal government says that what you are doing is illegal, and has it's very own branch of law enforcement to get you: the DEA.

So we have an interesting situation: local law says conduct is legal, while national law says that the same conduct is illegal. Federal cops will drag you away, while local cops are offended only insofar as you being busted means they will need to find someone else to buy from. But where the problem really arises is in the operation of the prosecutorial and punitive stages.

The Federal government has courts and prisons completely independent of the states. If you are busted by the DEA, you don't go in front of a state judge and then into a state prison, you go in front of a Federal judge, and into a Federal prison. And the Federal institutions are MILITANT. They were built to deal with serious interstate criminals: kidnappers, bank-robbers, serial killers, major drug traffickers, and so forth. The purview of the Federal criminal system was apprehension of interstate offenders, and interstate offenders tended to be Big Time. The Courts are strict, because they are used to dealing with serious crimes. The prisons are rough, because they are meant for and filled with serious criminals.

Now then. Federal efforts to police relatively minor drug crimes means that this same militant criminal system is being employed on less-than-hardened criminals. Think back to That Guy from high school; the one who had been blazing daily for the last three years, at least. Imagine him thrown into the shark-tank of a Federal prison. Or, more germane to today's discussion, rest assured that even a few grams' possession in front of a Federal judge would have landed Tim Lincecum a bit more than a $622 fine and a speeding ticket.

That's the part that I kind of have a problem with. Don't get me wrong; like I said above, I'm a believer that the laws are the laws, that people break them at their own peril, and having broken them and gotten caught, lawbreakers are not really allowed to complain at having been caught. But still. Besides that fact that That Guy probably doesn't deserve Federal levels of incarceration (or even any incarceration, depending on whether he was busted with an eighth of kush instead of an acre of clones), I really don't see the need to spend millions of taxdollars keeping mostly-harmless potsmokers in Federal levels of incarceration.

But what can you do. I like to think that the situation is going to resolve itself with time (which is probably going to mean eventual national legalization, although probably not in my lifetime), and expect that we'll just plod along in the meantime, doing the same stupid shit we've always done. Just like healthcare, pollution control, and the finance industry, I guess we just don't have time for a rational solution.

Balance and Parity

I'm not a big believer in parity, whether you're talking about sports, or about life in general. For all the altruistic discussions (and intentions) about every man being equal, that is NOT the reality of our world. While we may all be (and for a just society, we reasonably MUST be) equal in the eyes of the law and the Lord (assuming you believe in such things) that philosophical equality not only is the end of it, but MUST BE the end of it.

The capable must be allowed the freedom to excel, and to reap the benefit of their efforts. Attempts to 'fix' things so as to grant opportunity and benefit to all people equally has the end result not of raising the weak to the levels of the strong, but instead of handicapping the strong, to the detriment of all. It is admirable for a society to wish all to succeed. But efforts to disperse success among all is a recipe for disaster. There must be a direct connection between capability and success, for if the incompetent are given a full share of the spoils of the competent, what then is the incentive to strive for victory? Life is not like little league. Kids can expect a shiny trophy just for showing up, but in Big Boy land, the only people who win trophies are the ones who earn them.

That having been said, there are ways to balance out inequities, to provide a level playing field, as it were. There are ways to do it right.

Take the NFL, for example. A while back, people On High decided that the Superbowl should be won by somebody other than San Francisco, Dallas, or Green Bay. So they instituted a salary cap. Which really wasn't a bad thing, since things really had reached the level where the strong just got stronger, and the weak just got weaker. Consider the 1994 NFC Championship game. Between the two teams playing that day, there were ELEVEN pro-bowlers in the game. A quarter of the NFC Pro Bowl roster came from just those two teams. Football was looking a lot like baseball, where championships were largely purchased in the free-agent market, and the best management and coaching in the world was not going to overcome the talent loaded at the top of the league. The capable were not succeeding, the wealthy were succeeding. So a salary cap was instituted.

Which I was not a believer in, because when you prevent the best from being the best, the usual result is not the worst catching up, but is instead the best being handicapped. When you say 'on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team,' what you're really saying is that 'on any given Sunday, a BAD teams could lose to a WORSE team.' Rather then elevating the weak, the salary cap just limited the ability of the great teams to stay great.

But - wonder of wonders - it really did work out. A new status quo evolved, where the most capable teams steadily rose to prominence, beating out teams that were just very wealthy. New England, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis came into prominence, while San Francisco and Dallas declined. That was because the former three teams did it right: good management, good coaching, good drafting. Built solidly from top to bottom, relatively small-market teams surpassed mighty DAL and SF, because the fact of the matter was that although DAL and SF could afford every big-free agent on the market, they were not strong throughout, starting with jackass ownership.

Under the new paradigm in the salary cap era, the capable prevail over the merely wealthy. Take Dan Synder's ownership in Washington. Snyder is among the wealthiest men in the world, and the Redskins are among the wealthiest teams in the league. But Snyder - who is not a career football guy - insists on calling all the shots, and has set up the organization with him at the top, surrounded by yes-men. The end result is that, despite great wealth, Washington is one of the worst teams in the league. There's a similar structure in Oakland, where Al Davis holds absolute power, handing down decrees to hand-picked yes-men. And Oakland doesn't even have the Snyder wealth to help, so the end result is that the team is a veritable garbage-can fire.

Both are trying to win with outdated models. Rather that building themselves into winners by getting good people and demanding good work from their good people, they look for quick-fixes and band-aids. WAS overpays for big-name free-agents, but draft poorly every year. In the rare circumstances that they do draft a good player, they are too busy paying free agents to hold on the home-grown talent. They make sweeping changes just about every year, usually to the coaching staff, but never fix the problem, which is not the players or personnel, but is the ownership. Without structure and continuity, no band-aid is going to make things work out. With caps on how much they can spend, they can't just buy their way into prominence. Meanwhile, the well-run franchises (NE, IND, PIT) continue to be successful, year after year, drafting well, coaching well, and winning, notwithstanding free-agent and front-office losses.

There are about five teams in the league that are not only cover-your eyes awful (WAS, OAK, KC, StL, TB), but also have no clear resurrection in sight. And none of them have anyone to blame but their own ownership, for a string of bad personnel and coaching decisions. They have nobody to blame because turnarounds can come as soon as the ownership of those teams start doing things right. SF finally built a good front office, started drafting well, and got a good coach. Hey, look at that: they're no longer an embarrassment. Likewise DET: after FAR too many years, they shit-canned Matt Millen, got quality management and coaching, and - surprise surprise - they're getting better. Miami was a laughing-stock not long ago. But add good management by career football professionals, and they're playing respectably in a very tough division WITHOUT A REAL QUARTERBACK.

The disparity between the haves and the have-nots is every bit as glaring in the NFL as it has ever been. But the difference between the haves and the have-nots is generally not wealth of ownership, strong markets, or a rabid fan base. The difference between the mighty and the meek is that the mighty DO IT RIGHT, year after year. Good drafting, good coaching, and good management add up to wins.

Rather than developing into a league of mediocrity, the NFL in the salary cap era is as strong as it has ever been, in large part BECAUSE wealthy teams and owners can no longer simply purchase a championship by splurging in the free-agent market. It has reached a point where the league is structured for the most diligent, best-run organizations to prevail over opponents who lack the talent and initiative to build themselves into winners, and who are now barred from simply buying victories.

As an American, it warms my heart. I don't like imposition of extrinsic limitations dictating results in dynamic systems. But when the goal of the extrinsic limitation is to limit the effect of extrinsic factors on the workings of such a dynamic system, that gets a big thumbs-up from HT.

Week Four Picks

In last weekend's action, HT was 10-6 against the spread, bringing the record to 32-15 against the spread for the season. As expected, the bookies will continue to get better at setting the lines, as we learn more about the teams; I expect things to even out further. To address this, I'm considering incorporating the theory from the past about betting underdogs, based on rabid fans driving lines. Not sure how far I'll go with it, as I've been doing pretty well so far basing picks exclusively on the various teams' talent and performance. Not sure if I'll be able to keep up that level of analysis as the season goes on, but we'll see.

In any rate, here are my week four picks:

HOU (-9) vs. OAK
This line is big enough to be daunting, but still. Neither teams plays very good defense, but at least HOU can score, even against decent defenses. OAK hasn't been able to score on anyone. I think Andre Johnson is going to get loose, and a two-score win at home is within HOU's reach.

TEN (-3) at JAX
JAX depends on their running game, and are going to get nowhere against TEN. JAX should do okay against a very strong TEN running game, but TEN has big-play ability that JAX lacks.

BAL (+2.5) at NE
NE is getting good things from Brady again (at least last week), but BAL looks good, and lacks for nothing except WR depth. They hopefully have taken advantage of tune-up games against weak opponents. I don't think NE is going to be able to repeat the ball-control offensive game they managed last week; unless Brady is the Brady of old, BAL wins or covers.

CIN (+5.5) at CLE
CIN is coming together, and has found a defensive game. They needed a big 4th qtr to beat PIT, but if they can beat PIT at all, they really should be able to beat CLE by a touchdown.

NYG (-8.5) at KC
KC is better than the TB team the Giants just brutalized, but barring an amazing defensive effort (unlikely with KC's inability to run and thereby control the clock), I gotta believe the Giants will win by 2 scores.

DET (+10) at CHI
Big line. CHI is winning, but Cutler is only really appearing when pressure is on. He's getting it done with talent, not effort, and will not feel that pressure going into this game. CHI is letting teams linger; even SEA (without Hasselbeck) managed to stay within a TD. CHI is definitely the better team, but I don't think they're 10 points better, even at home.

WAS (-7) vs. TB
WAS is still having scoring problems, but TB is not scoring AT ALL, and could be the worst team in the league (including OAK). WAS has something to prove following a loss to DET (where they actually got some offense going). They are a touchdown better, especially at home.

IND (?) vs. SEA
Still no line on this game, but if it's less than 13, I take the Colts. Would love to see it 9 or less. SEA is hurting, and IND leads the league in total offense. Their pass/run ratio is almost 4:1, but SEA won't be able to do anything about that; Manning is too good, and IND has too much depth at receiver. IND will win by 2 scores.

NO (-6.5) vs. NYJ
Until further notice, I take NO to cover any possible spread. NYJ looks very, very good. But NO looks amazing, and not just on offense. Until proven otherwise, NO is at least a touchdown better than ANYONE, especially at home.

BUF (-2.5) at MIA
MIA is staying in games with strong running and clock control, but is not scoring points. BUF is soft against the pass but has a pretty good run defense, and held NO in check for 3 quarters. Especially with Pennington out, don't think MIA will be able to get it done, even at home.

SF (-10) at. STL
SF has won or covered every week this season. MIN needed a miracle finish to win, despite getting a special teams TD. Hill looked great. STL lost by 28 to SEA, and by 19 to GB. This is a big line, and Frank Gore is hurt, but SF is better than SEA or GB, and can win by 2 scores.

DAL (-3) vs. DEN
DEN has the best defense in the league statistically, and is at or near the top of the league in both sacks and INTs. But they haven't played anybody. After Monday's game, Romo looks like he's doing the film study and (much more importantly), the DAL defense has found some legs. Think they'll win by more than a field-goal.

SD (+6.5) at PIT
PIT will be playing mad. But they haven't been able to run, and Big Ben is throwing more INTs than TDs. They're not winning by much even when they win. SD will continue to have problems running, but - barring weather - will be able to throw against the PIT defense. All in all, I think SD wins or covers, even on the road, pending a decision from the football gods on weather next sunday.

MIN (-3.5) vs. GB
Raise your hand if you think Brett Farve will be less than amazing on a Monday night, at home, against his former team. Yeah. Me neither.

The Male Mind

I've spent that last week or so hanging around with one of my oldest friends, having a really good time and working almost not at all. It has been EXACTLY what I needed. This has been my first full week vacation since... ... ... Nevermind. In any rate, spending time with her, the conversation is always good, always honest (we've know each other a long time, and are generally past the lying-to-impress stage), and I always am presented with some interesting thoughts, angles, or spins on things that I would not have otherwise considered. Usually, this is a direct result of the fact that my friend is mutant smart, very dynamic, and female.

The female mind (or at least hers) always comes up with interesting points on topics that I otherwise would consider fairly cut and dried.

Take for example, band names. On the car ride home from a social function, a Finger Eleven song came on the radio. I'm sure you've heard it. Besides liking their music, I like Finger Eleven, because anyone who can come up with that sort of clever, thinly-veiled penis reference is someone that I tip my hat to. Creativly presented filth is always a pleasant change from the usual run-of-the-mill filth that I get shoved down my throat from sources like work, pop culture, and Las Vegas. So it's refreshing.

I any rate: In mentioning my respect for Finger Eleven to my friend (who has ongoing problems with male douchebaggery - which for once is not totally my fault - and who spent the day periodically enraged at the depths of such douchebaggery), I was presented with the idea that if men spent as much time thinking about other things as they spent thinking about their cocks, a lot of the drama and bullshit the world has to deal with would probably be solved in pretty short order. Seriously: how many different names, descriptors, or obsure referents are there for a penis? Even with the proviso that it is every man's best friend, favorite toy, and worst enemy - well worthy of a great deal of attention - doesn't it seem a bit odd? They say Eskimos have dozens of defferent words that mean subtle varioations of "snow" and/or "ice." But find me a culture anywhere that has less than fifty colloquial descriptors for cock. Take another listen to John Cleese's song about "Isn't it great to have a penis" for a quick refresher course.

Now then. If we spent as much time pondering cold fusion or particle physics as we spent coming up with clever ways to talk about naughty things, tell me wouldn't have cracked that pesky quantum gravimetrics nut.

I really don't have a point with all this, but I wanted to get it down, because I'm sure I'd file the idea away and give it no further attention otherwise, and this seems like something worthy of further consideration, and perhaps incorporation into a Rule or an Explanation.

Week Two Results, Thoughts, Week Three Picks

This is more football, and is really not about anything except football, so spare yourself the grief if you're among my readers who don't give a damn. For those who give even a little bit of a damn, HT was 10-5 against the spread for the weekend (with a push in OAK vs. KC), and is 22-9 against the spread for the season. As before, professional betters call it a victory when they go 60%, so I'm sure my numbers will even out as the season goes on, and as the bookmakers learn more about the teams, and about who the betters are backing this season. I have no illusions about outsmarting Vegas in the long run, but it will be fun to see how it goes. This is gonna be a good season. Some interesting developments going on in the league, including the changing of the old guard, apparently. Here are my thoughts on some of the teams.

ARI has played amazing run defense, against running teams (SF, JAX). This team will rise or fall based on the offensive line’s protection of Warner. IND will be a test, with Freeney and Mathis on the pass-rush.

ATL looks strong, but hasn't played any of the big boys. Getting good work from Ryan and Gonzales, and Turner will get his every week. Pass defense okay, but run defense is a problem. They should win the games they should win, but still need to play their way into elite status.

BAL is strong running the ball (5 yards avg for Rice), is getting solid play from Flacco, and had a big win in SD after a walkover against KC. Great run defense, as always. They’ve shown they can win a footrace in SD; 2nd best scoring O in league (to NO). This team will be dangerous, and looks to have all the pieces.

BUF is gonna have protection problems with their offensive line injuries. Good run defense, but yielding 300 yards a game passing. Good running, and Edwards is getting job done; they’re putting up points. Playing footrace games, and not much clock control with no-huddle offense.

CAR is placing a lot of blame at Delhomme's feet, and he has given the ball away a lot. But the defense has not been able to cover for mistakes, and is yielding over 160 yards a game on the ground. When you give up over 30 points/game, there are problems other than QB play.

CHI is playing great run defense against running teams, but having problems defending the pass (against GB, PIT). Cutler hit or miss, but got PIT sans Polamalu. Lots of good stuff, but nothing spectacular. Expect close games, with wins depending on Cutler.

CIN was victim of a fluke vs. DEN, and strong in a win in GB; weak running, but okay passing that game. Pass defense a problem, middle of pack in scoring and scoring defense, but haven’t faced any jugernaughts. Penalty problems. Wins seem to depend on offensive chemistry, which might be coming together.

CLE not doing much on either side of ball in 2 double-digit losses (MIN, DEN).

DAL looks hugely overrated at this point, and any turnaround starts with Tony Romo. He's playing like a guy who spends too much time banging super-models, and not enough time studying film. Running is good, and they're scoring, but the Defense is not as good as the last few seasons, and hasn't been able to cover for Romo's mistakes.

DEN looked hopeless one week, strong the next. Orton not a problem. Best defense in league (after playing CIN, CLE). Strong against CLE, but needed a fluke to win in CIN. Clearly looking for new identity, and not a contender until they find one.

DET started the season against two legitimate Superbowl contenders. But biggest problem looks like turnovers (3 per game against NO and MIN). We’ll know more about them after facing a middling WAS team in Wk 3.

GB is having big problems in close games. Not generating a lot of yards, or yards per play, even against CIN. Okay run and pass defense, but pretty boring football, and they're allowing weaker teams to linger. So far, they're kidding themselves about contending with MIN in that division.

HOU is very weak on 3rd down on both sides of the ball. Worst run defense in league, edging CLE. They’ve played against strong defenses, but run game going nowhere. Scoring offense so far depends on Andre Johnson; impotent against NYJ, dazzling against TEN, and possible suspended in Wk 3 following a brawl on the sidelines in Wk 2. That would be bad for HOU.

IND is on the decline, with brainpower (coaching) losses, and with injuries on both sides of the ball (Sanders, Gonzales). Their 1st down pass to rush ratio was 4:1 in week one. JAX has a good rush defense, but with Manning slinging, Addai needs more than a 2.5 average rush. It is early, but don’t know if they’re going to be blowing anyone out, especially when MIA (despite losing) controlled the ball for over 45 mins of game time. Waiting to see them play a team with good pass defense.

JAX is getting almost 5 yards a carry from Jones-Drew, even with a game against ARI (who's run defense has been excellent). They’ve played solid offensive teams (IND, ARI), and their passing game/scoring defense have not been up to the task. Lit up by ARI passing game.

KC hung 24 on BAL in a loss, but scoring was in garbage time, and only got them within 14. Don’t expect a lot. Cassell & running both okay. Run defense good against weak teams, but not ready for big time. The talent is just simply not there.

NE is in decline (after a big loss to NYJ), pending a resurgence by Tom Brady. He has not been himself for 2 weeks, and generally speaking, that kind of injury takes a full season to recover from. Just ask Carson Palmer. In any rate, between this injury and decline of the defense, NE doesn’t look like a contender unless Brady demonstrates that he’s ahead of the usual recovery curve.

NO looks like a fantasy team. Brees on pace for 72 TD passes, including 2 against mighty PHI. Run defense looks a bit questionable (despite 2.9 avg), but they're hard to throw against, and teams will need to throw to keep up. (Think IND from their Superbowl year.)

NYJ is very much on the rise, rookie QB notwithstanding. Their defense has not given up a TD in 2 games (HOU, NE), and their running game is getting it done. The AFC East is not what it used to be, and this team looks primed to take the crown.

OAK was in it with SD, but struggled to beat KC; they look strong at times, but young and mistake prone. Yards per pass weak, against not-great pass defenses. Yardage defense average, but scoring defense in top-10. They seem to play to level of their opponents, with mixed results.

PHI has a good defense; last week was more NO greatness than PHI weakness. But until McNabb is back, the offense will not be the same, and Vick is not the solution. Honestly speaking, Jeff Garcia should be playing, not Kolb. They are still strong, and with McNabb, are legitimate contenders.

PIT’s running game averaging only 3.1/carry, and their defense (while FIERCE) is not the same without Polamalu. As always, they will not be blown out, and will tend to win close games, but they’re one more big injury from the middle of the pack.

SD is getting beat, despite spectacular performance from skill positions, notably Rivers. Given that this is several seasons in a row they’ve had slow starts, I think the problem is lack of conditioning at the strength positions. Norv Turner is not a guy who makes sure his linemen put in the weight-room time. Theorectically, they could play their way into game shape, but have lost NT Williams, and C Hardwick is out as well. The talent is still there, but they are no longer giants.

SEA is dealing with Hasselbeck hurt again. SF ran all over them, and even StL managed over 4 yards/carry. Pass defense untested thus far (StL, SF). Gonna be a long season.

SF is on the rise, and beat the fuck out of SEA (injuries to QB Hasselbeck, LT Locklear, MLB Tatupu, CB Wilson). Getting good play on both lines, and finally getting some pressure on QBs (without sacrificing run defense). They're not going to blow anyone out with their QB situation, but they look like a team nobody wants to play against.

STL is getting nothing from their passing game, Bulger or no. Lack of production elsewhere means this could be a long season, but can look forward to games against SEA.

TB is having problems with run defense (over 6 ypp against BUF), and is giving up over 5 ypp on both run and pass. Lost footraces to DAL and BUF, by over 12 points per game. Defense clearly not holding up their end; far less talent than glory days. The offense has not grown to make up the difference.

TEN is playing amazing run defense (1.9/attempt, less than 50/game). But they got shredded by lowly HOU’s pass game, largely from inability to stay on Andre Johnson. Looked like a lazy secondary; maybe a 1-week aberration. TEN’s Johnson doing great on the ground. Their defensive secondary problems might make a lot of games into footraces, which even their running game might not be able to keep up with.

WAS is getting okay (unspectacular) numbers on offense, and is not bad defensively. They’re just not finding the end zone. They will be tough to play against, and will squeak out wins, but will be whipped by top teams (NO, BAL, NYJ, etc.).

All that having been said, here are my picks for Wk 3:

NYJ (-2.5) vs. TEN
NYJ will not be able to run against TEN; nobody else has. But NYJ has not given up a touchdown TO ANYONE this season. Even placing things on Sanchez’s shoulders… I think he’s up to it.

JAX (+4) at HOU
Close call. HOU is coming on, and Andre Johnson will probably get loose against a not-great JAX pass defense. On the other hand, JAX is going to do dirty things to HOU’s league-worst run defense. Question is: is controlling the clock in the run game going to keep them within a field goal? I think it will.

PHI (-9.5) vs. KC
PHI is not going to be the same on offense until McNabb comes back, and Vick being available is a lot more likely to cause strife than it is to boost production. Still, even if all the QB does is hand the ball to Westbrook, they should cover at home against KC.

BAL (-13.5) vs. CLE
This is a big line. But BAL is really not shy about whipping on much weaker teams, which is exactly what CLE is.

NYG (-7) at TB
The Giants are really not getting the sort of controlling defense they should, but have not had any walkover opponents thus far. TB has not been as bad as their record, but they got whipped by DAL, who got beat by NYG last Sunday night.

DET (+6.5) vs. WAS
WAS managed only nine points in STL in Wk 2, and has only scored 2 touchdowns total in two games (with one coming in garbage time against NYG). How can they win by a TD when they can't really score a TD? DET is not good, but has played contenders (NO, MIN). I don't see WAS covering, and I think DET can win this outright, if they get the turnovers under control.

GB (-6.5) at StL
Rams are doing nothing on offense, even when the defense holds up its end. GB is really not built to blow teams out, but definitely seems a touchdown better, on average.

MIN (-7) vs. SF
SF has a great defense, and absolutely shut down Adrian Petersen last time they played (seriously; they were amazing, check it out). But MIN still won the game. By a lot. And that was with Tavaris Jackson as QB.

ATL (+4) at NE
ATL is on the rise, while NE is not doing so well. ATL is not as good as NYJ, but is still better than NE, even in NE (at least in September). NE loses or fails to cover.

CHI (-1.5) at SEA
SEA couldn’t stay this close to SF and a good running game. Hasselbeck healthy or not, they won’t stay this close to CHI and a good running game AND a good passing game. If Cutler does his job, this game is not close.

NO (-5.5) at BUF
Until further notice, I take NO to cover any possible spread, and this line makes me wonder if the oddsmakers know something I don’t. Way I see it, BUF (no huddle, soft pass defense) is not even gonna be much of a speed-bump in the face of NO’s current mojo. How are they supposed to stay within 6 against a NO team that lit up the PHI defense for 48 points?

MIA (+6.5) at SD
SD is weak. Talented, but weak, and managed to lose to BAL even with a 400-yard performance from Rivers. Add in SD injury problems, and I think MIA covers, or wins outright.

PIT (-4.5) at CIN
These Rust-Belt battles can be fun to watch. But I don’t think this one will be. PIT has been a bit soft in pass defense, but I think their zone-blitz will get to Palmer, who is solid, but past his prime. He misses TJ a lot more than he’ll admit.

DEN (+2) at OAK
How exactly was this line reached? OAK does bring it against DEN, but still. At least DEN can out-defense weak teams. Unless Jackson cuts the bone-head throws at least in half, DEN wins.

ARI (pk) vs. IND
See IND notes, above. ARI is middling pass defense, but second in league in sacks. Might be enough, especially at home.

CAR (+9.5) at DAL
CAR was very weak in Week 1, but was within 8 of ATL last week, and was threatening until a Delhomme INT in the end-zone iced the game. They don't have the history or fan-base, but I think ATL is better than DAL right now. This is a big line, and I think it’s driven by the Cowboys’ fans more than by the Cowboys’ abilities.

Presidential Conduct.... and football

I really don't see what all the fervor is about Barack Obama calling Kanye West a jackass. Honestly, it's one of the only thing he's done since being elected that 1) the average American can empathize and agree with and 2) is not going to result in serious economic problems for this country.

My personal position has for years been that when someone is acting like a jackass, members of the audience are not just allowed to, but are sometimes obliged to point at that the person is, indeed, acting like a jackass. It's not a party foul to call a duck a duck. Seems pretty clear that West had no regard for any sort of tact, propriety, or even politeness, and probably acted primarily in an efforts to get into Beyonce's pants. To a degree, I can respect that. But how exactly is this undeserved criticism? Any guy who would do that probably can't hear any criticism over the sound of his own awesomeness, but maybe a little rebuke from the President of the United States might get through, especially since West and the Prez are from the same town. Fingers crossed. Maybe he'll do us all a favor and retire.

I think it's unconscionalbe that Obama does things like bowing to foreign potentates, and any readers of this blog know my opinion on his qualifications (and/or intelligence) for running a country. But I definitely think he might have a future in social commentary and music-industry gossip. I could totally see him as a judge on American Idol. That seriously could be his true calling.

In any rate, we're headed into week two, with HT standing at 12-4 against the spread for the season. Am sure that will even out (even professional betters consider 60% picks tantamount to the holy grail), but feeling good, and gonna run with it. So.

OAK (+3) at KC
KC has always been tough at home, and they did manage to score last week against Baltimore. But OAK was right there against SD, and will be playing angry.

TEN (-6.5) vs. HOU
TEN should keep Slayton contained in the backfield; they certainly had no problems keeping PIT's running game bottled up. Andre Johnson might be a problem, but he hasn't really gotten the season started yet.

NYJ (+3.5) vs. NE
Jets are on the rise, while NE had big problems at home on a monday night against BUF. Brady should get the win, but I don't think it will be by more than a field-goal.

GB (-9) vs. CIN
GB does a lot of things well. CIN doesn't do much of anything well. This is a big line, but it's a big line for a reason.

MIN (-9.5) at DET
MIN does a lot of things well. DET doesn't do much of anything well. This is a big line, but it's a big line for a reason.

NO (+1.5) at PHI
Clash of the offensive titans here; I'd be more likely to take the over (46.5) than a spread bet, but whatever. With McNabb hurting, PHI will necessarily slow down. NO will be firing on all cylinders.

ATL (-6) vs. CAR
CAR will be better than they were last week, and are NOT going to repeat the 7 turnovers they had last week in PHI. ATL stomped on MIA, but received 4 giveaways. Think ATL is gonna cover, but not by much.

WAS (-9.5) vs. StL
Stl was shutout by SEA. Washington's defense is better than Seattle's.

ARI (+3) at JAX
ARI should bounce back. Their run defense was phenomenal last week, and JAX relies on their rushing game.

SF (-1.5) vs. SEA
This could go either way, but I'll give the nod to the home team with the strong defense.

BUF (-5) vs. TB
Tony Romo averaged 12.7 yards per ATTEMPT last week against TB. If TO and Lee Evans stop dropping the football, I don't think this one will be close.

DEN (3-20) vs. CLE
This shit is gonna be an ugly game. But I like Orton at home more than CLE on the road.

SD (-3) vs. BAL
Fricking Brody Croyle managed a 112 passer rating IN BALTIMORE last week. If Rivers gets anywhere near that, SD will cover, no matter how bad they looked in OAK.

PIT (-3) at CHI
PIT is better than the GB team that whipped on CHI last week. Until Cutler has a legitimate deep threat, CHI is not going to run away from teams, and if PIT is allowed to linger, they'll get the lead and build on it.

NYG (+3) at DAL
NYG's line play is in mid-season form. DAL has done nothing but whip on TB, and not sure their focus will be where it needs to be. NYG covers or wins outright.

IND (3-20) at MIA
Still think IND is on the decline, but they beat a better team than MIA last weekend, and Manning is still Manning.

Maybe I Should Quit My Day Job...

With Monday's two games still pending(BUF at NE, SD at OAK), it has been a banner week for HT's NFL picks. To the point where I might reconsider my decision to not bet football this season.

With the two Monday games to go, HT's picks against the spread went a whopping 12-2. I checked it twice.

Observations going forward: SF's defense is for real; win or lose, they are going to be in a lot of close games this season. The Giants continue to be great on both lines, and are going to win games. But absent a WR stepping up, they're probably not going to be blowing anyone out. Take the under. MIN's rushing offense is scary. NO's passing offense is even scarier; Brees averaged over 10 yards per pass ATTEMPT. Take the over on those two. CAR could be done already unless they have a Brady-like backup, and IND seems on the decline.

God, I love football season.

Week One

Am not going to be betting this year, since this NFL season shows overwhelming signs of being a crazy, loopy, fucked-up season from hell. But just for kicks, here are my picks.

PIT (-6.5) over TEN
TEN is gonna be good, but PIT is always good, and is playing a season opener at home on a Thursday night. Think they'll bring more than TEN can handle.

ATL (-4) over MIA
Still waiting to see anything notable from MIA other than gimmick offense. ATL's offense is more than gimmick, and now has a Tony Gonzales.

BAL (-13) over KC
This is a HUGE spread (I use the numbers from the Hilton sportsbook), but KC doesn't have much of anything (even their new QB might not play), and BAL has no real shortage except WR depth.

PHI (-2.5) at CAR
PHI is gonna be strong, so long as Westbrook is healthy, and Vick is not a distraction. Westbrook is healthy, and Vick is inelligible this week.

CIN (-4.5) over DEN
The only NFL team that's been a bigger train-wreck than CIN over the last 4 seasons has been DEN over this last offseason (Oakland no longer counts as an NFL team). DEN will be able to run the ball. But CIN will be able to throw the ball. That'll be the difference.

MIN (-4) at CLE
MIN was good, and got better in the off-season. CLE was not so good, and didn't do much over the off-season.

NYJ (+4.5) at HOU
Everyone is high on the Texans. But they've actually accomplished fuck-all. NYJ is starting a rookie QB, but can run and play defense. Unless Andre Johnson breaks out, NYJ wins or covers.

JAX (+7) at IND
Wonder about IND's defense, and how they'll do sans Tony Dungy. Manning should win it for them, but I think JAX will cover.

NO (-13) over DET
HUGE line. But NO looks like a fantasy team, and their D has gotten better. DET started heading in the right direction as soon as Millen was canned, but they've turned over their roster, their best QB is a rookie, and they don't have much identity as a team.

DAL (-6) at TB
TB fired their offensive co-ordinator about a week ago. Don't think they're going to manage much. DAL will respond to Romo & Phillips being called out by Emmett Smith.

SF (+6.5) at ARI
SF has QB issues, but is on the rise, and has nasty defense. ARI lost the superbowl last time they played, and is treading water at best. Don't think they'll cover.

WAS (+6.5) at NYG
The Giants are tough where it matters (along both lines), and will be able to run. But who is Eli going to throw the ball to?

SEA (-8.5) over StL
Bulger is healthy, but how long will he stay that way playing behind that offensive line? The line is high enough to scare me a little, but SEA is clearly the better team right now, and playing a season opener at home, with a QB and an RB who both have something to prove.

GB (-3) over CHI
As with NYG, CHI has a lot of parts that work, but until a big-play receiver emerges, it's just dink-and-dunk, no matter how strong Cutler's arm is.

NE (-11) over BUF
BUF has not been great, and while adding TO makes them more talented, it doesn't necessarily make them better. The Pats are still the Pats, they're opening the season at home on a Monday night, and Tom Brady is healthy.

SD (-9.5) over OAK
LT has made a career of torching the Raiders, and is healthy. Gates and Rivers are healthy too. And this year, OAK would have problems facing SD's Torrey Pines High School, much less SD's Chargers. By cutting Jeff Garcia, Al Davis has made it 'Jamarcus Russel breakout season or bust.' Not many of Al's gambles have paid off lately.

Polarization

A few days ago, somebody emailed me a link to web footage of some political speaker. A black man, with the air of a preacher to him (pardon the stereotype), railing against Obama. It was pretty funny. He was calling the President 'Mr. Long-Legged-Mac-Daddy,' and was yelling "You pushing these white people too far! They ain't gonna take it! They gonna rise up, and if you think it was ugly and violent when black people riot, you ain't seen nothin' yet! And I hope they let me join them!"

That's just me paraphrasing. Most of it was pretty over the top, even when you don't factor in him talking about Obama's documented history of homosexuality. But the general point he was making was that, no matter of political correctness, middle-class white people pay a lot of taxes, are being expected to pay a lot more taxes, and are not going to be getting any additional benefit to their lives for having paid those taxes. The average American taxpayer is a middle-class working stiff with a full-time job. Since he has a full-time job, he almost certainly has healthcare already. He will not be pleased at working until July each year before a cent he earns is his own. Not mentioned - but thoroughly implied in the tirade - was that these middle-class white people also tend to own a lot of guns.

All in all, it was pretty funny shit.

But it got me to thinking, and I have to say that I honestly like the way that things are going in this country. I think it's a travesty the way Obama is running the show, but the practical result has been a whole hell of a lot of Americans becoming involved in the political process. Take a look at those town hall meetings; the vast majority of the questions faced where on-point, not accusatory, and should have been anticipated by any rational politician about to present themselves in the public forum. On at least a few occasions, the politicians in question have been completely incapable of rational response, and have ended up looking like jackasses.

I think this is because a lot of those politicians are relics from an era that has now passed. When America was fat and healthy, nobody really cared what their congressmen did. Those congressmen certainly didn't have to face public criticism and questioning of the positions they adopted. All they ever had to do was smile and kiss babies in election years. And look at their responses to these new challenges: usually something along the lines of "How dare you question me! I'm a CONGRESSMAN!!!" Publicly elected officials are getting indignant at the people who put them into power.

I expect a great many of them will be retiring before they run for re-election. Seriously, whoever is gonna run against Barney Frank ("Talking to you is like talking to a dining room table!") has got to be fucking drooling. The man is on film, voicing his contempt for the very people who elected him! I'm taking bets now: he will retire from congress rather than run for re-election. If he does run next year, he will be defeated. Regardless of his seat, next year's mid-term voter turnout is probably going to dwarf any mid-term turn-out in history, and I frankly expect a massive shift towards conservatism and Republican politics.

Barack is simply handling the situation so amazingly badly that most incumbent Democrats who do run will need to distance themselves from him. Look at his antics. His staged "town hall" meeting, with scripted slow-pitch questions. His thumbing his nose at his own party. Acorn employees being caught as the persons behind the "Obama is Hitler" thing. Even professional douchbags like Chris Matthews are having a harder and harder time making excuses for him, and the White House's response to any and all criticism - keeping in recent Democratic mold - has been roughly along the lines of "How dare you question me! I'm PRESIDENT!!!"

The response warms my heart. People are going to come out and vote. Obama is absolutely going to usher in a new era of change, because whatever Republican gets the nomination in 2012 is going to win by a fucking landslide. Congressional elections that year will swing Red as well. All in all, Barack is going to be this generations Jimmy Carter: someone who, for all his intelligence and good intentions, handled the country so amazingly BADLY that whoever follows him will have the full support of a majority that has become quite vocal.

You Can't Eat Your Cake And Have It Too

The fight continues over nationalized healthcare, this time with the far left in an uproar, because Obama is no longer considering the "public option" as critical to his program. Nobody should be surprised with this: both Congress and the American public as a whole has expressed that they do not endorse that end. The President NEEDED to back off, or else get his throat cut politically. But other than softening his expressed goal, his main efforts right now are defusing assertions that this plan would largely cut down Medicare's services for the elderly because of cost constraints, and so forth. Also lots of discussion about "death panels," etc. For the most part, he's blowing smoke, and responding to every question and challenge with a sincere promise that they are addressing all points, and that details are being worked out.

But he's not giving us details. It might be because he doesn't have them, but it's more likely because, if people knew the details, they would be even more outraged than they are now.

Even putting aside pesky points like the 9th and 10th Amendments, I really don't know why this is getting so much consideration. Is it really that difficult for people to grasp that the American healthcare system simply cannot effectively cover the entire populace?

Lets spell it out. Healthcare a COMMODITY, and it is expensive. And it's not expensive just because of the evil insurance industry and the Plaintiff's attorneys. Healthcare is a highly skilled field that plays for high stakes (literally life and death), and is EXTREMELY technologically oriented. All efforts that are successful are nothing more than a holding-action anyway; we're all going to die, so even the greatest healthcare victories are ultimately moot. But there are unquestionably lots of highly intelligent, highly trained people who need to get paid (and paid well) for the services they provide.

Rest assured that healthcare providers and professionals have NO SHORTAGE WHATSOEVER of work. Have you been to a doctor's office lately? Or - even worse - an ER? The fact that doctors are consistently behind in their appointments - I waited until almost 5 for my 3 pm appointment - and that the average ER wait is several hours really speaks for itself: even in its current form and with its current load of patients, our healthcare system has severe problems coming through. But it does come through. Look at the statistics: American healthcare is generally excellent, with substantially better cancer survival rates, for example, than even the best numbers among socialized-healthcare nations.

The expressed intention of the Obama agenda is universal healthcare. We have been promised that care will remain excellent. But that is, in a word, IMPOSSIBLE.

The legislation being considered does not substantially address things like training more doctors, building more hospitals, or streamlining the referral process (which is a massive part of healthcare these days). It does not increase the amount of patients that our doctors are capable of treating in a day, and does not mandate the acquisition of more doctors. The plan, apparently, is to try to use Federal law and the BILLING structure of the industry to try to extend our current healthcare TREATMENT structure over an additional 40 million people.

How does this make sense to ANYONE?

There are only so many doctors, and only so many hours in a day. If you require those same doctors to see more patients, they are not going to be able to do the kind of job we expect them to do. Further, if there is more healthcare being demanded by more people from the same number of doctors and hospitals, the cost of healthcare is NOT going to go down, it's going to go UP. That is fucking freshman economics. Add in that, with doctors so rushed, mistakes are going to be made, and medical malpractice cases are going to rise as well, and rightly so. Our government is on the verge of Ordering doctors to do more, without providing them the means to do more.

I hope I don't need to remind anyone what happens when the government decides that it knows business better than the businesses do, but - for quick reference - recall Enron, Grey Davis and the California energy meltdown, and our current foreclosure market. Governments are not all-powerful, and while they can legislate, the act of legislating does not CREATE anything. Ordering the current healthcare system to provide coverage for 40 million additional people - without a drop in quality of care - is like trying to feed an army with one man's lunch. A few loaves of bread and some of fish, for example. No matter what the liberals believe about Obama (and no matter what he might believe about himself), he's not qualified to make that happen.

Besides being beyond the powers of the Federal Legislature, quality national healthcare is beyond the capability of the healthcare system itself. There is only so much water in the well. More people drinking means less water for each. There is no way around this.

So Barack's plan is, frankly, bullshit. It's designed to get a bunch of his cronies into positions where they can make a bunch of money, control peoples' lives (by controlling their healthcare), and perpetuating a welfare state. It ABSOLUTELY will not result in a general reduction of the cost of healthcare; that part at least is simple supply and demand. It ABSOLUTELY will result in a sharp across-the-board decline in the quality of care, as doctors are now expected to see five patients in the time previously allotted for three or four. Do you believe in nationalized healthcare enough to accept a 20 or 25% reduction in the quality of your care? That's what's going to happen. If you are willing, do you really expect others to feel the same?

If the government was serious about reducing the cost of healthcare, how about this: for every year of service provided in a public clinic, hospital, or care institution, the Federal government will forgive 20% of the student loans of any doctor, nurse, or other skilled healthcare practitioner. Put in five years public service, and - in addition to your regular salary over that period - your student loans are totally forgiven. You know: solve the problem though the taxing and spending power, rather than by institutionalizing an entire industry. Give people economic incentive to become doctors and nurses, and give them incentive to use their skills for the benefit of the public. Solve the healthcare shortage by generating more healthcare, rather than by trying voodoo to stretch too little healthcare too far.

But I guess we don't have time for a rational solution. Obama only has a few years to carve his legacy, and so he needs to make a dramatic splash, rather than making an effective change.

Another Animal For The Zoo

As fall creeps inexorably upon us, I must, alas, speak of football, lest I explode. I know most of my readers don't give a rats-ass about ANYTHING football-related. Except Lisa, and even her attention is largely limited to the Griz (which is understandable) and the Cowboys (which in unforgivable). But although I love you guys, I don't always write for you guys, and I'm in one of those states of mind where I REALLY need to write about SOMETHING.

So. Football. The big news this off-season is the Michael Vick thing, who signed this week with the Eagles. This surprised me only a little. Having a through-and-through class guy like Tony Dungy in his corner gets him a lot of respect, and provides at least the reasonable confidence that Vick is not going to GET CAUGHT doing anything else illegal and/or idiotic. To be honest, Philly (and probably a few other teams, to lesser degree) didn't need any more assurance than that.

Of course, having Tony as his babysitter doesn't change the fact that Michael Vick, whether or not he's still doing it, is a man who - for years - bred, participated in fights between, and even personally killed household animals (in creative and brutal fashion, no less) because HE LIKED IT AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD FUN. But we're all about second chances aren't we? Especially when that second chance might give the home team another angle in the rushing attack. So make no mistake, Philly and its fans are going to embrace Vick. If for no other reason than that Philly fans are absolutely incapable of rational thought when it comes to their sports teams, they will continue their rabid support, games will continue to sell out, and any PETA protesters that might be in attendance should at least be aware of the possibility of getting shivved by a hard-core fan who's had a bit too much Yuengling.

Makes you proud to be an American, eh?

For my part, and setting aside that I'm a dog kind of guy, this signing pisses me off because it astronomically increases the Eagles chances of winning the Super Bowl, and I'm not a fan. Philly is gonna be strong this year. And not because of anything Vick might contribute on the field, mind you. Guy is three years older, hasn't played a snap, and was over-rated at his best. The Eagles' on-field product was looking pretty good to start with anyway; whatever raw talent he might bring, Vick will be a drop in the bucket, especially since the #1 guy on that team wears #5, not #7.

His contribution to the game will probably be minimal. But Vick's contribution to the DRAMA is already remarkable.

Seriously, think about Philly and the Eagles. Do you think there is any possible way that they might carry away a Lombardi Trophy with class and dignity? NO. FUCKING. WAY. If they win it all, there needs to be strife, contentions, angles for recriminations, and "Yeah, but look at what you had to stoop to to win." Hell, their best finish in the last 20 years came with Terrel Owens and his associated side-show in their locker room. Think that was a coincidence? With all this drama, all this contentiousness, and all this off-the-field bullshit, the team, the fans, and the city will be foaming at the mouth and running through walls all season. Even if Vick never takes that field, and barring serious injury to Mike Westbrook, the Eagles are gonna be tough.

Think about it. If they win a championship with him on the roster, then football history, for all eternity, will recall that the Eagles where finally able to climb the mountain after they signed the most notorious and publicized ex-con in the history of the game. Since this is the Philadelphia Eagles we're talking about, do you imagine a championship could happen any other way?

Guns. Lots of Guns.

I freely admit that I'm pretty opinionated, and that I have something to say on pretty much any topic. I prefer great taste over less filling. I like classic Chevys more than Fords, and Toyotas more than both put together. I like ARs more than AKs, and would take an M1A over either. I generally support the Republican party, but I don't really consider myself a Republican. I could go on and on, right up to my position on pointless shit like Cake vs. Pie (pie) and Pirates vs. Ninjas (ninjas).

But while I really do have an opinion on pretty much everything, and am not shy when it comes to telling you all about it, I like to think that most of my positions are based on rational analysis, rather than any ingrained programming or the toeing of any party line. Bad beer is not really made better by being able to drink a lot of it. It's a lot easier to replace an HEI chip than to fuck around with ignition points, and better still to have a car that doesn't break. Living in the desert, I like the ability to shoot accurately beyond 200 yards, preferably with a slug heavy enough to retain energy. I like Republican economic conservatism, but cannot support any party that opposes brilliant emerging technologies (notably stem cell research) based on esoteric religious dogma. A well made cake is never bad, but pie has SO many more options, and ninjas are highly trained professional assassins, whereas Pirates are almost always just waterborne thugs. On most subjects, there are reasons why I feel the way I do.

As a corollary to this rational approach, I like to think that I can see the other side of most arguments, even if I don't agree. If you have bad beer, good to be able to drink a lot of it. Fords are good cars, AKs are good guns, and Democrats sometimes have the right idea (in small doses). Both cake and pirates have their undeniable moments of greatness. (Black Forrest and Jack Sparrow, respectively.) For the most part, I can at least understand the other side of the debate on pretty much any issue you'd care to choose.

Except one.

No matter how hard I try, and no matter how loudly the other side yells, I cannot find the slightest bit of merit in any argument against the Second Amendment. It is just overwhelmingly mind-boggling that any American could EVER endorse a state of affairs where it is somehow okay for our government to tell us that we, as law-abiding citizens, are not allowed to be armed. Every argument I have ever heard on the subject strikes me as abject bullshit, contrived by people who oppose guns simply because they don't want them, and - if they don't want them - then nobody else should be allowed to have them either. It's circular bullshit, based on nothing more than personal preference, and people don't seem to realize that although they are free to exercise their CHOICE to not own firearms, the RIGHT to own them if they so choose is - and should be - inviolate, both as a matter of law and as a matter of political practicality.

Lets look at the law. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The most common argument you hear against the Amendment is that it is outdated. That there is no more militia in this country, and that such militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. These arguments are, in a word, BULLSHIT. The militia DOES exist, and IS necessary for a free state. Didn't you read the Amendment? The Amendments are second only to the Constitution in defining what IS in this country, and that's what the Amendment says. A militia is necessary. Unless you change the Amendment, that is the legal reality.

Going further, and still sticking to matters of law, there is ABSOLUTELY an American Militia. Under the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 16), Congress has authority to form a national militia, and the language of the Amendment essentially mandates the existence of the Militia as a necessary legal entity. Congress has expressly endorsed that existence, and - whether you realize it or not - militia membership includes just about every law-abiding adult male. It is the law, and I am not just making this up. The American Militia includes every law abiding American male between the ages of 17 and 45, excepting only those in military service, and others already Federally employed. The militia DOES exist, based on express published law of the United States. It can be called upon by the President to respond to dangerous situations, almost exactly the same way the Armed Forces or Reserves might be.

Considering that any member of the militia might legally be summoned to duty to respond to, for example insurrection, or situations were civil order has broken down, it's probably a good idea if the members of that militia are appropriately equipped to deal with the situations they are sent to handle. Look up The Children's Crusade for details about what happens when armies march armed with nothing but idealism. Can you imagine people being sent unarmed and unequipped into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to restore order? The legal option was there to ORDER simple male citizens in to deal with it. According to the law, any American male age 17-45 can be sent to fight as a militiaman, even without being drafted into the Armed Forces, and independent of normal military channels, (including independence from military supply channels, from which they might gain things like equipment). If that means you, don't you think it might be a good idea to have a decent rifle and reliable pistol? If you were sent into post-Katrina 'Nawlins to help restore order, would you have felt safe with a bolt-action hunting rifle?

So. Legal arguments that the milita no longer exist and no longer have any legal basis to be armed are absolute bullshit, and arguments to the contrary amount to "yeah, but" arguments against the letter of the law. As a matter of law, a comprehensive firearms ban would require massive amendment of American law, or else leave an established part of the American military not only unarmed, but legally barred from bearing arms. The militia DOES exist. While that legal reality that might be changed, it cannot be ignored.

Besides overlooking those legal realities, people (intentionally or incidentally) also tend to misread the the intention of the Second Amendment. The expressed purpose is to maintain the security of a FREE state. Which is not necessarily the same as maintaining the United States. Bear in mind that the existence of the American militia predates the founding of the United States. Look at history: In many ways, it was the Militia that CREATED the United States, rather than vice versa.

The founding fathers' highest goal was to create a nation free of tyranny, where every citizen had standing in the government, and freedom to live as they saw fit. They wanted assurances that no government was going to step into the place of George III and start telling them how they were going to live their lives. For some time prior to the establishment of any American political structure, the American Militia was fighting for that freedom. The founding fathers were, at heart, militiamen. The simple fact of the matter is that when you consider the ideal of democracy, with every citizen taking an active role in the political system, and standing up (or fighting) for their rights and freedoms, what you are imagining is the early American Militia. If you believe that such bold traditions and mindsets endure, you have to recognize that the American people are not so much the militia as the militia is the ideal of the American people: politically active citizens, involved in the defense of their rights and the support of a free country.

Going further in the idea that the Militia IS the people rather than being made up of the people, note that the duties of the militia are not limited to defense against foreign powers. The Oaths of Service and of Citizenship, for example, includes swearing to defend against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Now here's the important part: as outlined in Federal law, the Oath is not to defend the American GOVERMENT. The Oath is to defend THE CONSTITUTION. This is more than just splitting hairs: The founding fathers, rebels themselves, were absolutely aware that the greatest threat to freedom is not the tyranny of a conquerer, but the tyranny of those already in power. Barack Obama represents a VASTLY more substantial threat to the American way of life than Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Osama Bin Laden all put together.

The ultimate goal of the United States was (and is) a FREE state. A nation where the people dictated the terms of the government, not vice versa. Where government operated with the leave of the people, rather than the people operating with the leave of the government. Under the Constitution, the government does not control the populace, but is instead controlled by the populace. To whom does the American President really have to answer to, other than to the People?

Now then: how can you, even for a second, claim to live free under a government that tells you that you cannot be armed? The sole difference between living under the control of the government and living by the leave of the government is the ability of the populace to keep the government under control. When people are divested of their ability to engage in effective armed conflict (which will ALWAYS be the final recourse of diplomacy), they are no longer free. Rather, they are at the mercy of those who CAN engage in armed conflict, and rest assured, the United States as a government is pretty good at it. Talk all you want about enlightened societies, but the fact of the matter is that those who can and will kill ALWAYS exercise control over those who can not, or will not. Politicians will absolutely send armed men to enforce their will. Happens every day. How to stop them from gathering ever more power to themselves (at your expense), when your arguments lack teeth? The difference between a plea and a demand is the ability to take further action should the petition fail. If you live unarmed under under an armed government, all rights and freedoms that you have are simply discretionary.

To any American, that is unacceptable. The reason the Second Amendment exists to to ensure that American citizens, even if they consent to the control of another, never live by the leave of another.

The militia, established as a legal entity by Congress through the Constitution, and armed pursuant to the terms of the Second Amendment, IS THE PEOPLE, AS AN ARMED POLITICAL BLOC. The Second Amendment makes it so, as a check and balance to ensure that our rights do not fall victim to our own leaders. An armed Militia exists for the benefit of a FREE state, including the benefit of American people in curbing the excess of American politicians. The Militia does not exist or operate at the whim or leisure of the President, or of the Courts, or of any party (foreign or domestic) other than leaders directly elected by the people, and it is charged with supporting a free state against anyone acting in violation of the Constitution. An armed militia, formed of the populis, is the final recourse of the American people against tyranny. Just as it was in 1776.

The People ARE the Militia. Disarmament of the Militia means the end of the people's power to defend their own freedoms. The founding fathers themselves were men who, following the failure of process and diplomacy, took up arms and stood tall in support of freedom and inalienable rights. Again, the Militia's defense of American freedom predates the United States! It is the ultimate embodiment of the idea that, as Americans, we as individuals will stand and fight against those who would oppress us. And it works. The Militia's track record already includes defeating the greatest military power on the planet at the time (the English). Hopefully, the defense of freedom will not require the Militia to repeat that feat against the United States.