Who Exactly is Lawless?

 Over the last 240 years, millions of Americans (rich and poor, young and old, male or female, white, black, Hispanic or other) have had their homes, persons or effects searched pursuant to the protections provided by the US Constitution. Because the founders of the republic found such searches to be a significant infringement on personal liberty and privacy, the Constitution required stringent protections before a search could legally be conducted. First, law enforcement (the executive branch of government) had to believe there were reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) evidence of a crime would be found if a search was conducted. Second, law enforcement had to apply to a court (the judicial branch of government) for permission to conduct the search. When doing that, law enforcement had to tell the judge what evidence it was looking for, why it believed it was likely the evidence would be found in the place to be searched, and what crime or crimes the evidence sought would help to establish. 

Until earlier this week, this exposition of the law was unremarkable and uncontroversial. However, all it took was for law enforcement to execute this kind of routine search against former President Donald Trump for the formerly ‘law and order’ Republicans to lose their collective mind with comparisons to the Gestapo and Watergate. Even richer, some Republicans who for months have been castigating Democrats because a small minority spoke of ‘defunding the police’ in response to actual proven crimes by police are now talking about defunding or even disbanding the FBI in response to its entirely legal - and commonplace - execution of a legal search warrant. Watergate was a scandal precisely because the burglary at the Democratic headquarters and associated wiretap (not to mention the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office) were without any warrant and were thus crimes.

Republicans are also demanding the FBI justify its action. It already did that. In the way required by the Constitution - to a neutral and detached magistrate (a judge). When law enforcement executes a search warrant, it leaves behind at the place searched a copy of the warrant authorizing the search. They also leave behind a list of any and all items of evidence taken pursuant to the warrant. Viewing those documents Donald Trump can see exactly what crime(s) were being investigated and what evidence was found and taken of that (or other) crimes). The FBI has policies forbidding comment on these matters which policies are designed to protect the reputation of citizens. However, before you accept Mr. Trump’s exaggerated protestations at face value it is worth noting that nothing prevents Mr. Trump from making the warrant and list of items seized public so we can all see exactly what crimes are involved and what evidence was seized. Mr. Trump is refusing to do that. His refusal speaks loudly. 

Recess Is Over

 My last blog entry was more than 8 and 1/2 years ago. It seems that is too long ago to merely say “I was busy.” Had I not abandoned this endeavor so long ago, I am sure there would have been numerous events of interest which would have prompted me to sound off. Good grief, I missed out on the opportunity to comment on the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, elections and administrations, the Covid pandemic and vaccine skeptic madness, several new postseason collapses by the Green Bay Packers Packers, the Zen of Aaron Rodgers, a championship by the Milwaukee Bucks, the rise of the Milwaukee Brewers to post season regulars and more. 

I retired from practicing law at the end of February 2020, about two weeks before Covid shut down the country and everyone else stopped going to the office too. Now that I have figured out how to restart the blog there is no excuse for not taking time to resume these musings. To try and see them shared with a larger audience, I plan to provide a link on my Facebook page when West Coast Wisconsin is updated with a new post. 

Republican Plan to "Reform" Recall in Wisconsin

In the last several days, news reports indicate Wisconsin Republicans are again advancing proposals to change the recall process in Wisconsin.  One such report (from the Washington Post) characterized the proposal as follows: 

On Thursday, legislators will consider proposals to drastically change the standards under which an elected official could be recalled.  One new proposal would only allow a recall of a statewide elected official if the official had either been charged with a serious crime that would be punishable by at least a year in prison, or been accused of a serious ethics violation.  Another proposal would require a member of the legislature to be accused of malfeasance before a recall could proceed.

 

The proposal to limit recall to officials who have been charged with a felony makes little sense.  If an official is convicted of a felony, they are automatically disqualified from office as a result of their conviction anyway.  So what is the point of allowing officials charged with a felony to be recalled when they are going to be out of office anyway if they get convicted?  Second, the standard of being "accused of a serious ethics violation" is odd.  What does the term "accused" mean for that standard?  Accused by whom?  In what setting or venue?   Moreover, what is a "serious" ethic's violation as opposed to one not judged to be "serious?"  Who decides whether the alleged violation is a "serious" one? 

 While these objections are rational reasons to not tinker with the law, I am not sure they would help to sway Republicans intent on forcing the issue out of distaste for the recall attempt on Governor Scott Walker.  What might make a difference is to demonstrate why the change is bad policy by anecdote. 

 

In Canada, the city of Toronto's current mayor is Rob Ford.  Mr. Ford has generated massive amounts of publicity lately for engaging in drunken rampages, admitting to having smoked crack "in a drunken stupor," threatening to "kill" someone on a video, admitting to having purchased illegal drugs within the last two years, and (most recently) being accused of engaging in sexual harassment at the office.  Mr. Ford is an embarrassment to Canada generally and the City of Toronto specifically.  Apparently, however, the Toronto City Council and the voters are unable to force him from office because no "recall" mechanism is in place there.

Perhaps efforts to gut Wisconsin's recall procedure would be defeated if legislators considered that if Rob Ford were the governor of Wisconsin, or a State Legislator or Mayor here, the new recall standards being touted by the Republicans would prevent citizens from acting to recall him from office.  Ford has not been charged with any felony (and likely will not be) and who knows whether what he has been doing constitutes a "serious ethics violation." 

 

Another example from recent Wisconsin history would be former Sheboygan Mayor Bob Ryan who was recalled in 2012 largely due to several incidents of boorish behavior in his personal life toward women while drunk that he was never charged for criminally.  Since it involved activity in his personal life, not in his capacity as Mayor, it wouldn't have constituted a "serious ethics violation." 

 

Wisconsin citizens certainly would want to have the option of recall available in such circumstances.  Republicans are hell bent on trying to prevent such politicians from being recalled.  They should be ashamed of themselves.  Changing a good law due to "sour grapes" is bad policy.  

Ryan Braun & PED use in Baseball

Ryan Braun's suspension has generated waves of controversy throughout Wisconsin and nationwide with much of it centering on what can be done to rid baseball of performance enhancing drug use.  Despite having the strongest penalties in major league sports, baseball continues to have its image tarnished by repeated scandals involving some of its major stars.   

Pundits reason that increasing the penalties even further is not likely to accomplish significant change since the penalties are already severe and the huge salaries being paid provide an incentive to cheat.  In fact, several commentators have argued that despite being suspended and penalized by baseball, Braun and other PED abusers will still reap millions of dollars in profits from the increased contracts attributable to their wrongdoing.  

Despite all the handwringing about how the problem is intractable, there is an easy solution.  If I say so myself, the solution is elegant.  The new system would merely graft an additional layer of punishment on to the existing suspension scheme.  The additional layer of discipline would simply add an additional clause as a standard, required provision in every player contract providing that a first violation of the PED policy would result in the player's contract being reduced to the major league minimum salary for the remainder of the contract term.  

Baseball would also enact a rule that this salary penalty would apply for a minimum of four years, regardless of how long the player had remaining on his existing contract.  This would ensure players who were at the end of their contracts or free agents would also be facing substantial economic disincentive. 

 

A second offense would contain the longer suspension and a provision that the player remain at the league minimum salary for the rest of his career.  A third violation would include a lifetime ban. 

Consider for a moment how such a policy would affect superstars like Ryan Braun.  Under the current penalty scheme, Braun will serve a 65 game suspension that will cost him approximately 3.5 million in lost salary.  However, when he returns, the PED use that enhanced his performance sufficiently to prompt the Brewers to sign him to that 10 year, $120 million dollar contract will still have 7 years remaining.   

Under my revised penalty plan, Ryan's decision to break the rules by using PEDs would cost him dearly.  He would still be bound to the Brewers, but would be playing for the league minimum during next 7 years - usually the most productive (and high paying) of a player's career.  In one fell swoop, this change removes the financial incentive for players to cheat. 

Fahrenheit 451

Almost exactly a year ago (June 17, 2012), I wrote a blog entry about a list of my favorite science fiction books.  I was recently amazed when - out of the blue - a stranger e-mailed me about having read that entry on my blog.  Who knew anyone was reading!  Jack Collins (who wrote) alerted me to a short (only 3 minutes) video about "Fahrenheit 451" - one of the books on my list.  The video is from Academic Earth.  Enjoy!

Link to video

For bonus points, figure out why the book was named Fahrenheit 451!

Pride

The focus of this post is now former Chicago Bear linebacker Brian Urlacher.  As an avid Green Bay Packer fan, you would expect me to hate the Bears and your expectations would be correct.  However, hating the team does not require one to revile its human constituents.  In fact, over the years, I have had a certain respect and fondness for two Bears in particular; former head coach Lovie Smith and Urlacher.  While (on the down side) Urlacher was a Bear, he was also a fierce, talented competitor who was respectful of the sport and his opponents.  I liked that.  He has been a classy guy.  So, I was sorry to see the Bears part ways with Urlacher.

But the subject of this post is pride.  Although it remains to be seen whether my speculation is correct, I think perhaps fault for the divorce between the Bears and Urlacher should be attributed to Urlacher's bruised ego or (if you will) his pride.  Urlacher reported being offended by the Bears stance during contract negotiations.  Urlacher said he and his agent sought an amount significantly higher than they expected to sign for expecting to give some during back and forth negotiations.  What upset Urlacher is not the Bears original position to offer a contract of 2 million per year (which Urlacher admitted knowing to be "a lot of money") but their refusal to negotiate up from that figure.  So, Urlacher concluded, there was no negotiation, the Bears just gave him a "take it or leave it" deal.  He was insulted and offended the Bears would treat him like that.  So far, although media pundits have questioned whether Urlacher can expect to do better on the free agent market, they have generally agreed with Urlacher's view that the way the team handled its non-negotiating "negotiations" treated Urlacher shabbily. 

As Lee Corso is wont to say "not so fast my friend."  For the sake of argument, assume the media pundits are correct it is doubtful free agent Urlacher can find another team willing to pay him 2 million dollars per year or more.   In fact, pundits seem to believe Urlacher will ultimately sign elsewhere for less.  With that background, consider again the Bears offer.  In this light, instead of giving Urlacher an unrealistic low ball initial offer (to offset the unrealistic demand made by Urlacher) the Bears stepped up to the plate and gave Urlacher the respect he deserved as a lifetime Chicago Bear. Instead of trying to save money by trying him to sign for less than he was worth, they offered him a contract for every nickel of the 2 million per year he was worth.  In fact, perhaps we will learn what they offered would have given him a premium to have remained a Bear.  Of course, we won't know until Urlacher signs with another team.

I suspect Urlacher's concession that 2 million a year is "a lot of money" is not quite as candid as it might seem to you or I who will never make anywhere near that much money.  Professional athletes sometimes reach the point where they become blind to the obscene amounts of money they are being paid to play a game and fail to consider they possess no other talent that would allow them to earn so much.  instead, athletes use the salaries they are being paid relative to others in the same sport as a measure of their self worth.  They are "insulted" if a team is proposing to pay them less than a player they consider themselves to be superior to, regardless of whether the player being paid more actually merits that salary.  I suspect what insults Urlacher is that he can't wrap his head around the idea that a long time favorite of Bear fans, a player the Bears have built their defense around, and a future hall of famer should be paid less than the average middle linebacker.  His pride is getting the best of him.  Sad, but understandable. 

UPDATE - News broke on May 22, 2013 that Urlacher announced his retirement.  No team was willing to step up and match or exceed the $2 million the Bears offered Urlacher to return.  For that matter, at least publicly, no team offered him a contract to play even at the league minimum (which for a player with more than 10 years of service would have been $820,000).  I wonder if this proof that the Bears initial offer to Urlacher was exceedingly generous will cause Urlacher - and the public - to reevaluate how Urlacher was being treated by the team.  I would hope so, but I won't hold my breath. 

TEXAS SECESSION

Since the reelection of President Obama, there has been publicity about petitions circulating in approximately 30 states advocating the state secede from the United States.  The most prominent of these petitions is the one in Texas because that petition has garnered more than 65,000 signatures.   

Wow.  That seems impressive until you consider Texas cast 7,850,239 votes for the two presidential candidates on November 6th.  Put another way, less than 2 percent of the 4,555,755 Texans who voted for Romney signed the petition indicating their childishness.  Surveys tell us far more Texans believe in UFOs and support gay marriage.  So, not only is secession not possible, it is another example of right wing nuttery since it is wildly unpopular even among Texans who voted against Obama. 

However, the concept is worth considering.  Maybe it is a good idea.  Where do I sign?  By getting rid of Texas the rest of America won't have to be embarrassed by its propensity to employ the death penalty on innocent people who have been falsely convicted.  We would be freed of the danger of future presidents and presidential candidates from Texas like George W. Bush and Rick Perry.  We would not have to deal with creationist science text books and whitewashed history books approved by Texas educators. 

Moreover, it would be entertaining to see how Texas survives on its own.  What do I mean?  How would secession affect the Texas economy?  Not so good.  I know Texas Romney supporters were never fans of recent federal stimulus spending, but if Texas seceded, there would be a significant anti-stimulus effect.  That huge sucking sound you would hear would be from the lost jobs and damage to the state's economy caused by a federal pull out.

 There are 15 military bases in Texas.  Four are close to San Antonio, three are in the vicinity of Corpus Christi.  Imagine all those military personnel gone and the civilian jobs those people create in the communities gone with them.  NASA alone employs more than 3,000 people in the Houston area.  Nearly all of those jobs are high paying professional positions.  All gone.   

As long ago as 2002, there were more than 13,000 federal law enforcement officers in Texas.  There are certainly more now.  This includes Homeland Security, Immigration & Naturalization, Customs Service, ATF, DEA, FBI and Treasury agents.  All gone.  Who is going to man the Texas borders?  Not just the border with Mexico because now they will have to guard the US border too. 

That gives you some idea of the lost jobs and the negative impact those lost jobs would have on the Texas economy.  But what about other impacts?  Texas has more than 3,000 miles of federal interstate highways and substantially more miles of non-interstate federal highways.  Most of the cost of maintaining those roads has been paid for by the federal government.  Not any more.  Texans better keep their 4 wheel drive vehicles and stock up on shock absorbers.   

What about federal funds supporting education in Texas?  Do you really think all those red neck, small government, secessionist types want to support the "librull" educated snobs in Austin?  The University of Texas and other state colleges will no longer be serious institutions of learning.   

But what about football?  Will American high school football players want to go play college ball in a foreign country?  Will the schools that now play Texas still want to when all of the players, coaches and fans that want to travel to the game will have to have passports?  

Have fun paying for disaster relief when the next hurricane strikes you Texas.  How about all those twisters rolling down tornado alley?  Want to clean up from that next oil spill in the Gulf?  You are on your own.  No FEMA or other federal disaster dollars.  

How about food stamps?  Is Texas sure it wants to leave?  In November of 2011, more than 3,700,000 Texans (more than 1/2 of whom were children) were receiving food stamps.  That is nearly 15% of all people in Texas.  That puts the % of Texans receiving food stamps as second highest in the nation.  Many of them also receive Medicaid.  When Texas secedes, that will all stop.  What about all those retired Texans?  Well, they won't be eligible for Medicaid to pay for their nursing home care anymore.  Texan's getting close to retirement?  When they secede they will be giving up their Social Security, their Medicare AND Medicaid.  All gone. 

 

Yeah, Texas secession.  I am warming to the idea.  Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

THE 2012 ELECTION: A TRIUMPH OF REASON, REALITY & SCIENCE

Republicans mourning the results of the recent presidential election would do well to examine their unwillingness to accept reality, reason, and science.  In the 1850's American political discourse was joined by a nativist group called the "Know Nothings."  The Republican party seems to be the heir to that group's legacy both literally and figuratively. 

The poster child demonstrating my point is Georgia Rep. Paul Broun who announced in a speech on September 27th that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.  Dr. Broun (the man is a physician, no less) also told listeners he  believes the Earth was created in six days and is about 9,000 years old.  

These views do not make Broun an outlier in the Republican Party.  In fact, many recent Republican candidates for president have expressed doubts about the theory of evolution (among them, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachman, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Rick Perry).  In fact, despite his views (or perhaps because of them) Republicans appointed Broun (a member of the Tea Party caucus) to serve on the House Committee on Science and Technology.   

Another example of the Republican rejection of science concerns climate change.  Scientists knowledgeable in the field overwhelmingly endorse the concept climate change is occurring and change is being accelerated by human action.  But science is not good enough for Republican orthodoxy.   

The "know nothing" wing of the Republican Party similarly continues to believe president Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, and holds the rather inconsistent belief president Obama's politics are reflective of the years he spent as a follower of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (a Christian pastor), and yet that he is (simultaneously) a Muslim and an atheist.  He can't be all three.  Donald Trump's post election rant claims the election proves America is no longer a democracy (it has always been a republic, not a true democracy) because Obama was elected despite losing the popular vote (although Obama won the popular vote in addition to the electoral vote). 

Before the election, Fox News political pundits (most notorious among them George Will, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove) rejected the cold, statistical, scientific evaluation of  the polls to determine how the election would turn out that was forecast by Nate Silver's 538 blog in favor of predictions based on "gut feeling," "momentum," and years of political experience.  Come the morning after, it turned out the Republican rejection of science concerning political polling was just as crazy as their rejection of other science.  Silver called every single state correctly and "gut feeling" by Republicans was dead wrong. 

But it is not just rejection of science holding Republican's back.  They reject reality too.  Before the election, Republican pundit Dick Morris predicted Romney would win "in a landslide" garnering 325 electoral votes.  In making this prediction, he was rejecting science as did the others noted above.  But where he rejects reality is his comments after the election trying to explain how the election turned out so different than he expected. 

How did Morris characterize what he had just witnessed?  "I've got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker."  The "landslide" Morris predicted was 325 electoral votes for Romney.  Notice how he characterizes an Obama victory with 332 electoral votes (7 more than would have constituted a "landslide" for Romney) as a squeaker?  That is just not understanding the concept of reality. 

Reality hampered the Republicans in the 2012 elections in other ways.  Despite knowing women normally compose about 52% of the votes, Republicans seemed to go out of their way to say and do things to alienate women voters.  Despite knowing Latinos were a crucial, and increasingly large voting block, Republicans did everything they could to alienate Latino voters.  Despite knowing approximately 82% of Roman Catholics reject Catholic doctrine opposing birth control, Republicans attempted to convince them it was an attack on their religion for insurance companies to require coverage for contraception.  

The Romney economic plan was also a bit short on reality.  It offered no explanation how the numbers were supposed to add up.  How could increased defense spending and no tax increases square with deficit reduction?  It couldn't.  It's not complicated math, its arithmetic.  What about the Republican phobia about increasing the top marginal tax rate for fear the richest (the "job creators') would send the economy into a nose dive?  According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, that is not true.  Raising the top marginal tax rate was also found not to negatively affect job growth.   History confirms it. 

Finally, Republicans ignored reason by abandoning moderate politicians in favor of radical, sometimes lunatic fringe, Tea Party candidates.  This probably allowed Democrats to win elections they may well have otherwise lost.  Which seats am I talking about?  Alan West in Florida.  Richard Mourdock in Indiana.  Todd Aiken in Missouri.  Joe Walsh in Illinois.  Linda McMahon in Connecticut.  Josh Mandel in Ohio.  Sam Wurzelbacher ("Joe the Plumber") also in Ohio,  From the last election cycle, add Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.  Going back 4 years, add Sarah Palin. 

 

If Republicans want to win national elections, they would do well to embrace facts rather than ideology, be more open to women, minorities, and educated individuals and reject the lunatics in their midst.  But instead, it seems they are opting to be even more fervent about everything that brought them to this debacle.  Republicans appear to  believe the problem is their candidates are not pure and "conservative" enough.  This brings to mind the common aphorism often (but probably erroneously) attributed to Albert Einstein.  "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."  Of course, the scientific method would prevent such a problem.  Too bad the Republicans reject science.

The Seattle Debacle & a Couple of Modest Proposals

What is probably the most controversial ending to an NFL game in recent memory causes me to finally come out of the hibernation affecting this blog with a few thoughts about the game, the Packers, and the NFL.

Before addressing the game end controversy, a few thoughts about the Packers.  The first half performance by the Packers was atrocious.  The offensive line has been (appropriately) castigated for its part in allowing Aaron Rodgers to be sacked 8 times in the first half.  However, I don't think the line bears complete responsibility for the problem. 

On numerous occasions, it appeared to me Rodgers had sufficient time to make his initial reads and make a throw, but instead of launching a pass, attempted to hold the ball, move in the pocket, and wait for things to develop downfield.  Unfortunately, all to frequently his receivers did not come open and Rodgers was sacked.  So I think some of the responsibility for the sacks has to lie with Rodgers for holding the ball too long and failing to throw the ball away when his receivers did not come open.  Furthermore, Green Bay receivers bear some responsibility for not getting open and beating the tight bump coverage off the line.

Moreover, all the responsibility does not lie with Green Bay players.  Mike McCarthy has to shoulder some of the blame for not slowing down the pass rush with more running plays.  When the Packers added more running plays in the second half, the offense became much more effective. 

It is worth noting Rodgers was not sacked once in the second half.  Why?  It appeared to me to be a combination of factors.  When passing in the second half, the Packers shifted from deep routes to more quick hitting passes.  They also rushed more which slowed down the pass rush.  These factors allowed the Pack to maintain possession longer on their drives which increased offensive efficiency by tiring out the Seattle defense.

Finally, it is unfair to analyize the Packer performance without noting that Seattle played well.  The Seattle defense was particularly impressive.  I suspect that by the end of the year, we will see Seattle has a top 10 defense. 

Let's now shift to the end game debacle.  By this time, it is clear to almost every sentient football observer except Golden Tate and Pete Carroll, that the Packers were robbed of a win by the officials. 

The official who ended up signaling the touchdown had an absolutely clear, unobstructed view from less than 10 yrds away of Tate shoving Sam Shields in the back for blatant pass interference before Tate ever went up to try to catch the pass.  According to NFL rules, this act of offensive pass interference on a play when time expired ends the game.  But pass interference was not called and the non-call of pass interference cannot be reversed on instant replay.  It was a horrible, and obvious, officiating error, but one the rules say cannot be fixed by replay. 

That leaves us with the catch.  Whether the ball was caught, and who caught it, is a call that can be reviewed on replay only if, as here, the catch was in the end zone.  In the field of play, even that call would have been unreviewable.  No reasonable person viewing the video of that pass can dispute Packer DB M.D. Jennings caught the ball. 

While it seems clear to me and most everyone else who watched that Golden Tate never had possession of the ball, if he ever got possession of it his posssession was clearly after Jennings possessed it, not simultaneous.  If possession ever changed (and I don't think the video indicates possession ever did change) it was not until after Jennings was on the ground.  Of course, once Jennings is on the ground with possession in the end zone, the play is over. It was in interception.

Before leaving the game, let's consider for a moment how the game might have ended differently if the Packers had adopted a different end game strategy.  When the Packer offense got the ball on the 1 yd line, the offense was unsuccessful in advancing the ball for a first down to maintain possession, failed to burn much time off the clock, and damn near gave the ball back to the Seahawks with a fumble.  The Pack then punted.  But should they have punted?

At the time, not just now in hindsight, I called for a different strategy.  I would have had Aaron Rodgers take the snap in shotgun formation, and then run around toward the back of the end zone before stepping out to allow a safety.  That would have burned about as much time off the clock as expired with the punt, and would have given the Seahawks 2 pts leaving Green Bay with only a 3 point lead.

A 3 point lead is clearly not as good as a 5 point lead, because the Seahawks could tie with a field goal which would have been useless with a 5 point lead.  On the other hand, when Green Bay punted, the Seahawks took possession on their final drive at about the Green Bay 46 yrd line since the Pack punted from deep in its own end zone. 

By giving up a safety, the Packers would have executed a free kick from its 20 yd line (almost 30 yds further up field than the punt).  That kick would have been without any rush by the Seahawks, creating the probability of a longer, better covered kick that could have been directionally angled for maximum coverage.  While we will never know for sure, I suspect the Seahawks would have got the ball at about their own 20 yd line (instead of the Packer 46) with about 5 seconds less on the clock than was available after the punt. 

Sure, doing that would increase the possibility of a tie slightly since Seattle would only have to get into field goal range (and kick successfully) to tie instead of having to score a touchdown.  But the trade off is Seattle would have had further to travel to get into field goal range than they had to travel for a touchdown after the punt and even a successful field goal would have only resulted in a tie rather than a loss.  My strategy would have actually decreased the odds of a touchdown which would have, and did, result in a loss. 

A final suggestion.  If the players are so disgusted with the performance of the replacement officials there seems to me to be an easy solution.  All it would take is for the regular officials to announce they plan to picket the stadiums and for the union member players to announce they will not cross those picket lines to enter the stadiums.  Without players crossing the picket line, games could not be held.  If the games are not held, television money and gate receipts dry up for the owners.  The strike would settle in a matter of hours. 

American Football in the Olympics?

Today, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was quoted as supporting the notion of adding American Football as a future Olympic Sport.  With all due respect to Goodell (and those like me whose favorite sport is football) that is just crazy talk on many, many levels. 

To become an Olympic sport, the activity must be one engaged in by at least 64 nations.  Just how many nations actually have credible competition in American style football?  Well, there is the United States, and I guess Canada, and I read a John Grisham novel that spoke of a professional league in Italy that primarily used home grown Italian talent (the book was fiction, but I don't know if the league was real) but where else would the competitors come from? 

Even assuming you found 64 countries willing to field a team to compete in American football, the Olympics compresses all of the events into a tight 14 days time period.  Just how would you narrow a field of 64 teams down to three medalists in 14 days?  A single elimination tournament for 64 teams takes 6 rounds of competition to complete (and that doesn't include figuring out which of the teams that lose should get a silver or bronze).  At least two teams are going to play 6 football games in 14 days?  I don't think so. 

But assume that is how it is planned.  Who will play for the Americans?  Will the NFL be willing to send 45 or so of its best players to some foreign land (or even to somewhere in the United States) to train for several weeks in July and then to compete for 14 days in August when NFL training camps are in session?  How about the SEC, the Big 10, the PAC 10 or the other power college teams?  Will they agree to allow their scholarship athletes to miss out on summer practice leading into the college football season?  I doubt it. 

There is also the injury factor.  How do you think an NFL team will feel about having its NFL most valuable player quarterback (or a college feel about its Heisman trophy candidate running back) playing 6 games in 14 days against competitors who don't really know the rules all that well.  This isn't badminton and these players could get seriously hurt. 

Finally, how much honor or prestige really would accrue to an American team winning a gold medal in American Football.  Come on.  Is that a medal one could be proud of?  It is a dumb idea. 

In Honor of Ray Bradbury

About a week ago (June 5th) Ray Bradbury; one of the great authors of science fiction, died.  While I don't read a lot of books in the classic science fiction category, his death got me thinking about some of my favorite science fiction books (not movies).  A list of my top 10, with brief comments, follows.  The list is in alphabetic order to avoid controversy over how else to rank them.

Battlefield Earth (L. Ron Hubbard) Before he founded a pseudo-religion, Hubbard made a living writing science fiction.  Battlefield Earth is his epic.  While it made a horrible movie, I admit to enjoying the novel.  It tells the story of Johnny Good Boy Tyler who saves the motley remains of the human race after Earth is subjugated by a race of alien invaders known as the Psychlos. 

Dune (Frank Hebert)  Dune (and its sequels) are perhaps the most popular or well known science fiction in book form.  It is a messianic tale of how Paul Atreides, unites the oppressed people of his planet Arrakis, which is the sole source of the mysterious spice "melange" which is necessary to fuel interstellar travel. 

Fahrenheit 451 (Ray Bradbury)  Bradbury paints a picture of a dystopian future where, instead of putting out fires, "firemen" are charged with burning books. 

Fragment (Warren Fahy) - This is perhaps the most recently written book on the list.  It tells the story of a reality show set on a ship reminiscent of Jacques Cousteau's Calypso stumbling on an uncharted island in the south Pacific that is inhabited by an entire ecosystem of animals and plants that appear to be of extra-terrestrial origin. 

The Host (Stephanie Meyer)  Stephanie Meyer is probably a familiar name to readers since she is the author of the "Twilight" series of vampire fiction popular with teenage girls.  I haven't read those, but I was fascinated with "The Host" which describes the aftermath of an alien invasion where mankind is quickly being wiped out by alien invaders that take the form of a virus that inhabits people and takes over their mind and personality leaving their body unaltered. 

Neanderthal (John Darnton) - Perhaps my background in archaeology and anthropology is what made me find this book appealing.  High in the Himalayas lies a valley cut off from the rest of civilization.  A expedition looking to find a Yeti stumbles upon the valley and finds it inhabited by a band of Neanderthals.  Are they better or worse than mankind?  What mysterious power do they possess?  Why did they become extinct everywhere but there?

Off Armageddon Reef (David Weber) This is the initial book in Weber's "Safehold Series."  In the distant future, after mankind has mastered interstellar travel and has a high degree of technological prowess, it is nearly wiped out throughout the universe by a race of alien invaders.  In a desparate attempt to preserve the human race, a single ship is secretly dispatched to an earthlike planet on the edge of the galaxy where they disembark and establish a new civilization.  However, to avoid attracting the attention of the aliens, advanced technology is strictly prohibited and enforced by a pseudo-religion established by the founders of the new planet.  But after centuries with no recollection of the history of the human race, some of the long dormant technology surfaces and brings big changes. 

Orphans of the Sky (Robert Heinlein)  Written in 1951, this is perhaps the oldest book on the list.  Heinlein is one of the most prolific and famous science fiction writers to ever live.  This book describes a huge spaceship traveling from Earth to Centaurus.  It is a LONG trip.  So long, generations pass and over time, people on the ship no longer remember where they are from, where they are going or that there is anything or anywhere BUT what lives on the ship. 

This Perfect Day (Ira Levin)  Ira Levin is not known as a science fiction author.  He is far more popular for books he wrote that have been made into movies (such as Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, The Boys From Brazil and Sliver).  This Perfect Day describes a future where life is "perfect."  There is no starvation, no poverty, no crime, and no bad weather.  But is the world TOO perfect?  There is no individuality.  It is all so bland.  What happens when someone learns about what used to be and that there is still a place where people live free and uncontrolled by the State? 

West of Eden (Harry Harrison) This is the start of a trilogy of books known as the "Eden" series.  It is an alterate history in which the dinosaurs never became extinct and became sentient.  They become the dominent species on Earth and pay little attention to an insignificant minor species called humans who (at first) seem nothing more than an annoyance and serve as pets and domestic animals.  But man is an intellegent beast.  What happens when a man watches and learns?

What great science fiction books are not on my top 10?  Tell me what I need to read.

Harbor View Cafe - Pepin WI

This is the season to be out and about in Wisconsin.  Last Saturday, Debbie and I went on a road trip to meet a friend of mine from college (and his wife) who we had not seen in perhaps 15 years.  We decided on a destination midway between La Crosse and the Twin Cities and to make it a nice drive for a Spring day, looked for a place to meet - and eat - along the Mississippi.

After investigating several possible cities and taverns and restaurants therein that might fit the bill, we settled on the Harbor View Cafe in Pepin, WI.  Pepin is a small (less than 1,000) village in north central Wisconsin on the east shore of Lake Pepin - a bulge in the Mississippi river created by water pooling behind a dam at Alma, WI.  It is (roughly) across the lake from Lake City, MN.

The trip from our home in Onalaska (just north of La Crosse) took us across the river to La Crescent, MN to travel to Winona on Hwy 63 along the river, across the Winona bridge back to Wisconsin, and then up Hwy 35 to Pepin.  Most of the way had very scenic views of the Mississippi, adjoining bluffs and the eagles that soared over them. It was about an hour and one-half drive.

The Harbor View Cafe is only open during the "season," which this year began on March 16th (although it often does not start until mid April) until mid October.  The restaurant is in a quaint clapboard building across the road from the marina (hence the harbor view) which holds about 150 sail boats mostly owned by residents of Minneapolis or St. Paul.  This influx of out of staters during the summer gives Pepin a resort community feel.

The restaurant opened in 1980 and shares the building with a used bookstore that seems intertwined with the restaurant space.  Several years ago, St. Paul Magazine named the Harbor View Cafe as the best restaurant in metropolitan area despite the fact it is quite a stretch to consider Pepin in the Twin Cities metro area.  The restaurant features high quality, fresh (never frozen) ingredients and all items served are made from scratch on the premises.  It is not for the budget conscious.

Our foursome sampled Coq Au Vin, Cassoulet, Mushroom linguini, and Salmon en Papillotte, but don't necessarily expect the same because the menu changes twice daily and those entrees will not always be available.  Everything was attractively presented, cooked to perfection and tasty.  The service was attentive, but not intrusive.  I recommend the Harbor View Cafe heartily.

The restaurant has a few idiosyncrasies, however.  If you are meeting someone there, you will not be seated until your entire party has arrived - a policy that probably makes sense when almost all guests are from out of town.  There are no menus.  Entree selections are all posted on a blackboard above the bar.  Payment is by cash or check only.  No credit or debit cards accepted.

Can This be Ted Thompson?

Packer General Manager Ted Thompson has a well earned reputation for eschewing the temptations of free agency and trading for veteran players prefering to instead build his teams with draft choices.  This year, Thompson already broke form once by signing a quality veteran (Jeff Saturday formerly of the Indianapolis Colts) to replace departing Packer free agent center Scott Wells. 

While this suprises most who know Thompson, perhaps another surprise is being contemplated.  What follows is nothing but the most rank speculation.  More than that, to those who know Thompson, it would be very untypical of him.  Nevertheless . . .

The Packers released Chad Clifton yesterday.  This means the Pack gained $5.593 million in additional room on the salary cap. While ESPN reported the decision was a medical one, other sources are not so sure about that. It may be the Pack was not willing to devote a roster spot and that much cap space to a player whose age and injury history left him a player you could not be sure would be available to perform and (more importantly for this speculation) the team wanted the salary cap room for other purposes. 

Which raises the interesting question what the Pack plan to do with that cap space and  roster spot? That is where "out of the box" thinking comes in. One problem the Pack has heading into the draft Thursday is safety. No announcement has been made about Nick Collins future, but both Thompson and McCarthy have been pessimistic about him returning. Combine this with the long rumored possibility Charles Woodson might eventually transition to playing safety and what do you get? A possible April suprise from Thompson?

The Eagles have been shopping cornerback Asante Samuel for months. Despite the fact he is a significantly above average cornerback, they have not been able to trade him. The problem is Samuel is set to make $10 million dollars this year and no one is willing to trade for Samuel unless he is willing to sign a contract extension or renegotiation that lowers that one year salary cap number - particularly if they have to give up a juicy draft choice to get him. In fact, rumors are teams negotiating to obtain Samuel from the Eagles have offered only a 4th to 6th round draft choice for Samuel. Even though he is 31 years old, that is quite a bargain for an above average starting NFL cornerback. 

Part of the problem arranging a trade has been the degree to which Samuel is willing to renegotiate with the suitor. While Samuel does not have a no trade contract, he can (practically speaking) dictate which of the interested teams he is willing to go to by how much (or how little) he is willing to bend in contract renegotiations. So, now that the Pack has some decent cap space available, might they step in and offer the Eagles a 5th or 6th round pick for Samuel? Might not Samuel find the Packers an attractive place to land making him willing to be more flexible when it comes to renegotiating his contract? Joining a young team that finished the regular season 15-1 and lost a close game to the eventual Super Bowl champions ought to be attractive to him.

If Woodson is willing to move to safety, Nick Collins is adequately replaced. Signing Samuel, adequately replaces Woodson (whose coverage skills were - in my opinion - beginning to erode last year anyway). That frees up a position of need from those Thompson needs to focus on when the draft begins on Thursday. And, as Martha Stewart is known to say: "that is a good thing."

Heavy on the Testosterone

Over the weekend, I had occasion  to watch a classic film I had somehow never seen before.  The movie was the 1962 classic Lawrence of Arabia.  The movie won numerous awards, including 7 Academy awards, the most prominent of them being awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score.  It is a LONG movie, running 216 minutes. 

While it was not particularly noticeable as I watched the movie, as I reflected back on the movie during the closing credits, I was struck by the fact that despite the movie's length, I could not recall seeing even one woman on the screen during the entire movie.  Certainly not anyone in a significant role, but not even a walk-on.  When I checked on-line resources, it turns out that there was a woman who played a nurse.  But her appearance on screen was so brief and unremarkable, I did not even remember seeing her. 

That prompted me to consider whether this was an anomoly or whether there were other prominent movies that were similarly male dominated if not exclusively male.  Turns out, some of my favorite movies from years gone by fall into that category. 

For other Academy award winning (or nominated) movies, consider Treaure of Sierra Madre (1948).  Two women made brief appearances as uncredited extras.  In The Caine Mutiny (1954) two women also had brief insignificant roles.  In Patton (1970) the only women to appear were uncredited walk-ons who were part of a women's group General Patton was speaking to.  Saving Private Ryan (1998) featured a few women on screen (most memorably the woman playing Ryan's wife in the scene years after the war where he visits his fallen comrades in the cemetary) but there are no significant female roles.  In Bridge Over the River Kwai (1957) no woman is credited, but there were a few native women assisting the men treking in to blow the bridge who had non-speaking roles. 

While not nominated for an Academy award, a favorite movie from my youth was The Great Escape (1963).  It too was entirely devoid of female credited, or speaking roles. 

What all of these movies have in common (save Treasure of the Sierra Madre) is a story set during war.  I am not asserting the fact that these popular movies lack female participation sheds any great light on Hollywood or its audience.  I just thought it might be interesting to consider my reflections on this theme of "macho" male movies. 

Where Should Ball Carry the Ball?

Later today it appears likely Montee Ball will announce his decision to return to Wisconsin and pass up the NFL draft.  Is it a good decision? Will his stock be higher THIS year, or NEXT year entering the draft?

This year, he tied a long standing and honored record held by Barry Sanders (total touchdowns in a season) that ought to make NFL front office types sit up and take notice.  He was in New York and part of the discussion for the Heisman trophy.  Over the 13 game regular season, Ball carried the ball an average of 24 times per game with an average of 6.3 yards per carry.  His total yards rushing of 1,923 works out to an average of 148 yards per game.  He capped it off by scoring two more touchdowns in the Rose Bowl while gaining 164 yards on 32 carries averaging 5.1 yards per carry.  Ball is one of only 4 runners to have rushed for at least 100 yards in consecutive Rose Bowls.  The others are O.J Simpson, Ron Dayne and Vince Young.  Simpson was an NFL star (as was Barry Sanders) Young was a very high draft pick, and Ball is significantly fleeter of foot than Ron Dayne.  That is a pretty good resume. 

Now, consider what Ball faces if he returns to Wisconsin.  His quarterback will be replaced by one with almost no experience.  At least two of his offensive linemen will be gone (Zeitler & Olesby) and there is a good chance a third will also be gone (Konz).  Since Al Toon will also be gone - and it appears the back-ups likely to take his spot don't seem to be barn burners - defenses won't have to be as respectful of the passing game and are likely to be able to clamp down more against the run at a time when the Badger offensive line will be relatively inexperienced.  On top of that, the Badgers have lost their long time and highly respected offensive coordinator AND offensive line coaches.  This does not suggest a great year for a Badger running back.
  

What I fear is that Ball is set up to have a significantly less impressive senior campaign than the junior one he just completed.  In addition, he should expect an additional 350 carries where he might experience a significant injury that could also drive him down on draft lists, and (given the conventional wisdom that running backs are only good for a finite number of carries before they wear down and become injury prone) that another season of being a college workhorse will make him less attractive a pick even without being injured.

I saw the Journal Sentinel article that suggests Ball is probably only the 6th rated running back in the draft, but I find that questionable (although I don't watch enough college football that does not include the Badgers to have a valid opinion).  Based on that, the projection is that if Ball was in the draft this year, he would probably be the first running back off the board in the third round.
 

Assuming that is accurate, what are the odds Ball would go HIGHER after another year at UW?  In addition, you also have to factor in that waiting a year will likely cause Ball's total NFL career to be 1 year shorter if he stays in college than it would be if he left for the NFL now (meaning he will have a year less of NFL income he can never replace) not to mention that if he went to the NFL NOW, he would be completing his rookie contract at a year younger in age than he would if he waited and thus would be a younger running back with less "tread off the tire" when seeking that second contract (which is where NFL running backs have a chance to really cash in).
  

If he decides to come back I LOVE the decision as a Badger fan.  However, it Ball was my client, I would have to advise him to leave. 

The Undefeated is Now Just Another John Wayne Movie

Well, the Packers are no longer undefeated, but are still a lock to beat my predicted 12 - 4 season record.  Still, there were some troubling signs on Sunday other than the mere fact of a loss. 

1.  The press focused on the absence of Greg Jennings as the reason for the Packer's offensive malaise yesterday, but I do not.  Aaron Rodgers is no longer playing "lights out" football.  I am NOT saying he is the reason for the loss, but his play yesterday was not good enough to overcome the problems leading to the loss (as it has sometimes been in the past).  In fact, based on my view of recent games, Rodgers is on a 3 game slump from the unbelievable standard he set for himself early in the year.  Many of his passes yesterday were off the mark.  Not off the mark like Donavon McNabb, but not where his receivers are used to them being either.  He looked nervous in the pocket even before Bulaga and Sherrod were injured and his performance suffered because of it.

2.  Although Rodgers WAS off, the Packer offense MIGHT have been able to avoid the defeat if Jermichael Finley had not ALSO picked yesterday to have a terrible game.  Early in the game, it became apparent the Packer offensive game plan with Jennings missing emphasized two factors.  First, to increase the run opportunities, and second, to increase the involvement of Jermichael Finley.  Ryan Grant's carries were more frequent, particularly early in the game.  The run game was not an overwhelming success, but it was not a disaster either.  Finley was targeted on 10 pass plays during the game, most of them in the first half.   Problem was, Finley's early performance was a disaster.  He had 4 passes that will probably be classified as "drops' (passes off the hands of a receiver that subjectively should have been caught) and another that while not officially a "drop" could have been caught.  If Finley had been catching the ball as his oversized ego and reputation would suggest he should, the Packer offense might not have been misfiring as bad as it was.  Jordy Nelson had a bad day, James Jones was almost invisible, and Donald Driver just doesn't seem athletic enough to get good separation regularly anymore.  The only bright spot - but not bright enough - was the play of Randall Cobb.

3.  But, the entire blame cannot rest with the Packer offense.  The offense is just an easier target because its mishaps have been so uncommon otherwise this year.  Unfortunately, the Packer defense is incapable of bailing out the offense.  While I don't have the stats, I suspect the Chiefs had a remarkably high conversion rate on 3rd down.  I can't count the number of times the defense played pretty well on 1st and 2nd down, only to allow Chief drives to continue with lapses on 3rd down.  [Actually, the Chiefs were only 4 of 14 on 3rd down conversions while the Pack was 6 of 14, but it didn't seem that way to me.]  To emphasize how poorly the Packer defense played overall, consider the Chiefs have only gained 400+ yards on offense one other time this season - against the (until Sunday) winless Indianapolis Colts. 

It has frequently been the case this year, and again on Sunday, that the Packer defense appears disinterested or to not care about playing hard consistently until the other team is within the "red zone."  Against the Chiefs, you could narrow it down further to being lackadaisical until the Chiefs got within the 10 yard line.  The defense has to start playing with the same intensity and urgency as soon as the opponent gets the ball.  Perhaps the most obvious difference with the defense on Sunday was the 0 in the line describing total turnovers by the Chiefs.  On numerous occasions this year the Pack has been able to shrug off poor defensive play by focusing in on game changing turnovers (usually interceptions) by the defense.  The problem is it is unrealistic to be able to expect to generate turnovers consistently.  Sooner or later, you will come up dry.  That later became sooner yesterday.  I think it is naive to believe it is a coincidence the Packers experienced their first loss of the season on the same day the defense was unable to get even one turnover.
 

While the Pack started out looking strong against the run, as the game wore on, it was clear the Pack had a REAL problem with runs to the right side of its defense.  Time after time, Chief running backs would bounce out to their left (against the Packer defensive right) and take a run out wide for big yardage.  Several big screen pass plays were also successful to the same side.  Defensive end Erik Walden was the patsy for this problem most of the game.  However, after Walden got pulled from the game late in the 2nd half due to continued poor performance, Frank Zombo was playing the same end with the same results on the Chief's final drive when the Pack was trying to get the ball back late in the game after the onside kick.

Random Thoughts

Offensive line -  Might Thompson give a call to Mark Tauscher to add depth to a depleted tackle corps?  He is rested and certainly knows the system and blocking assignments.  Who else is available who could fill in as seamlessly if necessary?  Will Bulaga be ready to play Sunday night?  Given how he looked on the sidelines, maybe.  How far away from returning is Chad Clifton?  If neither of them is able to play, I fear for Aaron Rodgers.  In that event, look for the Pack to go to quicker pass plays with less deep drops and less deep routes from the receivers. If they get a significant lead over the now toothless Bears, look for Matt Flynn to play earlier than would otherwise be the case to minimize the chances of an injury to Rodgers.

Defensive line - Jarius Wynn played many more snaps on Sunday than did Mike Neal.  I found that to be curious and somewhat ominous.  I expected Neal to provide a pick up to the defensive line play when he finally got healthy.  If the coaching staff thinks Wynn is better, that does not bode well.  I certainly hope Ryan Pickett will be back in the line up from his concussion next Sunday.  The Pack had absolutely NO pass rush on Sunday (no sacks and precious few hits or hurries) since the Chiefs were so free to double team the outside linebackers because the Packers interior linemen were toothless. 

Idle speculation -  Any day now we are supposed to get a report on whether Nick Collins will be medically cleared to return to play next season, or whether his injury is such he will be forced to retire.  If he can return, great.  But, let's suppose for a moment he can't (which I fear is more likely).  If that happens, look for the long rumored move of Charles Woodson from cornerback to safety to be implemented next season.  I think Woodson does not have the same recover speed and "shut down" cover skills he had before.  Nevertheless, he remains one of the better tacklers and his ball instincts would make him a formidable threat to ball hawk from the safety position.  As a safety, he could still blitz off the corner to good effect.

Finally, while I haven't checked out what the odds makers say, I would not be surprised if the odds of the New Orleans Saints getting to the Super Bowl were slightly better than the odds of the Packers returning at this point.  When pondering that heresy, consider the Packers have only beat 4 teams this year that currently have a winning record (New Orleans, Detroit, Atlanta & Denver), that the Pack is ranked 31st (that is second to last) in defense, and that Drew Brees is on a pace to beat Dan Marino's record for passing yards in a season. 

Favre v. Rodgers

The emergence of Aaron Rodgers as a premier NFL quarterback has resulted in there being frequent questions raised about whether he - or Brett Favre - is/was the better quarterback.  In my opinion, it isn't a close call.  Rodgers is clearly superior.  While Favre may actually end up with greater CAREER numbers for many records, that will be due to his longevity and his durability rather than his quarterbacking prowess.  As a relatively well informed fan observer (which I use to descibe myself to separate me from the more experienced professional prognositcators) Rodgers gives a team ALL of the upside Brett Favre brought to the table as a quarterback, but NONE of the downside.

What is the downside?  The refusal to accept what you see when you see someone covered and try to force the ball in anyway.  The annoyingly predictable practice of throwing a ball "up for grabs" where it is almost certain to be intercepted at LEAST once every game.  The significant number of fumbles when hit in the pocket.  To sum up, Brett Favre hold the NFL record for most interceptions thrown by a quarterback.  How about Aaron Rodgers?

Fewest Interceptions at Time of 100th Career Pass TD, NFL History

Quarterback	Int	Date of 100th TD
Aaron Rodgers	34	Sunday
Philip Rivers	43	Dec. 13, 2009
Dan Marino	44	Sept. 7, 1986
Source: Elias Sports Bureau

Badger First Impressions

Interesting season opener between the Wisconsin Badgers and the University of Las Vegas Running Rebels. 
 

The Badger offense looked great.  Of course, given how terrible UNLV's defense was supposed to be, it remains to be seen how that will translate to other games.  The offensive line again looks to be the strength of the team. 

Running back James White looked as good as he did last year and (to my eye) Montee Ball looked significantly BETTER.  I think his decision to drop 25 lbs gave him that extra boost of speed that will make all the difference.  Last year I thought he looked like a plodder.  This year, he seemed to have an extra gear. 

Quarterback Russell Wilson looked to be exactly what he was advertised to be.  His ability to avoid the rush and turn broken plays into huge gains by running the ball will add a very difficult to defend dimension to the Badger offense.  On the other hand, I felt his accuracy in passing when passing on the run left a bit to be desired.  He missed several wide open receivers.  The wide receivers and tight ends had a good night too (when they got a chance), although I am not sure about depth at the wide receiver position.  If either Toon or Abredaris goes down with an injury, it could hurt.  Depth at quarterback is a SIGNIFICANT issue.  If they lose Wilson, they are in BIG trouble.

Defense was another story.  I found the defensive performance VERY troubling.  A competent offense would have scored significantly more points than UNLV.  The defensive front got very little push and applied not nearly enough pressure.  I thought the linebackers lined up too close together and did not make good quick decisions on where to go or what to do.  The defensive ends did not hold the corners well on runs, and tackling was poor by everyone. 

On the other hand, the announcers claimed the Badgers used very simple defensive schemes and did little if any blitzing.  They seemed to think that was an intentional decision to stay bland because they did not need to do anything fancy to beat UNLV and they wanted to avoid showing their defensive hand to future opponents.  If so, fine.  I HOPE that is the case.  I also heard some of the defensive players talking after the game that they did not know UNLV was going to use the "pistol" offense and that they were unprepared for it. 

If Wisconsin WAS unprepared for it (as the players claimed after the game) that might help explain the poor showing of the defense.  On the other hand, it makes me VERY wary of - and disappointed in - our new defensive coordinator.  Here is an article from the Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper from March 5, 2011.

By any name, pistol figures in Rebels' plans

Because rival UNR invented the pistol offense, UNLV football coach Bobby Hauck would rather call the formation by a different name -- if only he could think of something else. Until then, Hauck might simply refer to it as "that offense."  The Rebels have incorporated the Chris Ault Special -- OK, that name might not work -- into their offense during this spring session.  "We'll have to see after spring ball how we like it," Hauck said. "It doesn't change the run game a whole bunch, but it changes some of the angles and some of the tempo. The people that are doing it are having great success in the run games."  That's something a coach like Hauck, who believes strongly in a powerful run game, would love to have. UNLV averaged just 3 yards per carry and 103.3 per game last season.

In the pistol, the quarterback lines up between the center and running back rather than the typical 5- to 7-yard drop next to the ball carrier in a shotgun formation.  "When it first came out, I didn't know what to think of taking the shotgun snap at that depth," Hauck said. "I thought that would be a problem, and it hasn't been."

Given that publicity, why WASN'T the Badger defense prepared for the "pistol?" 


Generally speaking, special teams looked good.  Our placement will get better once Welch returns from his injury.  The returners ran well.  Once they started playing back-ups there were too many penalties, but I suspect that will get cleaned up. 

Cruel & Unusual Punishment?

As a criminal defense attorney, I occasionally read court decisions on what are called "condition of confinement" cases involving whether or not conditions in a jail are so deplorable they violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."  At least one United States Supreme Court decision from 1981 (Rhodes v. Chapman) considered whether a district court was correct in deciding inmates were being subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" by being subjected to being doubled up in cells that provided each inmate with less than the 50 to 55 sq. ft. recommended by prison designers (NOTE - the court found they were not). 

With that background in mind, consider Clark Tyler.  Mr. Tyler is an architect living in the Hells Kitchen area of Manhattan in New York City.  Mr. Tyler (voluntarily) lives in what he euphemistically calls "an apartment" that totals 78 square feet in size.  He shows off his $800 per month rental in video here. 

The "apartment" is a single room (with 78 sq. ft. you expected more than one room?).  Although the dimensions of the rental are not given, it appears to be about 6 1/2 ft. wide by 12 ft. long.   There is no kitchen and there isn't even a bathroom.  He shares a bath that is down the hall with three other such "apartments."  If that isn't enough to convince you Mr. Tyler is the model of efficiency, it turns out his "apartment" is also his "office" since he works from home.

Concealed Carry Comes to Wisconsin

Last week, Governor Walker signed a law causing Wisconsin to join 48 other states in allowing people in Wisconsin (residents and non-residents) to legally carry firearms that are concealed.  While this practice is common in other states, Wisconsin's new law leaves Illinois as the only state not allowing some form of legal concealed carry. 

Between now and November 1, 2011 - when the law takes effect - people desiring to exercise their new right to concealed carry, not to mention businesses and other places open to the public where such persons might frequent, need to understand what the law allows and does not.  Unfortunately, the details are too complicated for this post. 

While I encourage you to contact one of the attorneys at Moen Ehrsam & Kroner for advice particular to your specific situation, general information about the law from the State Bar of Wisconsin can be reviewed here.  The National Rifle Association also provided a bit more detailed summary of the law here