Goodbye Vinny, we knew ye too well

When news broke about Vinny Cerrato's "resignation" as executive vice president of player personnel (i.e. Daniel Snyder's right hand man) and the subsequent hiring of Bruce Allen as the team's new General Manager, I wasn't euphoric or happy like a lot of longtime Redskins fans. Maybe I'm jaded now that I'm older, but the move didn't resonate with me like Joe Gibbs' return to the franchise in 2004. I've been burned too many times by Dan Snyder to have blinding faith in another blast from the past — for the non-Washington folks, Allen is the son of legendary Skins coach George Allen.

Instead, my thoughts turned to how exactly we got here. By all accounts, the Danny-Vinny years began like all great NFL dynasties do — on a SQUASH COURT! That's right, the two struck up a friendship because they were weekly playing partners. Snyder was a young, naive owner during that time and understandably (I guess) trusted his squash partner, who happened to have some decent football credentials (he was director of college scouting for the 49ers in 1994 when they won the Super Bowl and he was Lou Holtz's recruiting coordinator when Notre Dame won the 1988 National Championship). And so the Snyderatto dynamic was born.

What should have been Cerrato's only big moment came after the Redskins made the postseason in 1999, their first playoff appearance post-Gibbs I. Snyderatto decided to shake things up that offseason, bringing high-priced veterans like Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith, Mark Carrier, and Jeff George — all of whom turned into giant busts as the Skins started the 2000 season 6-2, but crumbled to an 8-8 finish. With three games remaining Snyder fired Norv Turner, and in the offseason gave the reins of the organization to Marty Schottenheimer. Cerrato was let go by Marty, and seemingly we were done with this wretched squash-based experiment. But he was brought back a year later, and luckily the incompetancy of the ol' ball coach, Steve Spurrier, hid him from the brunt of the criticism. Then, Gibbs II began, and Cerrato played a key role, but ultimately decision-making fell to Gibbs. Then ... the last two seasons happened.

And while it's now well-documented the various failures of Vinny Cerrato, the executive vice president of player personnel, I wanted to go back to his first big decision to sign so many big name veterans to back loaded contracts back in 2000, because it really gets to the crux of Vinny's epic fail. The man thought he had an eye for talent, but had no clue how to build a team. That may sound simplistic, but it gets to the crux of why the Redskins have been a mediocre NFL franchise during Dan Snyder's stewardship. They're constantly addressing wants, rather than focusing in on needs.

But let's not switch topics here and overlook the fact that he deliriously ignored the Redskins clear weakness along the offensive line — even though everyone and their mother knew that's what they should be focusing on — because many of the offseason moves were done so only after the stamp of approval from his squash partner. And let's ignore that Cerrato's most noteworthy moves the past two offseasons were drafting three receivers in the first three rounds of the 2008 NFL Draft, giving up a second-round pick for a defensive end who ended up with 3.5 sacks (Jason Taylor) and left the team after playing one season, and signing an oft-injured defensive tackle to the biggest contract ever given to a non-quarterback.

Let's judge him on his supposed specialty, the draft, because apparently he was pretty successful at judging talent during his days at Notre Dame and with the 49ers. Let's take a look at the selections the team made while he had a say in the process:

2000: *LB LaVar Arrington, OT Chris Samuels, *DB Lloyd Harrison, *G Michael Moore, *DB Quincy Sanders, *QB Todd Husak, *DT Delbert Cowsette

2002: *QB Patrick Ramsey, RB Ladell Betts, *CB Rashad Bauman, *WR Cliff Russell, *S Andre Lott, *TE Robert Royal, *OT Reggie Coleman, *C Jeff Grau, *DE Greg Scott, RB Rock Cartwright

2003: *WR Taylor Jacobs, G Derrick Dockery, *QB Gibran Hamden

2004: *S Sean Taylor, TE Chris Cooley, *OT Mark Wilson, *OT Jim Molinaro

2005: CB Carlos Rogers, QB Jason Campbell, *FB Manuel White, *LB Robert McCune, *LB Jared Newberry, *FB Nehemiah Broughton

2006: LB Rocky McIntosh, DT Anthony Montgomery, S Reed Doughty, DT Kedric Golston, *G Kili Lefotu, *LB Kevin Simon

2007: S LaRon Landry, *LB Dallas Sartz, LB H.B. Blades, *QB Jordan Palmer, *TE Tyler Ecker

2008: WR Devin Thomas, WR Malcolm Kelly, TE Fred Davis, G Chad Rinehart, CB Justin Tryon, *P Durant Brooks, DB Kareem Moore, QB Colt Brennan, DE Rob Jackson, S Chris Horton

2009: LB Brian Orakpo, CB Kevin Barnes, *LB Cody Glenn, LB Robert Henson, TE Eddie Williams, WR Marko Mitchell

So you know that saying "build through the draft" that was popularized by the Patriots' recent winning ways? Well, Cerrato, a supposed expert college talent evaluator should be the perfect person to implement this. Ummmm ... not so much. All those stars next to names are guys no longer with the team Out of those 57 draft picks, just 28 are on the current roster (and presumably that number will be a lot smaller once Bruce Allen cleans house). Hell, if you wanna go further of the 29 that aren't on the Skins anymore, only eight are still in the NFL altogether.

I don't mean to pile on Vinny Cerrato, especially considering he was probably just doing what his squash partner wanted him to do. And I've only been around the guy once or twice and it's never been in a football setting (a couple times he brought his kids into the Capitals locker room after a game), but from all accounts the dude was totally oblivious. He was a clown, being paraded around as someone with power, so that Snyder could pull all the strings. If that's true, what self-respecting football person allows that to happen? And if it's not true, what self respecting personnel guy makes some of the decisions he did?

Wait, what's that. More piling on? Okay. I dug up a column by Mike Wise from 2005, detailing the relationship between Cerrato and Snyder:

In spite of the perception that he only indulges Snyder, Vinny does work. He has thick, color-coded binders competing for space and time in his office at the team's Ashburn training facility. He shows you Carlos Rogers, whom the team took with its ninth pick in the April draft, was No. 1 on the Redskins' defensive draft wish list. Cerrato said he wrote 300 "Redskin reports" that were used to form the team's final offensive, defensive and overall rankings for the draft. "Look, I've got binders in here, calendars," he said, pointing to his files.

Really? Carlos Rogers, No. 1? The same Carlos Rogers who got benched by the Redskins a couple weeks ago? I looked up some defensive players who were also selected in the the 2005 NFL Draft, along with Rogers. Do the names DeMarcus Ware, Antrel Rolle, Lofa Tatupu, and Shawne Merriman ring a bell? Or what about late-round finds that have already made the Pro Bowl like Justin Tuck, Jay Ratliff, and Trent Cole? And again, I know I've said this already, but the dude's background makes it seem like the draft would be his forte.

So in reflecting on Vinny's tenure here in Washington, I only really have one lingering question. How in the world did he convince Dan Snyder to hire him in the first place. Was it his good serve (are there even serves in squash, I don't know, I'm not an avid player)? Did he let Snyder win or something? How exactly did that conversation go? I don't think we'll ever know, just like I don't think we'll ever know why this man was employed by the Redskins for a decade.

Americans secretly love the Tigerization of sports

I rejoined the blogosphere close to three weeks after this Tiger scandal hit, but guess what? Twenty days after the world's famous golfer crashed into a fire hydrant outside his home and two weeks after he admitted to "transgressions" in his personal life, the story is still in the news everyday.

As a single male who feels he thinks about things in a reasonably rational manner, watching this whole ordeal unfold has been extremely uncomfortable (and I say this as a writer who recently wrote an entire feature whose main storyline was about someone else's private life). Not uncomfortable because I don't think the media should be prying into this. Uncomfortable because deep down inside, I question whether any person put in Tiger's shoes would be able to resist that kind of temptation.

But as a man, especially around women, you just can't say that. It downgrades the male race in their eyes and just makes you look bad. The double edged sword here is that if you take the high road, ultimately you're just asking to look like a hypocrite. Call me crazy, but I refuse to be naive to the fact that a good amount of people (and by a good amount of people, I mean people from all walks of life, no matter the education or tax bracket) cheat. Passing judgment on them would mean passing judgment on many who shouldn't be thought of as bad people. Weak willed, maybe. But not bad or mean spirited.

There's a reasoned explanation of how I feel. Here's a semi-ridiculous, yet shockingly refreshing and entertaining response Clinton Portis had earlier this week on his weekly appearance on the John Thompson Radio Show here in D.C.:

"Hey Clinton, I said if he could keep that many women a secret, he needed to be...." John Thompson began.

"He needed to be congratulated. I said the same thing," Portis interrupted with a chuckle. "If he could keep that a secret and ain't nobody came out and told [on him], hey, congratulate him. You know, most of the time there's one or two, and you can't keep that a secret. So if he can balance 14 and keep it a secret, congrats. You know, at least he knows what he wants. He don't discriminate, he's not against people, he don't care what your job, what your background is....He knew what he was after."

Before I go on, I highly recommend clicking on the link and reading his entire explanation. The part I've included is merely the most hilarious portion of his entire pontification on el Tigre.

Switching gears, in terms of sports, I wanted to highlight a rumor making its rounds around the internet. I want to emphasize rumor because clearly it hasn't been confirmed by the parties involved. The Philadelphia Flyers haven't been playing well this year, and there could be a very specific non-ice related reason behind it:

This one is out of the bizarre rumor mill, however, a credible source told “thephillyfour” a possible affair could be the reason the Flyers locker room appears to be split this season. According to the source Jeff Carter had an affair with Scott Hartnell’s wife and the entire locker room is split over the situation.

Now I won't comment on this actual situation, other than to say I can only hope this ends up in a similar manner to Roger Dorn and Ricky Vaughn in "Major League", i.e. the Indians win the pennant and Bob Uecker drinks whisky. What I do think people should realize is that more and more stories like this one and the Tiger Woods fiasco are going to become regular parts of the sports news cycle. No matter how uncomfortable it makes people feel.

See, we saw it with regular celebrity news. Remember the days when there was just Entertainment Tonight on TV? That was the only thing I ever heard of growing up that, on a daily basis, chronicled the lives of celebrities — and only for 30 minutes a day. Just look in the TV guide these days (I guess people don't really do that anymore because of digital cable, but for this argument imagine me pulling out the style section of the Washington Post and glancing at the TV listings), there's so many options for stalking the private lives of the celebrities we salivate over. Sure Entertainment Tonight is still around, but there's also Access Hollywood, TMZ, The Insider, hell there's even an entire channel whose sole nightly focus is to give you celebrity news with an exclamation point. That doesn't even call into question the fact that we as an American public are so interested in others' lives, we flock to shows that delve into the private life of seemingly regular people (Laguna Beach, The Hills, Jon and Kate Plus Eight, Jersey Shore, and the list really goes on and on).

So if you're sick of this Tiger Woods stuff, I'm pretty sure you're in the minority. The 21st Century has brought people's curiousness to the surface. All those days of looking out your window and wondering what was going on in your neighbor's house (does that make me weird, because occasionally I would do this) have simply been replaced by gazing into another figurative neighbor's living room, one that happens to have television cameras in it.

The Tiger story is more like the first in a string of sports-related "transgressions" that will likely be uncovered in the next couple of years. Media outlets have seen how much attention and conversation the Tiger Woods scandal has stimulated and my guess is they will go after these types of stories even more aggressively in the future. After reading that, maybe your first thought is "God damn media trying to create a frenzy when there isn't one." Legitimate argument, but my reply to the general public is simple. The media won't pursue stories that aren't interesting, that don't draw ratings. And the bottom line is, you may be uncomfortable hearing about the real Tiger, but you can't turn away from it either.

Going crazy with the NHL standings

Last week the Washington Capitals ascended to the top of the NHL standings and still sit there as of today with 46 points, cementing themselves as a Stanley Cup contender this year. It was a huge accomplishment for D.C. sports, which have been taking a pounding of late. Though we aren't at Cleveland levels in terms of title droughts, it's been a long time since a professional team not named D.C. United won a league championship (the answer is obviously 1991, when the Skins won the Super Bowl).

In fact, over at Dan Steinberg's D.C. Sports Bog, he concluded it's definitely the first time in the 21st century a Washington area team has led the league standings this late in the season, and probably the first time since the Skins started 11-0 in 1991. Good for the Caps, too. I've been covering them for about a year and a half now, I like most of the guys on the team, and they certainly have the talent to be considered one of the best teams around. But, at the same time, I watch almost every game and personally, I don't think the Caps have played all that well — definitely not at the league-best level the standings seem to indicate — this season.

So let's take a closer look at those 46 points and how and who they've come against. First off, the Capitals official record is 20-7-6, the six being a point given for reaching overtime, but not winning. Let's start there. It boggles my mind sometimes that the NHL awards a point to a team that reaches overtime, but then loses before the shootout. It's a loss, how is it that a team deserves to be rewarded? I understand the point for reaching the shootout because the game isn't decided over the course of the game. It's more luck than skill.

So if you look at the Capitals' six overtime decisions that didn't result in wins, either courtesy of a shootout or an overtime goal ... just two have come via shootout loss (against Toronto on Nov. 21 and against New Jersey on Oct. 12). The other four points are all overtime losses, defeats in which the Caps allowed a goal during the five-minute, four-on-four extra session. So taking away the kooky Canadian-based logic that a team should somehow be rewarded for giving up demoralizing overtime goals, to me the Capitals actual record is 20-11-2. Still good, but not the league's best.

Now take a look at who the 20 wins and 11 losses have come against, the picture painted isn't necessarily one of a team destined for greatness. When facing teams that would make the NHL playoffs if they started today, Washington is 7-5-2 this year. Against all others, 13-2-5 ... BUT four of those five overtime losses came in actual overtime, not a shootout. And out of those 13 wins, against admittedly mediocre teams, two came in overtime and two others came in a shootout.

To me, that paints a picture of a team playing not playing great hockey, but merely feasting on the dregs of the league. The 7-5-2 record the Caps have had against the league's elite seems more in line with the level the team has been playing at so far this year. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, just a douchey media member covering the team looking for ways to poke holes in their success. I guess if you're the glass half full type, you could say the Caps haven't even played that well and they're still on top of the standings. I'm curious to hear what others think...

Michael Beasley, the king of kings?

So I didn't include Michael Beasley in my little John Wall comparisan. One, I didn't really like him as a college player (or a pro for that matter). And two, I knew he averaged a lot of points, but I figured it was done in the most inefficient way considering he's a chucker. Well, my college journalist turned law school friend Brom pointed him out in the comments of that last post (everyone should start commenting, it livens things up here) so I figured I would dig up his stats. And let's just say, I was mildly surprised at what I saw:

Michael Beasley
Offensive Rating: 120.1
eFG%: 56.3
A/T Ratio: 0.4

Better than Wall in offensive rating, he trails in eFG% and assist-to-turnover ratio, although that's understandable since Wall is a point guard. In terms of who was better as a one-and-done college player, even just nine games into his career, I'll stick with my man, John Wall. He's got that "it" factor Beasley never had.

How John Wall gave me my groove back

It was Saturday night, I was at a holiday party, when I walked in on this conversation/debate: Who is more athletic: LeBron James or Michael Jordan? To me the answer was simple ... Michael Jordan, at least as of today, is the better basketball player, but in terms of sheer athleticism, I don't know if there will ever be a specimen like the 6-foot-8, 250-pound King (and we all know he's definitely 15 pounds heavier than this listed weight). Others chimed in on the debate, including a high school basketball coach from this area and an assistant at a local Division-I men's basketball program, both of whom sided with my James argument.

The high school coach brought up an even more interesting point, though. He argued that John Wall might be the most athletic of the three. Now I'm not sure I'd put Wall in the same category as LeBron, but if you haven't watched the Kentucky point guard play yet, you're missing out. Part of the reason I returned to blogging was I was watching the UNC-Kentucky game from a few weeks ago and Wall literally had a sequence of plays that were so mind blowing that I was yelling in an empty apartment. Seriously, watch the youtube clip of it:



What's funny is that clip doesn't even include the disgustingly awesome alley oop he threw to Patrick Patterson immediately following that TV timeout. But when I watched all this live, I needed to tell someone about this kid. I looked over at my laptop and longed for the days when I could walk over, put down my thoughts, and then feel satisfied about getting my opinion off my chest. At the time, I thought I was discovering something, but judging from LeBron's "he's gonna be the No. 1 pick in the draft" comments this week, the secret's already out on this superstar-in-the-making.

The highlights make it plain and simple, Wall has skills and talents well beyond his 18 years. Maybe his first step is a millisecond slower than Derrick Rose's, but it's pretty clear hes already a better shooter than Rose. And even just watching that minute-and-a-half youtube clip, you can see he's got those point guard instincts, like knowing when to speed up and slow down. But I wanted to know ... how does he compare to other one-and-done freshmen that we've seen in recent years? So I decided to compare him with Rose and Carmelo Anthony, in my opinion the two best freshmen we've seen at the college level in the last decade (Greg Oden should be in the discussion as well, but I think it's too hard to compare stats between perimeter and interior players).

I'm not talking shooting percentage, points per game, rebounds, assists, not any of that stuff. That's all dependant on minutes played and how often someone has the ball in their hands. I wanted this comparisan to be about efficiency, specifically offensive efficiency, because we all know 'Melo had the ball every possession and was clearly the best player on that 2002 'Cuse team, Hakim Warrick notwithstanding. DRose had a talented group around him led by Chris Douglas-Roberts, and I would say Wall has the same with Patterson and a couple other of Calipari's too cool for school crew. So I settled on three very specific statistics, two of which you might not be familiar with.

1) Offensive Rating: A mathematical formula that not only takes into account how many points a player scores, but how many possessions/shots it takes them to get those points. In layman's terms, it's kinda sort of similar to a QB rating.
2) Effective Shooting Percentage: Another mathematical formula that takes into account that 3-point field goals are worth more than two-pointers — much more reliable to determine a shooter's range/efficiency than just regular field goal percentage
3) Assist/Turnover Ratio: Self explanatory

Well here's how they shake out:

Carmelo Anthony
Offensive Rating: 113.4
eFG%: 49.8
A/T Ratio: 1.0

Derrick Rose
Offensive Rating:112.1
eFG%: 51.7
A/T Ratio: 1.8

John Wall
Offensive Rating: 116.9
eFG%: 57.5
A/T Ratio: 1.6

Now I know Wall only has a nine-game sample here, but I would argue his stats have come against arguably the toughest schedule in the country. Kentucky has already beaten UNC, Stanford, UCONN, and Indiana this year. With all that said, draw your own conclusions about the player who is already the clear cut No. 1 pick in next June's NBA Draft. If you haven't seen him play yet, set aside next Monday night. Wall and the Wildcats are taking on Drexel on ESPNU.

UPDATE: I realized when comparing Wall to one-and-done guys, I failed to mention Kevin Durant, perhaps the most prolific (in terms of scoring) to grace the college game this decade. His stats ... well Wall's ahead of his stats, so far.

Kevin Durant
Offensive Rating: 116.8
eFG%:53.6%
A/T Ratio: 0.5

I'm back and better than ever

What's going on out there in the blogosphere? Seems like a long time since we last spoke. Actually 192 days to be exact. That was when I posted a semi-absurd post about North Korea being a threat to America on June 5. I hate dissing myself, but duh?

A lot has changed in my life since then, though. I went from being an overworked sports editor at a weekly newspaper in Northern Virginia to an up-and-coming sports reporter at the Washington Post. On top of all that, I'm also the back-up writer covering the Washington Capitals these days, filling in when the Post's beat writer needs a day off. And I still write for the Express, the Post's free metro daily that people often read on their way to work. They've got me doing the Capitals, a little Georgetown basketball, and some other random college stuff (for instance I was all over that Army-Navy game this past weekend).

Perhaps the biggest development in my career, though, was my first big time feature in the Post. It chronicled the relationship between former Washington Capital Rod Langway and his 16-year-old daughter. It was a big time front page article in the Post sports section and got a lot of attention — both positive and negative — here in the D.C. area. Lots of people read it, some loved it, some hated it, but hopefully it's the jumpstart I needed at the Post.

So to all the naysayers out there, some would say I'm a real live journalist now. But the new gig has left me wanting to express myself more, my thoughts about things unrelated to high school sports -- because even though I've got all that other stuff going on, the preps scene is still my bread and butter. So I've returned to the blog. I've had daydreams of this blog turning into a must read, and the only way to do that is go head first, 100 percent, and update content on a daily basis, not every three day basis. So that's what I'm shooting for.

Hope you enjoy Sports and Life Ramblings, the Relaunch.

Al Gore to the Rescue?

If you've been paying attention to the news cycle lately, it has gone from Sotomayor to GM to the Middle East. And it has been all the rage to talk about our President's strong words concerning a two-state resolution to the long standing Israeli-Palestine issue. 

Well, I'm here to tell you who we really should be focusing on right now. Remember the country that has now defied world law by testing two nuclear weapons in the past two and a half months? North Korea is the biggest threat right now. They actually have nukes and they at least know how to aim them well enough to fall smack dab in the middle of nowhere. Don't me wrong, it's great that President Obama is in the Middle East, pontificating as only he can on "new beginnings." But while everyone has been worried about the possibility Iran could possibly in the near future build a nuclear bomb even though they haven't yet and in actuality have been so brainwashed into the idea that they actually matter, they really aren't an issue any more. Don't believe me? Read this: 

At a conference of families of shahids (martyrs) in Qazvin, northern Iran, Ahmadinejad said that "as a major power, Iran is playing a leading role in the global decision-making process." He said that Iran is "the final victor in all topics on the agenda," and that as long as the Iranian nation obeys Islam and Islamic religious law, it will accomplish its goals.

During his April 2009 visit to China, Ahmadinejad's vice president Parviz Davoudi reiterated Ahmadinejad's statements, saying that in his estimation, "the U.S. is coming to terms with Iran being nuclear, since it already came to terms with Iran's nuclearization process, and [Iran is] now worthy to discuss important global issues together with the 5+1." Basij commander Hossein Taab said that following the fall of the Soviet Union, only two powers remain in the world - the U.S. and Iran - and both want to lead the world. He added, "The U.S. has military strength, but cannot pull the trigger."

Basically they're crazy, but it looks like the U.S. at least has them crazy with gratification that they're being allowed to sit at the dinner table with the grownups. Hooray for big people food!

That's why it makes it even more ridiculous that we've lost focus on North Korea. It took a half an hour for CNN to get to the news about the two American journalists that are facing trial in North Korea right now. And Al Gore might be coming to save the day. Not sure if he has a cape.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee, reporters for Gore's California-based Current TV, were arrested March 17 near the North Korean border while on a reporting trip to China on charges they entered the country illegally and engaged in "hostile acts" — allegations that could draw a 10-year sentence in a labor camp. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly did not rule out the possibility of Gore being sent when asked if it would make sense for him to go.

"It's a very, very sensitive issue, I'm not going to go into it," Kelly told reporters. "This is such a sensitive issue, I'm just not going to go into those kinds of discussions that we may or may not have had," he said about whether Gore himself had raised the matter with the State Department. "The bottom line is that these two young women should be released but I'm not going to go into any kind of details on what we will or won't do," Kelly said.

This is the battleground area. Remember how Al Gore was the guy who got the clock moving so to speak on Capital Hill concerning all that environmental stuff. He's about to do that with North Korea. Just look up North Korea in google news. In the past week the trial for the journalists began, which was applauded by secretary of state Hilary Clinton. But nobody asked at the press conference whether the U.S. had anybody there. Because after almost two days of supposed "trial", there ain't any news coming out of North Korea. They're silent. Seriously, the President's foreign policy might be kind of off. The word is that he's already increased units in Afghanistan to go after the Tally Ban. Well, he might have himself a full fledged conflict (I don't want to use war before I'm ready) in North Korea in the next couple months. Just in the past week, this has happened:

The joint command for the 28,500 U.S. troops that support South Korea's 670,000 soldiers raised its alert a notch to signify a serious threat from the North, the South's Joint Chiefs of Staff said. In a statement, its foreign ministry said action would be 'inevitable' in the face of what it called 'further provocation'. In Washington, the U.S. Army's top officer, General George Casey, said he was confident the country could fight a war against North Korea if necessary, despite continuing conflicts elsewhere

Beware of Kim Jong Il, although he did name his son the successor this week. Rumor has it Kim Jong had a stroke last year and hasn't been the same since.

GM's Bankrupt and It Doesn't Make Much Sense

I was somewhat happy when I picked up the paper Monday morning to read about President Obama's plan to put GM into bankruptcy. No, not because it solved the longstanding issue of what exactly the government was going to do with these car companies. I was really just relieved I didn't have to read more about new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer. Seriously, talk about overkill for someone replacing a judge like David Souter, who pretty much always voted with the court's liberal wing, meaning there really isn't much in the ways of a shift of power on the high court.

But now that I've read more about this GM takeover business, I wish we were still talking about petty grievances about a judge using life experiences to explain her point of view more clearly (as a sidenote, all these Republican commentators need to take a step back and actually read Sotomayer's decision before crucifying her for saying a Latino woman might know more about life than a rich white aristocrat. If they did, they'd learn a whole lot more about the judge than by attacking her. Did she use a poor choice of words? Probably. Is she unfit to be a Supreme Court judge as a result? Probably not.)

But back to the GM bankruptcy. Now I'm not one of those people who think Obama shouldn't takeover flailing industries within our wayward economy. I voted for the guy and therefore put trust in him to make what he feels are the right decisions. But I did a double take when I saw these two portions of the much ballyhooed merger between car and state:

Under the proposed restructuring, about 60 percent of the new GM would be owned by the United States, about 12 percent by the governments of Canada and Ontario, a union health trust would own 17.5 percent, and the company's current bondholders would get 10 percent.

If that doesn't sound fishy to you, then maybe this will:

The government aims to make the automaker lean enough to turn a profit once U.S. auto sales return to 10 million vehicles a year. The sales rate is running below that. It topped 16 million during the credit boom.

Debate over the plan rippled across the nation yesterday as communities protested proposals to close or idle 17 GM plants and warehouses. About 2,000 dealerships will be shut down, as well. U.S. employment at the company is slated to shrink by 25,000, from about 88,000 to 63,000 next year.

So a chunk of our biggest and most famous homegrown automaker now belongs to Canada, the plan to get that chunk plus another much larger chunk for the American taxpayer involves making GM a player in the car industry again, and the plan to make GM a big time player again involves cutting some 25,000 American jobs during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I know I've succumbed to Obama madness before, but I don't think I can stand here and just go, "Well Barack, Rahm, Timmy Geithner, and the gang know what they're doing, let's just let the cards fall as they may."

How does it make sense for the American government — and more importantly the American taxpayer — to give money towards eliminating more jobs? It's one thing if those jobs go by the wayside naturally, at the behest of a privately-owned GM, since, well, that's capitalism. Call me conservative, but I think this is needless nationalism. If we're gonna have jobs eliminated, why should the government prompt a certain amount. And frankly, not only is the government paying to discard jobs, it's paying that amount twice in the increase of unemployment payments that will inevitably come because of this.

Now Obama's admisitration is justifying a lot of this thanks to the recently approved merger of Fiat and bankrupt Chrysler that has made the gas guzzling makers of Jeep recognize the gas-saving ways of European cars. Apparently, they've just decided to ignore the laundry list of failed mega auto partnerships. Better yet, just take a look at the track record of mergers between the two companies the government's trying to save. GM and Fiat tried this merger thing in 2000, but quickly ended the arranged marriage in 2005. And Chrysler just finished a disastrous divorce with Daimler, a so called "match made in heaven" just like this new relationship with Fiat.

I'd love to hear how Obama explains this to the workers. Oh wait, he already did.

The administration also will dispatch eight Cabinet secretaries and other top officials to Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin this week to "discuss immediate ways the federal government is cutting through red tape to bring relief to auto communities and achieve long term economic revitalization," according to a White House statement.

Addressing the workers directly, Obama said there would be pain ahead but added that their sacrifices will ensure the future of the manufacturing base so that "all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things, that still builds cars, that still strives for a better future."

Now I want to take you back to what I thought was a short, yet key statement from just a few short months ago at Obama's inauguration. He said, "The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth." How is this laying the new foundation for growth. To me, it seems like Obama is just feeding a cow with hard earned (and by hard earned, I really mean the guy running the printing machine at the Bureau of Engraving just pressed the red button that reads "internet money") resources after it's been tipped over and badly beaten. You just gotta cut your losses, and the way to do that with GM is to allow it a death of natural, capitalistic causes.

Or better yet, instead of giving broad parameters of measures like "sending Cabinet secretaries to help cut through red tape to bring relief," which to me means high priced and high profile grief counselors, Obama should be presenting some concrete ideas to the American public. How about giving me some more specifics on these much bally-hooed public works projects.

Noted filmmaker and controversial liberal Michael Moore agrees and takes it a step further, when on the day of the announcement, he condemned the idea of saving GM, a quote that many news types ran: "Please, please, please don’t save GM so that a smaller version of it will simply do nothing more than build Chevys or Cadillacs. This is not a long-term solution. Don’t throw bad money into a company whose tailpipe is malfunctioning, causing a strange odor to fill the car."

But he also suggested some ideas that I'm not saying I agree with, but at least they're ideas. Click on the link to read them in full, but I'll give you a rundown to close out the post:

1) "Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices."
2) "Don’t put another $30 billion into the coffers of GM to build cars. Instead, use that money to keep the current workforce — and most of those who have been laid off — employed so that they can build the new modes of 21st century transportation. Let them start the conversion work now."
3) "Announce that we will have bullet trains criss-crossing this country in the next five years. ... Let’s hire the unemployed to build the new high speed lines all over the country."
4) "Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities. Build those trains in the GM factories."
5) "For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, have the GM plants produce energy efficient clean buses."
6) "Transform some of the empty GM factories to facilities that build windmills, solar panels and other means of alternate forms of energy."
7) "Provide tax incentives for those who travel by hybrid car or bus or train. Also, credits for those who convert their home to alternative energy."
8) "To help pay for this, impose a two-dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline."

As a driver of a 2004 Chevy Blazer that gets 15 miles a gallon, it saddens me to think my vehicle of choice will likely not be viable option for someone of my income status in a few years. My question to the Obama administration — and I'm sure many former GM workers want to know the same — will I even have an income status in a few years?

Vancouver 2010 Lights Up

Look at the above picture. What does it look like to you? I'm willing to bet your first answer wasn't the official torch of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. It certainly wasn't this lady from the Toronto Star's first guess. Via Deadspin:

All hail – or inhale – the 2010 Olympic Torch. Or, as it's jokingly known around Vancouver, the Olympic Toke. Composed of stainless steel, aluminum and sheet moulding, the torch was designed to evoke snow, ice, skiing and skating, but to many, the metre-long white torch looks suspiciously like a marijuana joint, especially when lit.

The observation has become so common in this city that it's hard to know who was the first to say, "Hey, doesn't that look like ..." But the torch's resemblance to British Columbia's biggest cash crop was evident right away to Jodie Emery, editor of Cannabis Culture magazine.

"A lot of people come to Vancouver because it's marijuana-friendly, so I think people who already enjoy a joint themselves will feel a little more kinship to the Olympics," said Emery. "I'm sure the organizers didn't intend for it to look like a joint, but that's what a lot of people are seeing."

Next thing you know, the big bag of pot from Harold and Kumar is gonna be the official mascot. Kinda like this:


Of course there would also have to be a superimposed graphic that read: "Vancouver 2010: Canada's Rocky Mountain High." And upon further research, since mascots are so important to the success of all major international sporting events, here are the actual Vancouver 2010 mascots. Think Hello Kitty meets Woodland Christmas critters from South Park with ridiculously non-sensical names just to spice things up a bit:

That Infield Audience? ... Yeah ... it's Gone

Preakness weekend came and went unceremoniously this year. As detailed previously on this blog, I had a formal ban against the thing with BYOB privileges taken away. Sounds like I wasn't alone:

They threw a hell of an infield party at Pimlico Race Course yesterday. Too bad nobody showed up. Normally, you have, what, 60,000 beered-up fans shoehorned into the infield for the Preakness? Saturday, there was a fraction of that. Saturday, you could have landed planes out there, it was so empty.

In one of the great Baltimore protests of all time, the sweltering masses rose up as one and thundered: You won't let us bring beer to your party? Fine, we won't show up at all. See how you like that.

The Maryland racing officials dug their own grave here The column later goes on to say how the powers that be for Pimlico estimated numbers as low as a few thousand people. Yes, they did have added perks like a concert and oxygen bars and other "sweet" entertainment options and even the an added bonus of a "Breakfast Special" so that from 8 am to 11 am it's dollar beers. Heck, TV ratings were even up 27 percent But it only disguises the real truth which is that the BYOB part of Preakness was the only real bargain of attending the race in the first place. Most drunks out there barely catch a glimpse of the horses, maybe bet on the big race. So essentially they've paid $50 to drink and a field and probably waste more money. Even if you're a hardcore gambler, you're still having to throw $50 just to have the right to give more of your money to the track.

And God forbid Pimlico officials appease their customer base a little bit here. They're track has been called a "sinking ship" as far back as this 2005 article. In recent months, the Maryland government took steps to ensure Preakness remains in the state, but there's no denying some serious financial and viability issues that aren't looking any rosier following a less than phenomenally attended Triple Crown race this past weekend.

(Pimlico's) owners had to file for bankruptcy earlier this year. Magna Entertainment Corporation now has to sell Pimlico racetrack and its other assets to stay alive. Even leaving aside the bankruptcy, Pimlico racetrack is hitting hard times. Attendance has been down at the Preakness Stakes, though more than 100,000 fans still attend every year. Controversy has erupted over plans to put in slots at Pimlico, as a way to raise money. And efforts by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley to have the state control Pimlico, in order to keep the Preakness, have raised even more eyebrows.

But hey, on the bright side I guess it was kind of cool that a girl horse won the race for the first time in a long time. The headline in the Washington Post was "Girl Power: 'Rachel' Wins. I wonder how much this gender-breaking victory will actually resonate in the horse community. Will there be new leagues developed, almost like the WNBA of horse racing, Triple Crown races that emphasize the fundamentals and whose biggest fan is Rosie O'Donnell?

Just for old time's sake, one last "infield in all its glory" shot.