NHL Preview, Part 1: Eastern Conference

So I’ve been reading a lot of NHL season previews, and a few of the predictions have made me do a double take. The Leafs in the playoffs? The Devils? What it comes down to for me is the endgame: who is going to step up in the clutch and win you a close game? So, with that in mind, here is a preview of each team, in order of projected finish.

Note: I can’t predict the playoffs. I’m not even gonna try.

1.       Washington Capitals

What I like: The depth. Laich, Knuble, Semin, Johansson, Chimera. None of these guys are first liners, and there isn’t a one among them who couldn’t start for SOME team. Both Neuvirth and Holtby are promising young goalies, but they don’t have to shoulder the load.
What I don’t like: The history. On paper, the Caps have been the best team in the league for the better part of a decade, and have 0 Cups to show for it. Why should I start believing this is their year?
Endgame player: OV. When it comes down to it, your best players have to show up, and I think that (despite the reputation for choking), OV is a guy you want on your team at the end of a game.

Prediction: Another year, another top finish for Das Capitals, but they still need to prove it in the playoffs.

2.       Boston Bruins

What I like: The toughness. They lost some important guys during their Cup run, but they got through it, and I think that mental edge will help them immensely.
What I don’t like: The hangover. It’s hard to repeat in this league. There are some questions about whether they can score enough, and Thomas isn’t going to repeat his numbers from last season. It’s just not happening.
Endgame player: Thomas. On nights where the offense just isn’t clicking, I trust Tim Thomas to step up and keep his team in games. He’s done it night in and night out for several seasons, and he’ll do it again this year.

Prediction: The core from the Cup team shows no sign of a hangover, and they win their division with ease.

3.       Pittsburgh Penguins

What I like: The returners. As much as I dislike the Pens on principle, they showed a lot in overcoming the worst injuries in the league last year. They started the year without Jordan Staal, and ended it without Crosby and Malkin. Though Crosby’s not back in the lineup yet, when they do get fully healthy, they will be a scary team.
What I don’t like: The uncertainty. What if Crosby doesn’t come back? What if Fleury is the player we saw in the first few weeks of last season (and the one who cost me the fantasy playoffs)? Who is going to step up and score if the injuries continue?
Endgame player: Staal. I like the intensity with which he plays the game. He’ll keep you in it on his own with solid defensive play, as well as the ability to score.

Prediction: They stay relatively healthy, even though Crosby isn’t quite the same, and they squeak by the Rangers to win the Atlantic.

4.       Tampa Bay Lightning

What I like: The leadership. Boucher did some fantastic things with Tampa last year, but the Bolts boast some great on-ice leaders as well. LeCavalier and St. Louis are savvy vets, and Roloson brings a ton of playoff experience. Let those guys mentor the younger players, like Stamkos, and you have the potential for playoff success.
What I don’t like: The defense. Eww. Tampa might have been top 10 in goals last season, but they were 21^st in goals against and Roloson isn’t exactly getting any younger. They need to tighten up on the back-end or it could be a VERY long year in Tampa.
Endgame player: St. Louis. When you need a goal, look for the little guy in black. St. Louis has an uncanny knack for being in the right place at the right time, and can make a play happen all on his own.

Prediction:  The scoring makes up for a leaky defense and Tampa takes the Caps to the wire in the divisional race.

5.       New York Rangers

What I like: The balance. Torts’ signature grit is in full force on this year’s iteration of the Blueshirts, but they’ve balanced it out with some guys who I believe can really score. Best of all, they can mix the two with guys like Boyle, Dubinsky, and Captain Cally; the Rangers are a team I wouldn’t want to face in the first round.
What I don’t like: The defense. I’m ok with the youth movement, I really am. But now, the injuries. Staal out indefinitely, Sauer not 100%, and some unpleasant looking preseason performances from guys like MDZ, Erixson, and Eminger. Maybe Mara is the answer. FEAR THE BEARD!
Endgame player: Lundqvist. Without him, the Rangers are probably out of the playoff hunt. Very few goalies can put a team on their back quite like the King.

Prediction: Hank will keep them in every game, and the secondary scoring improves enough to put them in the hunt for home-ice in the first round.

6.       Philadelphia Flyers

What I like: The defense. As strong a defensive corps as there is in the league. Guys like Pronger, Timmonen, and Mezaros are strong on D, but can also produce on the attack. Add a solid goalie like Bryzgalov to the mix, who should be overjoyed to be on a decent team, and it’s going to be hard to score on them.
What I don’t like: The scoring. In losing Richards, Leino, and Carter, the Flyers need to replace a lot of goals and I’m not sure exactly where they’re all going to come from. Giroux is world-class, but he’s more of a playmaker than a pure scorer. They’re going to need JVR and Hartnell to step up big time to compete.
Endgame player: Giroux. The man is dynamic. You need to constantly be worried when he is on the ice, either about his passing, or finding the back of the net on his own.

Prediction: They’ll benefit from Bryzgalov having the best D he’s seen since Anaheim, and will score JUST enough to make the playoffs.

 7.       Buffalo Sabres

What I like: The scoring potential.  Guys like Vanek, Pommenvile, and the returning Derek Roy can light the lamp, and did so 240 times last season, good for 9^th in the league. A full season of Brad Boyes and the addition of Leino can only help.

What I don’t like:  The signings. I’m not sure if the Sabres improved enough to keep up with the rest of the division. Ehrhoff and Leino are fine players who are being paid like superstars. I know the new owner is willing to open his wallet, which is great, but it needs to be done for the right guys.

Endgame player: Ryan Miller. Am I ever glad this guy is American. This guy played out of his mind in the Olympics and can beat you all on his own if he’s on his game.

Prediction: Miller’s determination keeps the Sabres in it, and the offense heats up in the second half to vault the Sabres into the postseason.

8.       Montreal Canadiens

What I like: The special teams. Top 8 in the league both on the PK and on the PP. I unabashedly love watching their power play. Unlike teams like the Pens or the Caps, who clearly try to get it to their top guys, the Habs have 5 guys who could unleash a shot at any time and have it find the back of the net.
What I don’t like: The scoring. For all their man-advantage goodness, the Habs finished in the bottom 3^rd of the league in goals per game. Only Gionta, Plekanec, and Kostitsyn got more than 20 last year. Price can only do so much; he’s gonna need help from up front.
Endgame player: Scott Gomez. Yea, I know, memories of some underperforming Ranger teams. Gomez is a guy who has led the league in assists before, and few guys set a rush up as well as Gomez, so it’s up to his teammates to turn those feeds into goals.

Prediction: Price again puts the team on his back, and the Canadiens emerge from a dogfight with a playoff berth.

9.       Carolina Hurricanes

What I like: The youth. Carolina only has 4 players on the roster on the wrong side of 30. Eric Staal, despite seeming like he’s been in the league forever, is only 26. Jeff Skinner is 19: this makes me feel both old and unaccomplished.
What I don’t like: The depth. Who on this team is going to score aside from Staal and Skinner? The only other guy who topped 25 last year was Eric Cole, and he’s in Montreal now. The team is going to have to rely on guys like Jokinen and Ruutu who have had great seasons in the past, but haven’t been able to do it consistently.

Endgame player: Cam Ward. Hurricanes goalies faced the 2^nd most shots in the league, and Ward stood in the firing line for 74 of those games. It is a testament to him that the Canes nearly made the playoffs last season.

Prediction: Skinner continues to mature and Ward is staunch, but the Canes fall out of it with a week left in the season.

10.   New York Islanders

What I like: The core. Grabner, Okposo, and Tavares are all under 25 and have shown flashes of brilliance. Comeau, Moulson, and Nielsen are all under 28. Add some talent from the minors as the year progresses, and I like the Isles’ chances in the near future.

What I don’t like: The goaltending. Huge question marks. Is Nabokov ready after basically taking a year off? Can DiPietro stay healthy? Is Montoya ready this time? A team that has three goalies frequently learns that they actually have no goalie.

Endgame player: Tavares. One short of 25 goals his rookie season, one short of 30 last year. With 20 PPG in two seasons, he’s a major reason to keep your composure against the Isles late in the game.

Prediction: Strong offensive seasons from the kids give hope to the Nassau faithful, but they trade Nabokov, DP goes down, and Montoya can’t hold the fort.

11.   Toronto Maple Leafs

What I like: The discipline. The Leafs were in the top 10 least penalized teams last year. However, this didn’t mean that they played passively: 8 guys topped 100 hits last year. Staying out of the box is crucial if you’re going to play a lot of tight games, which it looks like the Leafs will.

What I don’t like: The special teams. It’s a good thing that the Leafs stay out of the box because their penalty kill ranked 28^th in the league last year. Their power play wasn’t much better, falling 22^nd in the league. Reimer will help kill some penalties, but they’re going to need someone to step up and score on the man advantage.

Endgame player: Reimer. The first game of the season spoke volumes, shutting down a Montreal team with some solid scorers. He’s also shown the ability to stand tall when he’s not doing so well, like in holding on against Ottawa in game 2.

Prediction: Reimer is a revelation in his first full season, but the offense doesn’t give them enough to get the 8 seed.

12.   New Jersey Devils

What I like: Their top forwards. He might be a head case, but Kovy can score in bunches. Parise was hurt, but he’s shown some serious skills. Elias had a resurgent year last season, topping 60 points and making the playoffs.

What I don’t like: The depth. This team gets ugly in a hurry. Nobody aside from Kovy and Elias scored more than 14 last year, and two of their top 5 scorers (Rolston and ½ a season of Arnott) will be plying their trade elsewhere. Brodeur and the neutral zone trap better be in top form this year, or the Devs will be out of it in a hurry.

Endgame player: Brodeur. I don’t like him. But even his most ardent haters can’t deny that he’s an all-time great. Behind a lousy team last season, he posted a .900 SV% and 6 shutouts. That’s damn good.

Prediction: Brodeur is valiant and the top 4 forwards combine for 100 goals, but it’s just not enough.

 

13.   Winnipeg Jets

What I like: The city. Winnipeg needed a hockey team, and they’re going to shower this one with as much love as any fan base in hockey. Plus, I think the grit on this team is going to appeal to the fans, and will make going to Winnipeg problematic for opposing teams.

What I don’t like: The offense. Only Ladd scored more than 20 last year, and Byfuglien dropped off severely by the end. The rest of the scorers are suspect, though a full year of Blake Wheeler can only help. With some question marks in goal, I’m not sure if last season’s surprising start is repeatable.

Endgame player: Byfuglien. He’s a weapon unlike any other in the league: a defenseman who can score like a power forward. He had an unbelievable beginning of the season, but ran out of gas by the end. He’ll need to keep the pace up to keep the Jets in the playoff hunt.

Prediction:  Jets fans support the team fervently, and Pavelec makes more strides in goal, but the talent just isn’t there to make any noise in that division.

14.   Florida Panthers.

What I like: The plan. Dale Tallon threw a lot of money around in the offseason and will boast a team that looks almost entirely unlike the one that finished the last season. With some scoring potential in Fleischmann and Upshall, plus some guys with Cup experience like Campbell and Versteeg, there’s nowhere to go but up.

What I don’t like: The goaltending. Theodore isn’t a #1 anymore. Montreal was a long time ago. And I’ll be honest, I’m not sure who Jacob Markstrom is. Quite the downgrade from Vokoun and Clemmenson.

Endgame player: Upshall. The king of thankless tasks, going from Nashville to a low line in Philly, then being one of the leading scorers on a popgun Yotes offense. I think he makes a difference as a T6 guy in Florida.

Prediction: Tallon has his plan, but it takes a while for the team to jell. Next year.

15.   Ottawa Senators

What I like: The goaltending, I guess. The position was the most destabilized in hockey last year, with six different goalies getting a start in net. I liked Craig Anderson in COL, and I think he will bring a steady presence in net. Auld is an NHL-caliber backup, which wasn’t there last year.

What I don’t like: The inexperience. Among their 9 non-top line forwards, only two have played a 60 game season. There are going to be growing pains on this team. Lots and lots of them.

Endgame player: Jason Spezza. With Alfredsson’s decline, Spezza’s the only reliable scoring option on the team, and he’s gonna need to net quite a few to keep them in games.

Predictions: The less said about this season, the better. They draw the #1 pick in next year’s draft.

Western Conference preview is coming soon.

May all your hits be crits,

B

Things to do in DE when you're dead

Wow, it's been a while. This always happens to my blogs, but whatever.

Quick update on my life: Sat for the Bar Exam in July, which was as much fun as it sounds. I've been trying to make up for 10 weeks of unhappiness studying for the bar, so I'm going to NYC this weekend for my brother's 15th birthday, just signed up for a weekend street hockey league in Arlington, and Marie and I are taking a trip to Jamaica to celebrate being done with the bar and our 4th anniversary. Still workin on the job thing, but hope springs eternal.

Now to the ostensible purpose for the post: During the Fall semester of 3L year, I took a class in Decedent Estates (Wills and Trusts). Despite my less than stellar grade in the class, I had an absolute blast because I came up with a whole bunch of really fun ways to mess with my potential beneficiaries and the world at large. So, with thanks to Meredith, who helped keep my sanity intact during the class (and in the order I thought them up) here goes.

1. Spite Marriage. Normally, if you die without a will, your stuff passes to your relatives based on how closely related they are to you. However, in case you don't like your relatives, you can marry someone to spite those ungrateful bastards. Your wife, assuming you don't have any kids from prior marriages, will take the whole estate under intestacy (lack of will-ness). Therefore, if you don't like your relatives, get married before you die.

2. Hologramic wills. My DE prof spent a lot of time babbling on about holographic wills, which are unwitnessed wills written by the deceased. This made me thing that the hologramic will is the next logical step. Picture, if you will, a conference room full of the heirs of the deceased. In rolls a small silver and blue droid who projects an image of you giving your last will and testament above the coffee table. Epic.

3. Multiple wills. 10 valid wills, no dates. Put them all in the same place to be found after death, and watch the fun begin.

4. The Price is Right. As you've got a bit of wiggle room with who you give your stuff to, why not have fun with it? Bequeath every possession of yours to the beneficiary who most closely guesses the actual retail price of said possession (without going over, of course).

5. Bequeath stuff you don't have. In DE, Ademption occurs when you will something that you no longer have. For example, you bequeath your house, but sell it before you die; the gift will adeem, meaning that it will just go away. My thought is: why not will things you think you MIGHT have when you die. I dunno about you, but I want to make sure my hovercraft goes to someone, regardless of the eels.

6. Edible wills. In most states, you can revoke your will by any physical act that shows you want to revoke. This means ripping, burning, obliterating, etc. Why not revoke your will by nomming it? Watching Marcel's Quantum Kitchen has shown me that there are ways to make edible paper, so why not write your will on it? It'll make destroying it that much more satisfying.

7. Robots. One of the prerequisites to making a valid will is that you know "the natural objects of your bounty." But what if your bounty should go to a robot? If there is a robot deserving of my inheritance, the robot will get it, and anyone who doesn't like it can bite my shiny metal ass.

8. Mayhem trusts. In general, if you want to have a trust that is non-charitable, it can last for 21 years unless it is fervently against public policy. But irritating people isn't against public policy, so I'm thinking a trust for street mimes, or for prank calling my enemies.

9. Post-it notes. Whatever you do, do it on post-it notes. Clarify your trust with post-it notes on the document, have your will refer to an outside "document" made up of post-its, or write your will on one. 3M will be so proud.

10. Support trusts. You can create a trust for the support of a person, which normally means that they get to continue living the style of life to which they are accustomed. I'm thinkin we need a support trust that either involves holding my beneficiaries up in the air or for a lifetime of ladies undergarments. The gift that keeps on giving.

May all your hits be crits,

B

Law of the Intarw3bz

(Note: this post was started right before finals, and I never got around to finishing it.)

I've been having a very solid semester in terms of my class choices, but by far my favorite has been Law of Cyberspace. Not only is this an incredibly relevant class (so much more likely to use the internet than own real property, at least any time soon), it has been responsible for both my knowledge of awesome YouTube clips (Google "A Fair(y) Use Tale" for educational and "I know my rules" for hilarious) and the single best reading assignment of the year.

Now, one would think this is a no-brainer: a class about the internet would obviously have the best cases. Surprisingly, there have been a few fantastic reading assignments from other classes, including:

*Decedent Estates (10/13)- Barnes was a case about how sane you have to be to write a will. Apparently, waving your junk around in public while declaring that you are the Messiah casts some slight doubt on the issue of whether you are of sound mind.
*Copyright (10/18)- Topics of the cases: Seinfeld, Harry Potter, Game Genie, Duke Nukem, and Monty Python. Enough said.

However, the winner was Cyberspace from (11/12) for three cases.

1. eBay v. Bidder's Edge
This case was about whether you could use bots or spiders to collect data. Normally, this wouldn't be this exciting, but when judges have to deal with cases they don't understand (read: everything involving the internet), they like to use analogies to stuff they DO understand. Exhibit A: "Unauthorized robot intruders into a "brick and mortar" store would be committing a trespass to real property." This ticks me off. I've had the plan of bringing Wal-Mart to its knees with a stream of robot invaders, which would leave me free of any legal action in highly unlikely event of failure, and the court closes the door on me. Bastards.

However, the court then belabored the analogy, and unwittingly redeemed itself in a big way. "for the analogy to be accurate, the robots would have to make up less than two out of every one-hundred customers in the store, the robots would not interfere with the customers' shopping experience, nor would the robots even be seen by the customers." This obviously is the seed of a burgeoning industry: robot ninja security guards. You won't be able to see them, and they won't interfere with your shopping. But just try to shoplift...

2. Topheavy v. Doe
This case is amazing, entirely aside from the party names. So "Jane Doe" was a 17-year old from Texas who decided to grab a fake ID and go to Spring Break. When she was there, she was approached by a man who offered her the opportunity to play a trivia game in which she could win money for correct answers, though she would have to lift her shirt for wrong ones. Now, leaving aside why ANYONE would think this is a good idea, she played the game after giving information from her fake ID. Despite the fact that she initially applied to play by using her real info, which she then scratched out, Topheavy figured that there was no reason to verify her information because "she did not look or act like she was as young as seventeen." Wow. That excuse has never ever worked before, not for any of the statutory rape cases in history. Who told them that this was intelligent to claim in court here? (shakes head)

3. Mosley v. New Groups

This case stands for a generally innocuous proposition: that you have a privacy right in the things you do in private. This, in general, is not problematic for me. What WAS problematic was the thing that Mr. Mosely was trying to keep private...Nazi sex orgies. You heard me right: Nazi sex orgies. Apparently, he would do Nazi role-play with groups of prostitutes, which is strange enough in itself. What is more bizzare was that the court did not consider this an entirely commercial transaction (which would have been held to a less strict level of scrutiny) because the prostitutes planned to give Mr. Mosely a free session for his upcoming birthday. There are no words. Absolutely none.

May all your hits be crits,
B

Well if his bulb is dim...

So, as I think I've mentioned, I moved to the great state of Virginia in late May. While this isn't entirely unpleasant (especially cause I live across the street from a Costco), it does mean a 30-minute commute in the mornings, the bulk of that spent on the Metro. In order to pass the time, I spend my mornings reading the two daily free papers: the Express (crazy liberal paper), and the Examiner (crazy conservative paper). And while I've come to expect a touch of the crazy out of the Examiner, this morning's "Dim Bulb" feature ticked me off pretty royally. It read:

"Who: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer WHAT: Said on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that the First Amendment condones burning the Quran WHY IT'S DIM: Breyer said that such a burning might be like yelling fire in a crowded theater, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes had once said in a dissenting opinion. So the threat of violence and harm is sufficent enough reason to stifle free speech? CURE: Force cannot be permitted to stifle freedom."

(DISCLAIMER: I don't get up on my soapbox much because this blog, such as it is, is meant for amusement rather than political statement. This particular idiocy just pissed me off enough to say something, and not just because I've met Breyer (who is awesome!))

Where to begin? Let's start with a mundane procedural point; Holmes' famous phrase came in an unanimous opinion, one in which (by definition) there is no dissent. So there.

Now onto the important stuff. Burning the Quran might not be protected. We allow burning of a lot of things: flags, disco albums, the House. But that doesn't mean we can go around burning anything we please. The closest analogue I can find was RAV v. City of St. Paul, which came down in 1992. The Court struck down a Minnesota ordinance under which a KKK member had been prosecuted because he had burned a cross on the lawn of a black family. While the Court said that the law couldn't stand because it was content-based speech restriction, Justice Scalia (backed by Kennedy and Thomas) concluded "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire." Now I don't know about you, but that appears to mean that there ARE constitutional ways to limit the burning of symbols to convey hatred. And for anyone who is thinking about making the argument that Quran burning is not like cross burning, they're not burning the Quran to have a halal barbecue; it's a pretty clear sign that the burners don't believe Muslims are welcome in their town.

Now to the "pot v. kettle" argument. Saying that it is "freedom" to be able to burn the Quran is even more ludicrous coming from a conservative publication. It's pretty well documented that the conservatives aren't huge fans of flag burning. And I can only imagine the incredible shit-storm that would follow if any other religious group decided to burn the Bible in the town square; though any person who would burn the Quran should obviously burn their copy of the New Testament as well, given that it's pretty clear they aren't using it.

So in conclusion, Mr. Examiner Editor, if Justice Breyer's bulb is dim, yours is burnt out.

May all your hits be crits,
B

Home Alone

So, I've been alone all weekend. Marie has gone to her uncle Jim's 75th birthday celebration in Chicago, leaving me and Ellie the Cat to hold down the fort in her absence. Though nothing major has happened, I felt the need to write some of this stuff down, as this blog needs to reclaim its status as the place where I vent the random thoughts that enter my brain.

*Ellie has recently started drinking out of the sink. On the spectrum of adorable things that cats do, drinking from the sink is very close to the top. She just sticks her head towards the faucet, turns it sideways, and laps at the top of the stream. While this is super-cute, it also shows the difference between Marie and I in terms of how we believe kitty-parenting should work. Marie is from the "do things for the cat" school of thinking, so when the cat wants to drink from the faucet, Marie picks the cat up and puts her back down when she's done. I, on the other hand, believe that the cat needs to show that she really wants it. This means she has to jump up and jump down of her own volition, which I believe has the added benefit of giving the cat a workout (and every little bit helps). I don't know what this difference says about us as parents/people, but its probably significant in some way.

*Along with our Verizon package, we got 3 free months of Cinemax/HBO. As our cable package isn't as all-inclusive as our Comcast was, I spend a fair amount of my TV time watching movies, and have come to two realizations:

1. I have a very specific movie-categorizing system. There are movies I don't like/dont want to see, movies that I want to see, and movies that I'd be willing to pay for at the actual theater. Marie likes to give me grief when I (inevitably) like one of the movies that I told her I didn't want to go see at the theater (Get Smart and Yes Man being the two most recent candidates). The thing is, given that you have to pay for movies at the theater, I usually don't go unless I'm reasonably sure that it's gonna be good. This has managed to keep me away from seeing awful movies in the theater for the better part of my life; avoiding all Jack Black movies has also contributed to this, since he's been responsible for 2 of the 3 worst movies I've seen in theaters.

2. HBO and Cinemax have three distinct types of movies. First, there are the good movies. I've gotten a few movies off of my "I need to see this" list, including Gran Torino and Funny People, since I've had premium channels, which is super-helpful. Second, there are the BAD movies. I don't know who makes the programming decisions at these channels, but there is no reason that Bio-Dome, Meet The Spartans, or both need to be on at any time, much less at all times. Third, there's the interestingly named porn. I have yet to indulge in this, as there is no reason to be up at 3am, but the fact that there is a movie called The Devil Wears Nada (The Hills Have Thighs and Cleavagefield being the other best names) makes me smile inside.

*I'm not very good to myself when I'm home alone. I don't go to sleep until late, and worse, I don't eat well. Friday night's dinner was a sub I picked up at Harris Teeter, and I only ate lunch yesterday, though to be fair, I ate my weight in enchiladas at Shaun's house while watching the US-Ghana game. This is part of how i managed to lose 40lbs in a year; while I love to cook, I feel very little need to do it for myself. I'm trying to stop that for tonight, and I'm making a brisket which will hopefully make for an excellent picnic dinner tomorrow at the outdoor Star Trek screening. I'm banking on the fact that Marie (who doesn't have her computer with her) won't read this, so that the food will be a surprise, but I'm also convinced that she'll act happy and surprised anyway.

May all your hits be crits,
B

Reflections on a Screwjob

Allow me to set the stage:

In the first half, Slovenia had surprised the US, who had somehow forgotten that being favored in a game does not mean that you are exempt from playing defense and trying to control the ball. Slovenia scored twice, no thanks to some lousy efforts by the US defense and midfield. Equally bad was the fact that we were unable to make any real headway against their defense, and I was legitimately worried going into the second half.

Fortunately, in the second half, the US remembered what they are really good at: coming back from deficits that are their own fault (let's hope we're this good when it comes to dealing with China). Landon Donovan, he of the incredible goal scoring and equally incredible receding hairline, scored a hockey goal (come in on the goalie, fake, then put it over his left shoulder) to make it 2-1. Less than 20 minutes later, Michael Bradley, whose only claim to fame at this point is that he's the US coach's son (I think this is all anyone knows about him), scored off a nice pass from Jozy Altidore to tie it up at 2.

Now at this point, the US is DOMINATING. Slovenia is not back on its heels; it's wondering if anyone got the license plate of that H3 with the TruckNutz that just reminded them that "superpower" doesn't only refer to our nuclear arsenal. Altidore is pulled down outside the box, and the US receives a free kick.

Slovenia decides to "defend" this free kick. By this, I mean that Altidore becomes an unwitting participant in some sort of medieval hand-fasting ceremony, Bradley is being grabbed in a way that would make most of us curl up into the fetal position and announce that we need an adult, and the rest of the US attack force is being impeded in ways that would be penalized in both American football and hockey. Somehow, out of all this chaos, Maurice Edu swoops in and cleanly deposits the ball into the back of the net. 3-2 US! One of the greatest comebacks of all time. Then the ref blows the whistle, nullifying the goal.

The mystifying part of all this is that there doesn't appear to be a foul on the US, everyone is onside, and the ref makes no indication of why he made the call that he did. Needless to say, this took all of the wind out of the US, and we didn't get close again in what ended in a 2-2 draw.

Now I understand that the ref is part of the game, and that human error plays a part in sports. However, this whole thing could have easily been avoided if they had just chosen a referee with some sort of experience. I mean, Tamsen Burke (who ran the IM department at Chicago; you could have trained a monkey to do her job, do it better, and look better while doing it) had the whole thing figured out: if your team makes the playoffs, you provide a ref; if you don't make it, no ref necessary. This is why the Dominican Republic doesn't send a judge to the figure skating in the Winter Olympics; it's not that they can't do it, but someone decided to leave the job up to countries more familiar with the sport. I'm sure the good people who run the soccer federation of Mali would have been happy not to pay for the referee's travel, and we all would have been better for it.

May all your hits be crits (and not be disallowed),
B

The Degrading Parade

So, as part of my RA duties this summer, I'm reading cases from the European Court of Human Rights to figure out their definition of torture. While all the really obvious stuff has been found torture (rape, beating, etc...), there are some people who have decided that the relevant provision of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a legal blank check.

Which brings me to Efstratiou v. Greece. The petitioner, a young Jehovah's Witness (yea, them again. These people pop up in every religion-related lawsuit ever) refused to march in a parade with her school to celebrate the Greeks going to war against Fascist Italy. As punishment for her refusal, the school board suspended her for two days.

Now, I believe there is a lawsuit in here somewhere, and one that would likely win in this country. Compelled speech is a no-no, which is why we don't force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance (or at least we don't suspend them for refusing). However, the Efstratious decided to argue that this was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which states:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Yikes. Stripes. REALLY??? Suspension from school is torture or inhuman and degrading? The social stigma and permanent record status aside, not going to school for a day is hardly the worst thing that could happen. While the reasoning of the school was wrong (and was found to be a violation of the student's rights on other grounds), and while I grant that you're allowed to plead however you'd like, there needed to be someone in that lawyer's office to say (in the words of the AEPi Risk Management speech) "What the Fuck are you Thinking?"

May all your hits be crits,
B