Alex Wise's shared items in Google Reader

Source: G/C McDonald to be promoted

2011-12-03T16:11:46Z

Ronald Martinez/Getty ImagesNick McDonald with the Packers.With their depth thinned at center, the Patriots plan on promoting guard/center Nick McDonald from the practice squad on Saturday, according to a league source. McDonald, 24, has spent most of the season on the practice squad. He began his career in Green Bay as an undrafted free agent from Grand Valley State, and spent all of last season on the Packers' 53-man roster, but was inactive for every game.

Inside the Playbook: Analysis of Brady-to-Ochocinco interception

2011-09-28T12:40:47Z

In the debut of a new video series, NFL reporter Greg Bedard and former Patriots tight end Jermaine Wiggins analyze the Xs and Os from Sunday's loss to the Bills.

How the Hell do the Angels Keep Winning?

2011-08-26T15:26:01Z

By Jonah Keri
Two (possible) answers to the mystery that has puzzled statheads for more than a decade.

The Summer of Tarnished Oscars

2011-07-06T03:13:00Z

By Lane Brown
Which actors took the shine off their awards in 2011?

Peter Gammons on M&M: ‘There’s something funny about the passion of this team’

2011-05-11T16:50:52Z

Peter Gammons

Hall of Fame baseball analyst Peter Gammons made his weekly appearance on the Mut & Merloni show Wednesday to talk about the Red Sox. To hear the interview, go to the Mut & Merloni audio on demand page.

Gammons said he’s trying to figure out why the Sox can’t seem to put things together and get over the .500 mark.

“There’s something funny about the passion of this team,” he said. “I still don’t see the offense. They haven’t scored 10 runs in a game all year. I don’t believe they’ve been ahead by four runs at the end of the fourth inning all year. So, games have really been struggles for them.

“They probably will click on all cylinders. But for the time being … Is it right to say that it’s almost like there’s a little chip missing here? I really sense that, that there’s a personality chip missing that’s different than what they maintained last year when they overachieved.”

Added Gammons: “I can’t put my finger on it. I thought about it all last week. I kept thinking, ‘Jeez, there’s just something funny about the way this team is playing.’ Whether they need one more guy to kind of come in and stir things up with [Dustin] Pedroia, I don’t know. That’s sort of the way I feel. But I don’t see anybody in that division running off and winning 100 games, so they’re in a very good position if they do get hot to make up whatever they need to make up.”

One player who does not lack intensity is Carl Crawford. “I don’t think he realized what it would be like to come to Boston and start out struggling,” Gammons said. “He cares so much, he practices so hard that I think he just drives himself into the ground. But now that he’s starting to relax … He’s obviously very popular. Every time he does anything, his teammates’ reaction to him is wonderful, it really is.”

John Lackey‘s failure to be a stopper has made him a target for critics. Gammons said he would like to see Lackey take more responsibility for his struggles. Said Gammons: “I’ll admit that that game [the 13-inning, 5-3 loss to the Angels on May 4], having to play that game for 16 hours or whatever it was, that deflates you. But that’s a time when John Lackey has to step up and say, ‘OK, here I am.’ … That wasn’t the case. They need him to be more consistent. He has not been what he was brought here to be, pure and simple.

“The only thing that surprised me is I’ve never really heard him say, ‘I’m really mad about the way I’m pitching.’ You always hear, ‘Well, the ball found a hole,’ or something happened, a bad call. He should be too good for that stuff.”

Looking at the Sox’ catching situation, Gammons said they’ll be in trouble if Jarrod Saltalamacchia or Jason Varitek have problems. “If Salty implodes or Varitek gets hurt, they’ve got to go get somebody, because they don’t have anybody in the minor leagues who going to come up and catch,” he said.

Gammons said the Sox had a capable backup a few years ago but made an error in judgment. Said Gammons. “David Ross is not coming back. In my mind that was a mistake, where they just let him go after he came over [as a free agent in 2008]. He’s a good player. He would play a lot for them. The other guys — I don’t see guys around that they can go get and just hide out. And that’s the problem.”

He said that he believed that signing Benjie Molina was not something that the Sox were actively pursuing, in part because of the improved play the team has received from its catching position.

“I think the Molina thing is about a month old. They’ve looked around,” said Gammons. “There was that time, when they originally contacted Molina, Saltalamacchia was really struggling. He’s played a lot better defensively in the last three weeks.

“I don’t see guys around that they can go get and just hide out. That’s the problem,” he added. “I don’t think you can go out and make a trade now. And I don’t think they’re convinced they have to now, because of the way that Saltamacchia has played. But I think it’s something you have to monitor and wonder about. I just don’t see any scenario where Molina comes out of retirement and then says, ‘I’ll go to Pawtucket for a month.’ I just don’t think that would possibly happen.”

Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats

2011-04-24T09:00:25Z

Quick-hit thoughts around the NFL and with the Patriots:

1. If I had to guess the handful of names that Bill Belichick will write down as realistic first-round possibilities for the Patriots at No. 17 and 28, here is my list: DL Muhammad Wilkerson (Temple), DL Cameron Heyward (Ohio State), OL Mike Pouncey (Florida), RB Mark Ingram (Alabama), OL Nate Solder (Colorado) and OLB Jabaal Sheard (Pittsburgh).

2. One scout believes there could be as many as 15 defensive linemen taken in the first round. That would be unprecedented.

3. With so many highly-rated defensive linemen, this draft reminds me a little of 2003 and how the key is assessing which lineman fits best in the Patriots’ system. Some thought the Patriots were a little rich selecting Ty Warren at 13 that year, but he was the best fit when comparing him to Dewayne Robertson (4), Johnathan Sullivan (6), Kevin Williams (9), Jimmy Kennedy (12), Michael Haynes (14), Jerome McDougle (15), William Joseph (25) and Co.

4. Considering the strength of this draft, and looking at the Patriots’ history evaluating and drafting defensive linemen, I’d be feeling pretty good as a follower of the team. This is right in their wheelhouse.

5. Last year, Tedy Bruschi made the point that Bill Belichick had been looking for the next Mark Bavaro at tight end for years, and that Rob Gronkowski would be a great draft pick for the team. Nice call. One player Bruschi really likes this year for the Patriots: Arizona defensive end/outside linebacker Brooks Reed.

6. If I could have one thing back from our four-headed mock draft on ESPNBoston, it would be with LSU cornerback Patrick Peterson. I let him slip out of the top five, which was a mistake. The more I hear about him, a strong case could be made that he could be one of the top two picks in the draft.

7. Tom Brady enters his 12^th year in the same offensive system, which is a luxury that gives the Patriots a huge advantage in this lockout world. On the flip side, you have teams that will be drafting a quarterback yet won’t be able to work with him until the lockout ends, leading to the question: Can the QB get up to speed in time to help in 2011? This positions the Patriots well for whenever the 2011 season might be played.

8. Thomas Dimitroff, the former Patriots director of college scouting, has done a great job as Falcons general manager over the last three years. You’re a hard-core Patriots fan if you know who succeeded him in that job – Jon Robinson. “Patriots Today” introduces you to Robinson, the hard-working scout who like Dimitroff refreshingly isn’t in the self-promotion business.

9. It makes sense to think one of Bill Belichick’s goals in this draft will be to add at least one selection in 2012. The Patriots only have five 2012 picks and I can’t recall a time that Belichick has had such an empty cupboard the following year.

10. After the overload of draft information, I think any Patriots analysis ultimately comes back to this: They need to come out of this draft with help for their third-down defense (32^nd in the NFL), which primarily comes back to the pass rush. The draft is their best opportunity to do so.

Weekly Patriots chat recap

2011-03-10T21:18:07Z

Every Thursday on ESPNBoston.com, there is a Patriots chat in the early afternoon. This week's chat was at noon, can be recapped here, and includes some of the following topics:

1. Defensive linemen and the draft.

2. A vote against a receiver late in the first round.

3. Picking two prospects who look like Patriots material.

4. Examining the possibility of a trade for Panthers receiver Steve Smith.

5. Bill Belichick, Robert Kraft, and the future.

Draft stories: 1967

2011-01-09T20:33:44Z

I've really been enjoying perusing old newspaper articles in the google news archives lately, so I figured I may as well put that time to good use by blogging some interesting tidbits. This post contains a random assortment of details and stories from the 1967 draft, along with some offshoots.

The 1967 draft was the first to include teams from both the AFL and the NFL. In this article, my guy George Webster reminds us that everything old is new again, by putting words into the mouths of all the top 2011 draftees:

"I would have liked to have been around last year when the money was being passed out," said Webster, making an obvious reference to the pre-merger [AFL-NFL bidding] wars.

This draft got interesting about a week before the actual event, when the Vikings traded Fran Tarkenton to the Giants for a slew of picks. Tarkenton, at the time, was not yet the all-time great he would eventually become, but he was certainly a guy worth giving up some picks for: a 6-year starter who had been to two pro bowls before his 27th birthday. A very rough comp might be Jay Cutler, and like Cutler, Tarkenton had some baggage. Though he wouldn't publicly say why, he had already announced that he absolutely would not play for the Vikings in 1967 . His price turned out to be the Giants' first picks in 1967 and 1968, and their second round pick in 1967.

Now it gets a little confusing.

The Giants had the worst record in the NFL in 1966, so under normal circumstances they'd be picking first overall. But don't forget that this is the first common draft, so AFL teams have to become involved somehow, and the expansion Saints need a high pick too. So there were some things to be negotiated. This article gives us some rather bizarre details:

The Giants disclosed that the NFL had given them, as part of the agreement between the National and American Football Leagues, two options in the 1967 draft: 1. the first selection in either the 1967 or 1968 draft for the purpose of selecting a quarterback: 2. the right to trade that selection for a veteran quarterback.

So the Giants exercised the second option. Under it, the Vikings now get the first pick in 1967 or 1968 if they want a quarterback, the Giants normal pick if they go for any other player.

Why the NFL cared what position the Giants took I don't know. But here's how it played out. The Vikings picked Michigan State running back Clint Jones in the Giants' #2 slot in 1967 (the expansion Saints owned the #1; more on that later) and then took eventual Hall of Fame tackle Ron Yary first overall in 1968. This means, I guess, that the QB-only provision applied only to 1967. Minnesota played it well, but this was a real sweetheart deal that the NFL gave to the Giants. Essentially, they were given a skip-to-the-beginning-of-the-line pass that could be used either this year or next. You don't gain much by skipping from second to first, so why not save it for next season, which is what the Vikings did. Their total haul ended up being Clint Jones, Ron Yary, and (with New York's 1967 second round pick) wide receiver Bob Grim from Oregon State (recent comparables: Willie Jackson, Michael Jenkins). It's tough to be disappointed with a Hall of Famer, but given the unbelievable defense Minnesota would soon develop and the all-too-believable play they got from quarterbacks Joe Kapp and Gary Cuozzo, it reasonable to wonder whether this trade might have cost the Vikings a championship or two.

Speaking of the Vikings' unbelievable defense, a different draft day trade in 1967 played a large role in that. Minnesota sent running back Tommy Mason, tight end Hal Bedsole, and their second round pick (#33 overall) to Los Angeles for tight end Marlin McKeever and the Rams' first rounder (#15), which the Vikings used to select Alan Page, who was best known for wearing purple, devouring people, and eventually becoming a state supreme court justice.

Speaking of Gary Cuozzo, he was traded by the Colts to the the Saints for the first overall selection. Five years earlier, Cuozzo was an undrafted rookie from Virginia who had turned down a scholarship to Yale Med School to pursue his NFL dreams. By March 1967, he was a dental student and Johnny Unitas's backup. He was, in fact, "considered the best backup quarterback in the NFL." Fear not, Saints' fans, this article will assure you that Cuozzo will be able to focus on football.

Cuozzo said his semester ends in mid-June and football camp in New Orleans begins in early July.

Cuozzo, perhaps comparable to a pre-Jacksonville Mark Brunell, turned out to be more of an A.J. Feeley. To make matters worse, the Saints had to throw in Bill Curry (obtained from the Packers in the expansion draft) and another undisclosed draft choice to make the deal happen. Curry would make two pro bowls for the Colts and Cuozzo would be beaten out by Billy Kilmer in his only season as a Saint. Despite the uninspiring effort, there was still enough bloom on the Cuozzo rose to command a first round pick. A few days prior to the 1968 draft, Minnesota would send pick #7 to New Orleans for Cuozzo.

The Colts, meanwhile, took defensive lineman Bubba Smith from Michigan State. Smith's career was short but very productive. At the least, he was probably the MVP of the Colts' Super Bowl Championship team of 1970.

According to this article (which has a great picture of Pete Rozelle literally writing draftees' names on a chalkboard), Baltimore's selection of Smith fouled up the Falcons' draft plans. Atlanta, owner of the third pick, was expecting to be able to take Bubba and apparently didn't like what was available at #3. The consensus pick at that point would have been Heisman winning quarterback Steve Spurrier from Florida, but despite a very poor rookie season from incumbent starter Randy Johnson in 1966, the Falcons had no interest in the local boy. The 49ers ended up being Atlanta's trade partner, giving up receiver Bernie Casey, offensive lineman Jim Wilson, and defensive lineman Jim Norton for the right to select Spurrier at #3.

Wilson and Norton were young, but not particularly well-regarded as far as I can tell. They played a combined 28 games for the Falcons during their careers. Casey was a 28-year-old former first round pick who was a solid wide receiver. He was 15th in the AFL/NFL in receiving yards over the previous three years, so would have been perceived maybe as somewhere between Anquan Boldin and Braylon Edwards of today. A few months later, the Falcons traded to Casey to the Rams for running back Tom Moore (not the Colts' current offensive coordinator), who ended up playing only 10 games for the Falcons before retiring after the 1967 season. Here is a quaint article describing the Moore/Casey deal:

Outside business interests figured into the trade.

Coach George Allen of the Rams said, "Moore indicated to me some time ago that his mortgage business made it impossible for him to return to Los Angeles this year. He indicated that he would play in Atlanta, near his Nashville home, and that his company had a branch office in Atlanta."

Casey, an artist, is associated with a gallery in Los Angeles. "I feel like a rookie again. I'm most enthusiastic about this trade," said Casey.

The enthusiastic Casey would have his best season in 1967. He retired after the following year and became an actor, with appearances in Never say never again, Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, and a whole lot of other stuff. Moore's mortgage business was equally successful, in a mortgage business kind of way.

Let's return now to the Falcons and their decision to trade the #3 overall selection for three players. This is what coach Norb Hecker had to say about it:

There is no way you can build a team now by drafting. Figure it out. We had the third choice, then the 31st, then the 57th. You might get one outstanding player a year, and that would give you five players in five years. It would take quite awhile to build a winning team at that pace.

The third, the 31st, and the 57th, you say?

In the 1967 draft, the 4th, 5th and 6th picks combined for 16 pro bowls. The 32nd, 33rd, and 34th combined for 8. And the 58th, 59th, and 60th combined for three. Of the nine players picked immediately after the picks Hecker was lamenting, we find eight pro bowlers and three Hall of Famers. Maybe the fourteen-year-old Bill Belichick spotted the market inefficiency.

Seventeen games and one win later, Hecker was fired.

Winklevoss Twins Take One Last Shot At Facebook In Court

2010-12-20T19:15:01Z

At the end of the movie The Social Network, Facebook settles its lawsuit against Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, paying them $65 million in cash and Facebook stock to quietly fade into the sunset and drop their claims that Mark Zuckerberg stole their ideas to create his globe-spanning internet company.

Despite the film’s tidy ending, the Winklevosses’ litigation is marching on.

That’s because the twin brothers have asked for a remarkable series of “do-overs” since signing the settlement agreement in February 2008, surrounded by their lawyers. First, they complained that the settlement wasn’t fair, because they were duped into believing that the Facebook stock was worth more than it actually was. Then, they got into a battle with the lawyers who won the settlement for them, from the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Hedges, alleging the firm had engaged in malpractice. (That dispute ended up in arbitration, which was resolved in September, with the Quinn Emanuel firm collecting the full fee it asked for, reportedly $13 million.)

By the middle of 2009, the twins had filed five separate appeals, which were eventually consolidated into one case. The Winklevosses also filed four separate emergency motions to stay various aspects of the settlement while the appeal was pending, all of which were rejected. A final appeals hearing is scheduled for Jan. 11 in San Francisco to determine whether the Facebook settlement will finally stand or the Winklevosses will be able to scuttle it, hitting the ultimate reset key on litigation they initiated more than six years ago.

While The Social Network paints Mark Zuckerberg as darker and more troubled than he likely is, the movie seems to be closer to reality in its depiction of the Winklevosses (or “Winklevii” as Jesse-Eisenberg-as-Mark-Zuckerberg calls them) as over-privileged whiners. In fact, anyone tracking the twins’ lawsuit against Zuckerberg and Facebook—drawn out now for an unbelievable two years after a settlement was signed—can only reach the conclusion that Hollywood was, if anything, kind to the two brothers.

Earlier this month, both the twins and Zuckerberg were featured on 60 Minutes. Zuckerberg handled questions about the lawsuit deftly, saying that it just wasn’t that big of a deal to him, and telling interviewer Leslie Stahl that he’d spent less than two weeks of his time, total, dealing with the brothers and their claims. The Winklevosses, meanwhile, seemed eager for another chance to re-litigate their accusations on camera. (Yes, that would be the same lawsuit they agreed to settle.)

Facebook begins its appeal brief by describing how the coming hearing is a result of a settlement that was meant to put an end to the “rancorous litigation on two coasts” between Zuckerberg and the Winklevosses and their partner Divya Narendra, who founded failed competitor ConnectU. “Surrounded by a bevy of lawyers, the CU Founders signed the deal,” write Zuckerberg’s lawyers. “Then they suffered a bout of settlers’ remorse. They ask this court to relieve them of the deal they struck to plunge back into scorched-earth litigation.” The CU founders say that “they and their lawyers were duped about the value of Facebook’s private stock,” even though “they acknowledge that Facebook never made any representation as to the value of its shares.”

Messages left with two of the Winklevosses’ lawyers weren’t returned; Facebook’s lawyer also didn’t respond to a request for comment.

What makes CU’s drawn-out litigation all the more remarkable is that Facebook has to be one of the most patently “unstealable” ideas out there. Facebook wasn’t the first internet social network and, at the time of the suit, wasn’t profoundly different than those that came before it. Facebook’s success isn’t due to the idea of a social network, but the skillful execution of that idea—combined, of course, with some hard work and some very lucky timing. As Eisenberg-turned-Zuckerberg says in the movie: Does “a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone who ever made a chair?”

Lawsuits that claim, or at least imply, the theft of ideas have proliferated in recent years. Witness, for example, the 15 pending patent lawsuits filed against Facebook, or the nearly 50 suits filed against Google—none brought by true competitors. In The Social Network, Zuckerberg and Facebook overcome a major legal challenge by ConnectU, which the company’s lawyers describe as a mere “speed bump” on the road to internet dominance. The lawsuit against Facebook might be a “speed bump,” but such speed bumps seem to be sprouting all around Silicon Valley.

Related

Matt Bai's Post-Partisanship

2010-12-05T16:23:00Z

A few weeks back I participated in a post-election roundtable that included Peter Hart and former Nixon aide David Gergen. The session got unexpectedly hot, in particular over the whole issue of whether or not Obama had done enough to keep America's CEOs happy. Gergen kept pressing this idea that, ...

The Hidden Cost of Capitulation

2010-12-08T20:00:21Z

Now that the president has signaled yet another collapse in agreeing to tax cuts for the rich, there is a hidden cost to this capitulation. He is now stuck defending this deal for the rest of his term. I predicted this on the show yesterday and today it's playing out exactly the way I imagined, with the president sending out advisers to talk about what a great idea it is to give tax cuts to the rich.

Once you sign off on a political position, you own it. This could be a corollary to Colin Powell's doctrine on foreign policy. Powell said if you break it, you own it. In this case, if you make it, you own it.

The president claims he will fight hard against these same tax cuts two years from now. It's hard to stop laughing long enough to make a point against that, but I will try. If you are sending out your people to talk up polls about how right the Republicans were on the tax cuts for the rich now, how are you going to send out the same people to talk about how wrong they were - and how wrong you were - two years from now?

These are the things that make me wonder if President Obama has a firm grasp on basic political fundamentals. Yesterday he said that the political reality is that he just didn't have the votes in the Senate (by far his favorite excuse). He even said "I can't win" in the Senate. That's a damning reversal for a man who ran on "Yes we can."

But more importantly, he doesn't seem to understand Politics 101. You don't just count the votes based on how the other side says they're going to vote. From time to time, you call their bluff. Which means you go to the home states of swing senators like Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Olympia Snowe in Maine and you campaign on this winning issue there until you make them feel the political pain. Then you put them to a decision -- do you want to risk your career voting against me on this issue where I have huge popular support or do you want to vote with me? Then you take the vote and they will bend. If he doesn't understand that, boy did we elect the wrong guy.

Of course, the alternative is that he does understand that but doesn't ever have the stomach for a real fight. Or even worse yet, secretly likes this deal and will always find an excuse to get more tax cuts and sweet deals for the rich and powerful. In which case, boy did we elect the wrong guy.

Watch The Young Turks Here

John Cassidy: What good is Wall Street?

2010-11-22T05:00:00Z

A few months ago, I came across an announcement that Citigroup, the parent company of Citibank, was to be honored, along with its chief executive, Vikram Pandit, for “Advancing the Field of Asset Building in America.” This seemed akin to, say, saluting BP for services to the environment . . .

Prison report: The madness of parole

2010-11-24T05:28:40Z

By Just A Guy

Editors Note: For much of 2009, Just A Guy wrote reports for us from a California state prison (here's an example). He was released last November, but continues to send us commentary every now and then.

So, it’s been some time since any of you have heard anything from me. Here’s a story for you about how poorly the parole system works.

As many of you will remember, I was released in November of last year, but paroled to a state out of California.

Since that time I have had no problems whatsoever, have been very successful on parole, worked and travelled for business all over the country, supported my family, and been an upstanding citizen.

Earlier this year, I met some people at an industry meeting, and the discussion resulted in my being offered a job that required my moving to a state different than where I was on parole. The transfer paperwork allowing me to move from the controlling state to the new state was initiated a short time after I accepted the position, but the paperwork that was submitted through the Interstate Compact Office was somehow lost.

Meanwhile, I moved to the new state in order to start my new position; though I was having to go back monthly to my old state to report for parole, as one isn’t allowed to be out of state on a travel permit for more than 30 days without reporting back to the controlling state. In the beginning of October -- three months later -- I found out that the transfer paperwork had been lost and had to be re-submitted; meanwhile I had to spend a minimum of $600 a month to go back to my controlling state and report in. Being proactive, I called the out-of-state parole office in California to find out what was going on and explained the situation. California “fast-tracked” my paperwork to get the out-of-state transfer done. Fortunately my parole officer at the time was very understanding and didn’t make me come in to report the last time I was supposed to since the paperwork was confirmed as being processed by California.

Ultimately, in the last week of October, my transfer paperwork came through and I am now officially under the supervision of the new state.

Why does any of this matter? It’s been a year since I left prison, and my parole should be ending. I would have been a “no brainer” to be discharged from supervision in the state I just transferred out of -- but because I just moved to a new state, the California Parole Division has recommended I remain on parole because I don’t have a proven track record of success in the new state -- even though I have been successfully employed here for four months, and was previously successfully employed in the old state for eight months.

Apparently, it doesn’t matter -- because I’m in a new environment and they want to make sure I’m abiding by the rules and regulations of parole in the new environment, which, really are about the same as the old environment.

The irony of all of this is that I went above and beyond in trying to make sure I was doing things right and following the rules of California and the other two states. I even called the California Interstate Office to find out what the problems in facilitating my transfer were and got them resolved. Had I just gone back and forth between the state where I was residing and working (costing $600 a month in travel) and let the system do its slow meandering work, my transfer probably still wouldn’t have gone through -- it would have shown I was successful in the “old state” and I would be recommended for discharge.
Now, because I tried to keep things on the up and up, I’m getting punished.

It’s very frustrating. I have to travel with some frequency for my job, but the new state is less permissive with business travel and that affects my ability to do my job and support my family and be successful. I have always been under the impression that parole was meant to help protect the public AND help the parolees make a successful transition back to society. I have done everything humanly possible to be successful, but the process just gets in the way.

I am being recommended to be retained on parole because I started a new job – crazy, since that makes our family’s life better.

Another crazy thing, the reason I had to call the California Interstate Office, is that parole agents are not allowed to contact each other directly. In other words, my parole agent in the state I transferred out of is not allowed to contact the parole office in California directly. I can do it but she can’t. EVERYTHING has to go through Interstate Compact; no direct interaction between agencies is allowed. How’s that for effective.

Bottom line, there’s still a chance the Board of Parole may grant my discharge against the recommendation of the California Parole Unit, but what’s the likelihood of that? After all, now that I’m not in California it doesn’t cost them any money to keep me on parole in the new state! I promise you if I were in California or the previous state it would be rubber stamped.

The worst part is, I don’t get an opportunity to argue my case in front of the board, I don’t get to see the recommendation, I don’t even know when the discharge hearing is going to be.
Result: stuck on parole for another year for doing things the right way, ability to affectively my business greatly disabled. Way to go California, keep up the good work.

Sarah Palin's Presidential Strategy, and the Economy She Depends On

2010-11-24T21:06:00Z

Monday night, Sarah Palin watched from the audience as daughter Bristol danced on ABC. Twenty-three million other Americans joined her from their homes. Tuesday, the former vice-presidential candidate started a 13-state book tour for her new book, “America By Heart,” which has a first printing of 1 million. Her reality show on TLC, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” is in its third week. Last Sunday she was the cover story in the New York Times magazine.

It’s all part of The Palin Strategy for becoming president in 2012 — or 2016 or 2020.

Republican leaders don’t believe it. “If she wanted the Republican nomination she’d be working on the inside,” one influential Republican told me a few days ago. “She’d be building relationships with Republican Senators and representatives, governors, and state party officials. She’d be smoothing the feathers she ruffled by backing Tea Party candidates. She’d be huddled with GOP kingmakers.” When I suggested she has a different strategy, the influential Republican smiled knowingly. “That’s how it’s done – how McCain, Bush, and everyone has done it. That’s the only way to do it. But all she really wants is celebrity.”

The Republican establishment doesn’t get it. Celebrity is part of The Palin Strategy – as is avoiding the insider game. She doesn’t want to do what Huckabee, Pawlenty, Gingrich, or Romney have to do. She has an outside game.

Palin’s game plan is directly related to America’ white working class, and the economy it faces – and the economy it’s likely to continue to experience for years.

No prospective candidate so sharply embodies the anger of America’s white working class as does Palin. And none is channeling that anger nearly as effectively.

White working class anger isn’t new, of course, nor is the Republican Party’s use of it. Apart from the South, where the anger came in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the more widespread working-class anxiety began in the late 1970s when the median male wage that had been rising for three decades began to stagnate.

As I noted in “Aftershock,” families responded by sending wives and mothers into the paid workforce, working longer hours, and then, finally, going deep into debt. These coping mechanisms allayed but did not remove the growing anxiety.

Over the years, Republicans have channeled the anxiety into anger, through overt appeals to a so-called “silent majority” that were overlooked by Democrats and liberals; through “tax revolts” by working and middle-class families that couldn’t afford to pay more; and in subtle and not-so-subtle appeals to racist fears (Willie Horton).

But now that the Great Recession has eliminated the last coping mechanism – ending the easy borrowing, and ratcheting up unemployment – the working class’s economic insecurities have soared. A recent Washington Post poll showed 53 percent of homeowners worried about meeting their mortgage payments. Home foreclosures have slowed largely because of bad paperwork on the part of banks, but the threat remains. Housing prices are still dropping.

The white working class has not benefitted from the recent rise in corporate profits and stock prices. To the contrary, both have been fueled by foreign sales of goods made abroad and by labor-saving technologies that have allowed American companies to do more with fewer workers here at home.

Joblessness among the white working class is far higher than the 9.6 percent average for the nation. While the unemployment rate among college grads (most of whom are professionals or managers) is around 5 percent, the average unemployment rate for people with only a high school degree or less (blue-collar, pink-collar, clerical) is almost 20 percent.

All of this is spawning a new and more virulent politics of anger in the nation’s white working class, stoked by Republicans – anger against immigrants, blacks, gays, intellectuals, and international bankers (consider the latest Fox News salvos against George Soros).

According to the right-wing narrative, the calamity that’s befallen the white working class is due to the global and intellectual elites who run the mainstream media, direct the government, dispense benefits to the undeserving, and dominate popular culture. (The story and targets are not substantially different from those that have fueled right-wing and fascist movements during times of economic stress for more than a century, here and abroad.)

Sarah Palin has special appeal because she wraps the story in an upbeat message. She avoids the bilious rants of Rush, Sean Hannity, and their ilk. But her cheerfulness isn’t sunny; she doesn’t promise Morning in America. She offers pure snark, and promises revenge. Over and over again she tells the same snide, sarcastic, inside joke, but in different words: “They think they can keep screwing us, but (wink, wink), we know something they don’t. We’re gonna take over and screw them.”

The Palin Strategy is to circumvent the Republican establishment, filled as it is with career Republicans, business executives, and Wall Streeters. That’s why her path to the Republican nomination isn’t the usual insider game. It’s a celebrity game – a snark-fest with the nation’s entire white working class. Vote for Bristol and we’ll show the media establishment how powerful we are! Buy my book and we’ll show the know-it-all coastal elites a real book directed at real people! Tune into my cable show and we’ll show the real America – far from the urban centers with immigrants and blacks and fancy city slickers!

As I believe will become clearer, the Palin Strategy will involve a political threat to the GOP establishment: Deny her the nomination she’ll run as independent. This will split off much of the white working class and guarantee defeat of the Republican establishment candidate. It will also result in her defeat in 2012, but that’s a small price to pay for gaining the credibility and power to demand the nomination in 2016, or threaten another third-party run in 2020.

Once nominated, her campaign for the general election will be purely populist. She’ll seek to broaden her base to become the candidate of the people, taking on America’s vested Establishment.

More than anything else, the Palin Strategy depends on the continuing fear and anger of America’s white working class. She’s betting that their economic prospects will not improve by 2012, or even by 2016 and beyond.

Sadly, this is likely to be the case. On Tuesday, the Fed issued a gloomy prognosis. Even if the U.S. economy began to grow at a rate more typical of recoveries than the current anemic 2 percent, unemployment won’t drop to its pre-recession level for 5 to 7 years. A minority of the Fed thought this was too optimistic.

The disturbing truth is the bad economy is likely to continue for most Americans beyond 7 years — maybe for ten or more — because of a chronic lack of aggregate demand. Apart from inevitable inventory replacements and the necessary replacements by consumers of cars, appliances, and clothing that wear out, nothing will propel the U.S. economy forward. So much income and wealth have now concentrated at the top that the broad middle and working class no longer has the buying power to do so. The top will resume buying but their purchases won’t be nearly enough.

Japan lost a decade of economic growth after its real estate bubble exploded. It seems entirely probable that the United States will suffer the same fate. Our economic structure – how we now allocate the gains of growth, the yawning gap between Wall Street and Main Street, the incentives operating on large corporations to pare American payrolls and expand abroad – almost dictates it.

We might change that structure, of course. But at this point that doesn’t seem in the cards. The President seems unable or unwilling to provide the clear narrative that explains what’s happened and what needs to be done, and Republicans are at this moment ascendant.

It all fits into Sarah Palin’s strategy.

Hendrik Hertzberg: Glenn Beck's George Soros shows.

2010-11-22T05:00:00Z

It’s hardly news when Fox News airs something nasty. This time, though, it’s personal—or, at least, institutional. Recently, the nation’s highest-rated cable-news network’s biggest star devoted three hour-long episodes of his program to an attack on a . . .

Beyond Repeal — The Future of Health Care Reform

2010-12-08T22:00:10Z

New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 363, Issue 24, Page 2277-2279, December 2010.

Elizabeth Kolbert: The G.O.P. vs. the climate.

2010-11-15T05:00:00Z

Darrell Issa, a Republican representative from California, is one of the richest men in Congress. He made his money selling car alarms, which is interesting, because he has twice been accused of auto theft. (Issa has said that he had a “colorful youth.”) As the ranking minority member . . .

Mick Jagger responds to Keith Richards' autobiography

2010-11-05T04:00:00Z

Slate has a book review by journalist Bill Wyman which takes the form of a Mick Jagger responding to bandmate Keith Richards’ recent autobiography, Life. While it’s not Mick- we initiall...

The B.S. Report: 11/8

2010-11-08T18:08:10Z

Bill Simmons and Cousin Sal discuss another awful performance from the Cowboys and guess the Week 10 lines. Plus, Joe House commits a new father faux ...

Prop 19 wrap-up

2010-11-07T18:51:10Z

I haven’t bothered linking to the ton of post-Prop 19 articles out there, but have noticed a positive trend: there has been very little coverage that treats it as a loss to drug policy reform — almost everything is about how Prop 19 energized the discussion, made the “L” word mainstream, and is the first step to at least some kind of reform.

I think the best wrap-up I’ve read is “It’s No Longer a Matter of If, It’s a Matter of When” by Brian Doherty at Reason.

He discusses a fascinating aspect of the lead-in to Prop 19 (I know many here had questioned why some of the top reform organizations were initially on the sidelines…)

When Lee launched 19, most other elements of the drug law reform movement, from NORML to the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) told him he was picking the wrong year, that he was moving ahead too early.

They eventually came on board after 19 made the ballot, and at the press conference Ethan Nadelmann of the DPA (whose most prominent supporter George Soros came in with a last-minute million dollars for the campaign that helped sponsor a rush of TV ads) admitted that “I was among those who initially tried to discourage Richard from going forward. We said ‘wait until 2012.’…I called Richard a couple of weeks ago to say, ‘Win or lose, you were right. Even if we don’t prevail, the transformation in public dialogue, not just in California but nationally and internationally, has been nothing short of stupendous. The debate over marijuana legalization has been elevated to legitimacy.’”

And now we also have data. As ezrydn and others here in comments have noted, there is a treasure trove of information available about voting for legalization because of this initiative.

Here’s one of the most disturbing and ironic bits of data:

In fact, 67 percent of those who think government is doing too much were anti-19, as were 60 percent of those “angry” at the federal government and 71 percent of Tea Party supporters.

Of course, part of the problem (in addition to the hypocrisy of many so-called “anti-government” voters) is that it is ridiculous to assume that the vast population out there knows as much about drug policy as we do. Thus, misconceptions can actually drive large portions of the voting population, particularly with an issue that is as “new” to them as voting for drug policy reform.

That’s why we have to do the job of educating people. Even one at a time will work, if enough of us are doing it.

The Prop 19 vote has given me a number of opportunities to talk to people about reform who might not otherwise be interested in the conversation. I hope the rest of you are taking advantage of similar opportunities.