Cowboys vs. Patriots

Sporting News wrote a counterpoint piece trying to decide who would win between the 90's Cowboys and the current Patriots. Those Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls in four years, and the Patriots are going for their third in four. This question comes up, of course, because of the insistence of many that the Patriots qualify as a "dynasty." I have already commented on that. But it's still an interesting question.

I would have to go with New England, believe it or not. Those Cowboy teams were awesome. (As someone who rooted for Buffalo for the first two, and Pittsburgh in the third, take my word for it.) They were awesome on both sides of the ball. But what has characterized the Patriot teams these last few years is that they just beat everyone. They shut down just about every offense they face, no matter how dominant. The 2001 Patriots shut down the most prolific offense of its day so hard that Kurt Warner's career has never recovered. They've stuffed Peyton Manning over and over, and that Colt offense is more powerful than Aikman's. At the same time, few teams have ever managed to keep the Patriot offense from scoring. No one thinks of New England as an offensive powerhouse, but they just score all the time. They find ways. They may or may not blow you out, but they will beat you. That 2001 Ram defense was no slouch. The 2004 Steelers had one of the best defenses in the league, and New England ripped them apart. Their average margin of victory this year was 11 points, and that's with seven games with Miami, the Jets, Buffalo, and Baltimore, and includes the fourteen point loss to Pittsburgh. These guys just find a way to win.

AOL Time Warner

CNet News reports:

Time Warner said Monday that it will begin offering free America Online accounts to customers of its Road Runner broadband Internet service in an effort to attract new subscribers and garner more advertising dollars.

Imagine that, a multi-pronged company putting its disparate resources together. What a concept! Of course, this was the motivation behind the merger of AOL and Time Warner all along. This announcement is a reminder of just how much that merger failed to live up to its initial promise.

AOL Time Warner has a dismal record of marshalling its resources. What do I mean? Here are a few simple examples.

• AOL acquired the Netscape web browser years ago. Yet, to this day, what browser do they include in their AOL client? Internet Explorer. After all these years, they have not been able to incorporate their own browser into their software.
• For a long time, AOL provided competing cable broadband services. There was AOL Broadband, run by AOL, and Road Runner, run by Time Warner cable. These were in competition with each other, even though they were owned by the same company. And, of course, both were in competition with AOL's dial-up service.
• So-called legal music services sponsored by the music industry was long touted as the salvation of the music industry. MusicNow was a service backed by, among others, Warner Music. How quickly did corporate sibling AOL get that service onto the desktops of its millions of subscribers? Well, we're still waiting.

The whole point of the merger was to put all the multimedia content of Time Warner into the hands of online giant AOL. The idea was that that content, along with Time Warner's cable business would ease AOL dependence on dial-up subscribers and make it the leader in the then emerging broadband world. The vision was of a collection of lucrative subscription services that would combine all of Time Warner's entertainment content (an extensive movie and music library, along with publishing) with AOL's net savvy, whose combined weight would dominate the broadband world. Then AOL president Bob Pittman said at the time of the merger

We will accelerate the development of Time Warner's cable broadband assets by bringing AOL's hallmark ease-of-use to this platform. We expect America Online to help drive the growth of cable broadband audiences, and we will use our combined infrastructure and cross-promotional strengths to enhance the growth and development of both America Online and Time Warner brands around the world.

Yet, this was the singular failure of the merged company. Calling the merger "one of the greatest failed deals in corporate history," CNet describes the AOL Time Warner corporate environment as a "culture of fiefdoms." The merger's architects saw their "grand visions of an Internet-charged media behemoth faded into the bland realities of turf wars and cutthroat politics." The divisions in the company were never able to arrive at a single, coherent strategy. As a result, rather than dominating the broadband world, AOL is still struggling to leave its dial-up roots behind; cable internet is slowly losing ground to DSL services provided by a combination of phone companies and online content providers (who, by the way, have a good track record of packaging their services) at lower cost; the online music business has been taken over by web companies like Apple, Real Networks, and Microsoft while the industry sponsored services have floundered; and the fledgling online movie business is following the same path.

It is a rather sad coda to the whole affair that only now, five years after the merger, is Time Warner's cable internet division beginning to make use of AOL.

Social Security Tactics

Reuters reports

Opponents of President Bush's plan to restructure the Social Security retirement system accused the White House on Friday of using scare tactics to win support for private investment accounts.

...

"These are scare tactics designed to create fear," [former Clinton administration Social Security official James Roosevelt] said. "These attempts to divide grandparents, parents and children on the issue are an attack on the most successful program this country has ever had."

What, you mean the president might hype a situation, giving dire warnings of the terrible things that might happen if his strategy is not followed? The next thing someone will say is all his warnings about the horrifying consequences of not attacking an Iraq armed to the teeth with WMD were made up too. Oh wait, they were.

Cox & Forkum: Open Season

Here's a funny editorial cartoon about the Rice confirmation hearings.

Conference Championship Thoughts

I was a perfect 2-0 in my conference championship predictions, resulting in the Super Bowl matchup I predicted back at mid-season. It is as it should be, the best team in the AFC against the best team in the NFC. It doesn't always work out that way, but it did this year.

A lot will be made in the days leading up to the Super Bowl of the Patriot "dynasty." I really don't think that applies. The pundits want to apply it because this will be New England's third trip to the big game in four years and a victory would give them three Lombardi's in four years, something only the 1990's Cowboys have done. But dynasty refers to more than just championships. The Steelers of the 70's were a dynasty, not simply because they won four Super Bowls in six years, but because they absolutely dominated the AFC and NFL for six straight years. When they didn't win Super Bowls, they were losing in the playoffs. They were winning division titles every year, destroying nearly everyone in their path. The Aikman-led Cowboys were similar in their four year span. The one year they didn't win the Super Bowl, they lost to San Francisco in the NFC title game. In New England's four year run, the year they didn't make the Super Bowl, they were an unimpressive 9-7 and didn't even make the playoffs. In the 2001 season, they were hardly the dominant team of the AFC. Few really took them seriously, and they were heavy underdogs in all three post-season games they played. So, really the Patriots have only really had last year and this year as a dominant team, and that hardly qualifies as a dynasty.

Much will also be made that this is the end of the line for New England. After the Super Bowl, both coordinators will be lost, Wies going to Notre Dame and Crennel likely going to the Browns. This bothers me, because it really disrespects the Patriot players. The story line in 2001 was that the Patriots were a bunch of lesser role players in the hands of master coaching. That tag has really stuck with New England ever since, but is totally unfair. These are not lesser players. They have a very good roster, full of outstanding players. Tom Brady is one of the best quarterbacks in the game. He may not be as flashy as Manning or Culpepper, but how many coaches would sell body parts to get Tom Brady on their roster? I'll put New England's linebacking group up against just about anyone. Same for both lines and the running backs. These players may not be prototypical, for example Tedy Bruschi may not look the part of canonical middle linebacker the way Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher do, which results in them being regarded as lesser players. But these guys kick butt, and it's time someone started realizing these guys win for more reasons than just superior coaching.

Speaking of storylines that won't go away, the Patriots in 2001 and 2003 were defensive teams. They won on the strength of superior defense. The offense was conservative and put up enough points to win. Leading up to the Super Bowl, everyone will be talking about the Patriot defense again. Has no one noticed that the Patriots are now one of the highest scoring teams in the league? Only the Colts, Chiefs, and Chargers put up more points. Only five quarterbacks threw more touchdowns than Brady. So the Eagles have a lot more to worry about than just the Patriot defense.

All season long, I have criticized the ridiculous hype surrounding Michael Vick. His passing numbers just aren't all that good, and the Eagles showed what happens when Vick gets turned into a passer. But that is not all Vick's fault. The Falcon wide receiving corps is horrible. Play after play, Vick was doing everything in his power to keep a play alive, and his receivers are doing nothing downfield. It's no wonder the heart of their passing game is the tight end. Crumpler is the one guy who can run routes and get open. Elsewhere, I have suggested that the Vikings need to be open to trading Randy Moss. How's this for a suggestion. The Falcons have a good defense and a lot of good defensive players. Put one or two together and trade for Moss. The Vikings pick up a linebacker and/or defensive lineman with experience and skill, the Falcons pick up a wide receiver for Vick to throw to. We saw what happened to Philadelphia when they acquired a receiver worthy of their quarterback. Imagine that happening in Atlanta.

By the way, one interesting fact for Falcon fans to keep in mind when dreaming about the 2005 season: Atlanta has never in its history had back to back winning seasons. Those few successful seasons they've had over the years have always been followed by losing records.

Already, writers and observers are waiting with breathless anticipation about the possible return of Terrell Owens for the Super Bowl. Um, need I remind everyone that the man broke his leg? If he does come back and play, it's doubtful he will have much of an impact. At best, he'll be able to run around gingerly at partial speed. Come on.

Studying coaching trees can be interesting. For the second time in three years, the NFC team in the Super Bowl will be coached by a former Packer assistant under Mike Holmgren (Gruden in 2002 and Reid this year). In this year's AFC divisional round, three of the four teams were coached by former assistants to Marty Schottenheimer in Kansas City (Cowher, Dungy, Edwards).

Ken Burns' Unforgivable Blackness

I saw the first part of Ken Burns' new documentary Unforgivable Blackness last night. It's the story of Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion. I am no boxing fan and had never heard of Jack Johnson before this, but the film was totally fascinating, further cementing Burns' reputation for documentary film making. More than just the story of a man and boxer, it is a portrait of race relations in the United States circa first decade of the 20th century, and is a reminder of just how far we've come.

The story, at least that of the first part of the film, is fairly straightforward. Jack Johnson was the son of two former slaves raised in the Jim Crow south. As Bert Sugar pointed out, boxing is one of those avenues always available to those on the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Johnson, being gifted with strength and athleticism, gravitated toward boxing which at times could mean partaking in the "battle royal", where six or so black men would be blindfolded and put in a ring to pummel each other for the amusement of drunken white men. Beyond his raw strength, Johnson develops a technique to his fighting, in contrast to the brawling style popular among both white and black fighters of the day. He continues winning fights and larger purses all across the country, but is continually denied a shot at the title because he is black. In the perverse logic of white supremacy, the best white fighter would always be superior to the best black fighter, so the white champion would never give the black contender a shot because there was too much risk of losing.

Eventually, a white champion, Tommy Burns, puts a high price on a fight which is met by an Australian promoter and Johnson gets his shot, and totally destroys Burns. The fight was being filmed for distribution, and the police stopped the filming just before the final knockout so the spectacle of a black man knocking out a white fighter would not be shown. This sets off outrage in the white community, giving rise to a series of increasingly desperate "great white hopes," none of whom are a match for Johnson. Eventually, a respected former champion is dragged out of retirement as the true "great white hope" to challenge Johnson, but he too is no match.

Burns does a good job infusing humor into the story. For example, in recounting the bout with Burns, he includes Tommy's brag that he would "beat that n&*#^* or my name ain't Tommy Burns." The irony is that his name wasn't Tommy Burns; that was just a stage name. Then there's the story of Johnson fighting the middleweight champion, who was white and a friend of Johnson's. The promise was that the smaller fighter wouldn't try to win, and the fight goes on entertainingly and in a friendly manner, but at one point he unleashed a hard right to Johnson, knocking him down for a moment. Well, even I know better than to tick off a heavyweight champion, and with the next punch Johnson knocks the guy senseless.

Race is a constant issue in the film, and Burns does a good job showing it from all angles. Johnson was savaged by whites, because he was a threat to their view of the world. To modern eyes, what was printed in respectable newspapers is quite shocking, from cartoons featuring monkeys taking over to racial slurs in headlines. But the black community also criticized him, because he was attracted to white women, and they were attracted to him.

But it is in the climax of the first part of the film that race is at its most bizarre. Imagine this scenario. A former champion boxer, undefeated in the ring but retired to a farm for six years where he has gained over 100 pounds, is dragged out of retirement to face the reigning champion who has destroyed all comers. Even a non-fan like myself would recognize the chances of the retired guy winning are pretty darned small. Yet that is the scenario at the end. Jim Jeffries was the "great white hope", the undefeated champion at the turn of the century, whom even Johnson would later call the greatest champion. But he had been retired to his farm for six years before being dragged out to fight Johnson. Any rational observer would have picked Johnson by a mile, yet Jeffries was a 10:4 favorite. The blindness of people whose fundamental beliefs are being challenged is truly amazing. In the end, it wasn't even a contest.

The voice acting in the film is superb, with Samuel L. Jackson voicing Johnson with a presence and attitude that only Jackson can bring. Overall the film is another remarkable achievement by Ken Burns, and is highly recommended to all viewers, even those who care nothing about boxing.

Andrew Kantor's Blog

I got myself quoted on Andrew Kantor's blog, in a discussion about gravity.

NFL Conference Championship Predictions

The penultimate week of the season has finally arrived. Twice during the season, in my Mid-Season Report and again near the end of the season, I predicted who would appear in the conference title games, and I was right the second time. (In my mid-season report, I picked the AFC game correctly, but for the NFC, I did not update my predictions after revising my predicted placements.)

Onto this week.

Falcons @ Eagles
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Falcons have one weapon: running back Michael Vick and his able backup Warrick Dunn. Take away their running game and you take away the Falcons. Taking away Vick has the added advantage of creating turnovers because of his propensity to fumble. The Eagle defense ranked tenth in the league in forced fumbles and tenth overall, but only #16 against the rush. Both teams feature strong defenses. The Eagles allowed fewer points than anyone in the NFC, and the Falcons had more quarterback sacks than anyone in the league. With T.O. out, the biggest weapon the Eagles have is running back Michael Westbrook, and the Falcons are solid against the run. In the end, the difference will be the experience of the Eagles and the fact that they are playing at home. The Falcons are a dome team, so playing outdoors in the cold and elements should have an impact on them. (Of course, they were the first team to defeat Green Bay in the playoffs at Lambeau, and I'm sure the weather will be better in Philadelphia than in Green Bay.) More importantly, Atlanta is 4-4 on the road this year, having lost their last three. The only Eagle loss at home was a meaningless game against the Bengals where they played the backups. Philadelphia has been the class of the NFC all season, and they will finally be rewarded with a trip to the Super Bowl. Prediction: Eagles.

Patriots @ Steelers
Let's face it, this is probably the real Super Bowl right here. As was true for the NFC in the 1980's and 90's, the cream of the AFC is far superior to the cream of the NFC this year, so whoever wins this game should win it all. I have gone both ways in the past with this game. At mid-season, I gave it to New England on the strength of experience, coaching, and Belichick's record in rematches. At the end of the season, I gave it to Pittsburgh on the strength of the Steeler passing game and the injuries in the Patriot secondary. Any questions about the ability of the Patriots to win with backups on defense were surely answered in the divisional playoff game where that beat up defense destroyed the best offense in the game. There have to be question marks about Roethlisberger's passing right now. He looked more like a rookie late in the season than he did earlier, throwing 5 interceptions in the last three games he played. The point about coaching is still valid. With a win, Belichick would tie the legendary Vince Lombardi for the best post-season record ever at 9-1, while Cowher sits at .500 with a record of losing AFC title games at home. (Ironically, the sole loss of Belichick's head coaching career came to Pittsburgh.) This is probably the best team, overall, Bill Cowher has coached. The two teams are very much mirrors of each other. Both are built in the classic style of aggressive defense, relentless running, and quality passing. Both teams win by controlling the ball on offense and shutting down the opponent's offense. On defense, the Steelers and Patriots ranked #1 and #4 respectively in points allowed, #1 and #6 in rushing yards allowed, and #10 and #7 in interceptions. On offense, the Steelers and Patriots were #2 and #7 in rushing yards per game, #11 and #4 in points scored, and #1 and #8 in time of possession. The one place there is a noticeable difference in the two teams statistically is in passing yards, where the Patriots ranked #11 and the Steelers were just #28. Though both teams score a lot of points, the game should be low scoring. Both teams are built for a ball control running game and field strong defenses. The main difference in the regular season matchup between these two teams was the absence of Corey Dillon for the Patriots, which took them out of their typical run-oriented offense, allowing Pittsburgh to monopolize time of possession, doing to the Patriots what the Patriots did to the Colts last week. This will not be an issue this week. The other main difference in that game was something I commented on in my Week 8 predictions:

What sets New England apart from the rest of the league is pre-game preparation. No team comes into a game better prepared for the opposition than New England. Their coaching staff breaks down film, reads tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses, and comes up with a game plan to exploit the weaknesses and avoid the strengths. The key to beating New England is to morph your game into something completely unexpected. This is why the unheralded Panthers put such a scare into New England in the Super Bowl. The were completely unprepared for a pass-heavy attack from Jake Delhomme. Crennel and the defense were forced to improvise a game plan, and a defense that manhandled the pass offense of Peyton Manning's Colts got beat play after play. The Steelers this week field a highly regarded rookie quarterback in only his fifth start. The Patriots will not have too much in the way of film to break down, so the defense will not have its normal preparation level, which makes it a tough game.

Without much game film at the time on Big Ben, the Patriots were not able to adequately game-plan for him. That will not be an issue this week. You can be assured the Patriots will find any and all weaknesses in his game, and figure out ways to exploit them. Therefore, the difference in the game will be the passing, and one has to trust Tom Brady much more than Ben Roethlisberger at this point. That said, one cannot forget what the Steeler defense did to Brady the last time, forcing two interceptions and a fumble. However, what is often overlooked in that game is Brady's 271 yards passing and 2 touchdown throws, all with only about 19 minutes of possession. So, it's not like Brady cannot handle today's version of the Steel Curtain. Prediction: Patriots.

Regular Season: 158-98
Playoffs: 6-2

Vikings Coaching

All season, there has been speculation about the future of Mike Tice in Minnesota. Now that he's taken the team back to the playoffs and scored a victory, over the hated Packers to boot, his position should be secure there. But to give Tice's record there a little perspective, Peter King writes

Minnesota's coaching budget this year was $2.6 million.

That's for all Vikings coaches.

Which means that at least 16 NFL head coaches made more money in 2004 than the entire Vikings coaching staff.

And the Vikings made it to the final eight.

Somebody up there -- more than just somebody -- is doing a pretty good job.

Divisional Playoff Thoughts

Though I went 4-0 predicting the divisional playoff games, few went the way I thought they would go.

All I can say about the Patriots is, WOW! So much for questions about their secondary. So much for the Colts putting up a lot of points. What a statement game that was! I should never have doubted. The part I got right was the role Dillon's running would play, "a running game that should keep Manning on the sidelines for long periods, not allowing him to get into a rhythm."

I was surprised at how the Steelers struggled to put the Jets away. Of the four teams in the AFC playoffs, the Jets were certainly the worst. The Steeler offense can be made to look unimpressive. On the other hand, one has to respect the maturity of the team, especially young Roethlisberger, in handling an overtime playoff game. But the fact is the Steelers looked far less impressive in their divisional win, needing two screw ups from the Jet place kicker to hold on, than the Patriots, who looked absolutely dominant against far better opposition.

Many have observed that no rookie quarterback has ever won the Super Bowl, and use this to argue against the Steelers. But while that is strictly true, it's really just semantics. In 2001, Tom Brady was technically not a rookie. He was in his second year. However, prior to 2001, he had appeared in one game and made three pass attempts. In 1999, Kurt Warner was technically not a rookie, he too was in his second year. But prior to 1999, he also had only appeared in one game and made eleven pass attempts. So those years were essentially their first playing NFL football, and they both won the Super Bowl. How are they substantively any different than rookies?

This year is a pretty good imitation of 2001. That year, the conference title games were New England at Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia at St. Louis. So, three of the four teams from that year are back. In an age of meteoric rises (Chargers from 4-12 to 12-4) and falls (Chiefs from 13-3 to 7-9, Titans from 12-4 to 5-11), that's remarkable. Furthermore, the Eagles have been to 4 of the last 4 NFC title games, and the Patriots 3 of the last 4. Both teams have been bastions of consistency in an otherwise turbulent league.

So much for rusty Eagles, eh? The offense looked good, but it's not too hard to look good against the Viking defense. It's the Eagle defense that stood out, getting pressure up front and interceptions deep. However, it must also be noted that the Vikings shot themselves repeatedly in the foot, from communication problems on a fake field goal that likely would have resulted in a touchdown, to drive-sustaining defensive penalties. If they had run a tighter game, who knows what might have happened. The wisdom of Reid's end-of-season moves are still debatable. In a tighter game, they could really have cost him. I would say Reid got away with it, but should think twice before doing it again.

I've said all season that the only weapon the Falcons have on offense is running back Michael Vick. Let him run free, he'll kill you. Contain his running and force him throw the ball, you'll kill him. The Rams were just not the team to contain Vick and force him to be a quarterback. The Eagles have a much better defense.

Fashionable Picks

Every year, it seems like some team rises up in the NFL all full of dazzle and spectacle on offense, and all the pundits jump on their bandwagon, only to see those teams get their butts handed to them by someone who can play defense. In 2001, the Rams were just so powerful, who could stop them? The Patriots then took them down in the Super Bowl. In 2002, the Raiders were heavy favorites in the Super Bowl because their offense was just so powerful, until the Bucs tore them apart. In 2003, many were speculating on the possibility that the Chiefs could go 16-0 and win a blowout Super Bowl, then they didn't even win a playoff game. Now, this year, it was the Colts who were just unstoppable, until the Patriots put them in their place and reminded them who was boss (again).

Offense gets all the coverage and has most of the superstars. When a high powered offense is clicking on all cylinders, fans and observers are wowed senseless. It is fashionable to go with the glamor of offense, rather than the grit of defense. Yet time and time again, when a top offense faces a top defense, who comes out on top? The defense. Someday, the so-called experts ought to learn this truth.

Telling the Story

Hypocrisy is rife among partisan political commentators. You do something bad, it's horrible. We do the same thing, well, it's not so bad. Commenting on the CBS News "story" about Bush's National Guard experience, Ann Coulter writes:

This isn't a lack of 'rigor' in fact-checking, as the CBS report suggests. It's a total absence of fact-checking. CBS found somebody who told the story they wanted told -- and they ran with it, wholly disregarding the facts.

Ann obviously disapproves of such behavior. Of course, replace one word and you get

It's a total absence of fact-checking. The Bush administration found somebody who told the story they wanted told -- and they ran with it, wholly disregarding the facts.

This, of course, describes the process by which the administration decided to initiate a war that has cost thousands their lives, with as yet no clear benefit to anyone. I think it is safe to say Ms. Coulter is not so bothered by this.

Re-signing Randy Moss

Viking star wide receiver Randy Moss is scheduled to become a free agent after this season. Though the Vikings are still alive in the playoffs, speculation is beginning on Moss' future with the team. Don Banks writes:

If the Vikings go deep into the playoffs this month, and Moss leads the way, the equation could change in Minnesota. But for now, No. 84 is dangerously close to wearing out his welcome in the Twin Cities. The reality is this: After campaigning for the Vikings head coaching job in late 2001 on the premise that he was uniquely qualified to control the uncontrollable Moss, Minnesota head coach Mike Tice now realizes that was folly. No one in the organization has the ability to keep Moss from starting his annual series of brush fires, and never have. Former head coach Dennis Green included.

There is no question that Moss is a tremendously talented receiver, perhaps the best in the game today. But signing him to a long-term contract would have serious implications for the development of the franchise. Apart from the headaches he brings to the table, the Vikings would have to commit a huge amount of money to him, which would impact both the bank account and the salary cap.

Minnesota has fielded one of the best offenses in the league the last two seasons, and Moss is a huge part of that. Their Achilles heel has been defense, or better put, the lack of anything resembling an NFL-caliber defense. The organization has already signed quarterback Daunte Culpepper to a long-term deal. Adding in the money that would have to be given to Moss would seriously impair the team's ability to sign quality defensive free agents, keeping that unit at the same mediocre level they've played at the last two years, where they are one game over .500 in the regular season.

The Indianapolis Colts were in a similar situation when the season began, with both Marvin Harrison and Edgerin James heading to free agency and Peyton Manning newly re-signed. Harrison has since signed a lucrative contract. Now a decision has to be made on James. Like Minnesota, the Colts field a dominant offense, but not much of a defense, though the Colt unit is better than Minnesota's.

This is an interesting philosophical question. Do you build one unit as strong as you can, and try to get by with what you can on the other, or do you build on both sides, knowing that neither will be as good as it could be? In other words, do you strive for the #1 offense, contenting yourself with the #25 defense, or do you strive to be in the top ten on both? I think you go for balance. Lopsided teams rarely win it all. Last year, the Vikings didn't make the playoffs and both the Colts and the Chiefs lost in the playoffs, while the less powerful Patriots won the Super Bowl. This year, the favorites in the AFC are Pittsburgh and New England, both of whom are balanced, along with Indy, and the NFC favorite is Philadelphia, which is balanced. Lopsided teams, especially those lopsided in favor of offense, look really good, until they play someone with a decent defense. I do not see Indy or Minnesota winning a Super Bowl with only offense. They will never get over that hump until they play decent defense.

On the other hand, can one really justify releasing one of the biggest stars in the game, in the prime of his career? Obviously, that would be difficult, both to sell to fans and to the rest of the team. But Minnesota is very deep on offense. They have several good running backs, and Nate Burleson is emerging as a top receiver as well. With the money they would save, as well as the draft picks they could potentially pick up in a trade, the Vikings could acquire some defensive talent to complement their offense. If it all works out, they could end up being a much better team without Moss than they are with him. It would take some bold leadership in the Viking organization, but they should definitely be open to trading Moss.

NFL Divisional Playoff Predictions

The wildcard round sure had its share of surprises. Did I really write, "The Chargers will destroy the Jets?" Uh huh. And all those stats really did bode poorly for the Vikings, didn't they? What can I say. What do you want from free predictions? Still, I did better than the so-called "experts." The picks this week are hard, especially in the NFC, both of whose games are rematches of Week 2 games, where all four teams are so average that realistically any can win. So, I don't go into these predictions with my usual confidence.

Onto this week.

Jets @ Steelers
This game should be the easiest to pick. Pittsburgh has dominated the league this year, the first AFC team ever to go 15-1. Not even the dynastic Steelers of the 70's had a 15-1 season. Their backups beat up a playoff contending team to end the season. The Jets, on the other hand, needed held just to make the playoffs, and came within an overtime 30 yard field goal attempt of losing to San Diego last week. The Jets have never in franchise history won in Pittsburgh. But, when these two teams faced off last month, the Jets handed Ben Roethlisberger his worst game as a pro. Jerome Bettis had more touchdown passes in that game than Ben did. For the first three quarters, the offense only mustered a field goal. Still, the Steeler defense did a fantastic job against the Jet offense, allowing only two field goals. And one does expect a rookie quarterback to, on occasion, play like a rookie quarterback. The Jets are plucky, but these are the Steelers. Prediction: Steelers.

Colts @ Patriots
This is the toughest game to pick of the weekend. The Pats have won the last three meetings between these two teams, including last year's AFC title game, and Peyton Manning has had well-documented problems against Bill Belichick. If both teams were healthy, a Patriot pick would be pretty easy. As good as the Colts are, they Patriots have consistently beaten them. The problem is the Patriots are not healthy, especially on defense. Both starting corners, Law and Poole, are on IR, and the injury list includes four of the corners (Samuel, Moorland, Gay, and Wilson) filling in for them. Richard Seymour, one of their star defensive linemen, is hurt and probably won't play. That means New England will send out a defensive backfield comprised of injured backups and a converted wide receiver (Troy Brown) against the most powerful passing offense in the league. That said, the Patriots have been fielding such a patchwork secondary for quite a while now, so those players have considerable experience, and they have faced good passing offenses before (Chiefs, Bengals, Jets). The key to the Patriots' success the last four years has been depth; they have quality backups. On top of that, they have a pretty good offense of their own. The Patriot offense is ranked fourth in points per game scored (the defense is fourth in points per game allowed, even with all the injuries). The Colts are all about offense, and Manning has had troubles this season against the 3-4 defense. The Patriots have a running game that should keep Manning on the sidelines for long periods, not allowing him to get into a rhythm. The game should be high scoring, since both teams put up a lot of points. But the superior Patriot defense will be the difference, and they will still emerge with a narrow victory. Prediction: Patriots.

Vikings @ Eagles
Several times, I have questioned Andy Reid's decision to bench his starters for the last two regular season games. The Eagle offense without Terrell Owens will make its debut this week against the surprising Vikings. That's actually a lucky break for Philadelphia, because they only have to worry about the Viking defense, which won't keep too many people up at night. Yes, the Vikings put on a good show defensively against the Packers. The question is, can they bring that level of play two weeks in a row? Generally, teams that go 8-8 cannot be considered consistent. They are up one week, down the next. The Vikings have not won back to back games since November, and those were against two teams, Detroit and Jacksonville, with a combined season record of 15-17. The wildcard game was a very emotional game for Minnesota, what with all the commentators dismissing them all week, giving them no chance to win, and with the questions about Randy Moss' early exit in Washington. But, can they do it again? I don't think so. As I wrote elsewhere, teams do not reinvent themselves in the playoffs, and the Vikings are not exactly known for defense. The Eagle defense, on the other hand, allowed the fewest points in the NFC this season, so they would seem to be well matched against the Viking offense. But in the Week 2 meeting between the two teams, Daunte Culpepper threw for 343 yards. The key, though, in that game was that he only threw one touchdown, whereas McNabb threw for 2 and ran for 1. Yards don't matter if they don't result in touchdowns, and against the Eagles, they probably won't. The big question mark is how much rust has accumulated in Philadelphia since their last meaningful effort? The Vikings have a very good chance, if the Eagles get off to a sluggish start. That is a huge unknown, which makes this game almost as hard to pick as the Colt-Patriot matchup. In the end, I will go with the expectation that the Vikings will have something of a letdown after the emotional win last week, and that Reid is a good enough coach to have not allowed too much rust. Prediction: Eagles.

Rams @ Falcons
Several times this season, I have commented negatively on the Falcons, in particular the absurd hype about running, err, quarter, back Michael Vick. At this point in his career, he's just not much of a quarterback, and that is how he should be evaluated, not on his running ability. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the success the Falcons have had with him as their starter. Two season, two playoff appearances. Pretty good. The Falcon defense is outstanding, especially up front where they led the league in sacks. But they do allow an inordinate number of points for such a good unit. They are especially vulnerable to the pass. The Rams, on the other hand, are another of those inconsistent teams. Prior to the last two games of the season, one of which was against a junior varsity Eagle team, the last time they won back to back games was October. Interestingly, neither defense lines up well against the other offense. The Falcons are weak against the pass, which is the Ram offensive strength. The Ram defense is horrible against the run, which is the Falcon offensive strength. In the end, everything does seem to line up for Atlanta. They are 7-1 at home (Rams 2-6 in the regular season on the road). While not very good against the pass, they are ranked higher against the pass than the Rams are against the run, so the Falcon offense should have the advantage. Prediction: Falcons.

Regular Season: 158-98
Playoffs: 2-2

Disengagement in Iraq

In Washington as a new Congress gets to work, discontent with US policy in Iraq is growing. This discontent is leading some to begin considering strategies that would disengage the United States from Iraq in the near future. The New York Times reports

The rumblings about disengagement have grown distinctly louder as members of Congress return from their districts after the winter recess, and as military officers try to game out how Sunni Arabs and Shiites might react to the election results. The annual drafting of the budget is a reminder that the American presence in Iraq is costing nearly $4.5 billion a month and putting huge strains on the military. And White House officials contemplate the political costs of a second term possibly dominated by a nightly accounting of continuing casualties.

These strategies are about changing the definition of mission success. The president's strategy is to train Iraqis to take over security and administrative tasks from US occupation forces, and to not leave until the Iraqis are fully ready to take over. A key checkpoint in the process of transition are the upcoming elections. If they come off without serious incident, that would indicate the process of growing democracy in Iraq is succeeding. If the elections are significantly disrupted, they "won't be a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict," according to former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. In other words, we would have been making appreciable progress to the goal of a self-governed Iraq.

Despite public expressions by the White House of confidence in the outcome of these elections, the Times report indicates growing concern that "about whether it is politically possible to wait until the Iraqi forces are adequately trained before pressure to start bringing back American troops becomes overwhelming."

This is the most delicate balancing act in any foreign exercise like the occupation of Iraq. Regardless of how one feels about the war itself, the fact of the matter is that we have invaded and conquered Iraq. That brings a moral obligation to do everything we can to bring about peace and stability in Iraq. We must be committed to developing a new Iraqi democracy. We cannot simply turn tail and run, as many opponents of the war would have us do. However, there is a point at which one must admit failure, where despite our best efforts and intentions, the goal is not being realized. The difficulty is in knowing where that point is, and in being willing to admit failure should that point be reached.

It was very clear in the late 1960's, certainly by the Tet Offensive in 1968, that the US mission in South Vietnam had failed. The war there was fought to put down a rebellion, and that rebellion was growing. Despite the casualties inflicted on the enemy, they kept coming. Yet, the war lasted until 1973 with thousands more Americans falling in the jungles, as well as countless Vietnamese. Having failed, why did the United States not simply withdraw? Pride. Presidents Johnson and Nixon were too proud to admit defeat, so many American young men were sacrificed on the battlefield needlessly.

The current president must learn that lesson. I am not suggesting the failure point has been reached. But, at some point, we may reach that point. It may be that our efforts are simply counterproductive, that we are part of the problem. The Times article says, "In classified strategy sessions, other administration officials say they are asking whether the sheer size of the American force, now 150,000 troops, is fueling the insurgency." In any case, the upcoming elections will indeed serve as a barometer of progress in Iraq. If those elections show that we are not making progress, then the president must be willing to face the facts and, perhaps, start considering withdrawal.

The "Expert" Pick

My 2-2 record for the wildcard round beats just about every Sports Illustrated "expert", all but one of whom went 1-3. And my regular season 158-98 compares favorably with the Yahoo "Experts," who averaged 159.5-96.5.

Wildcard Reflections

The wildcard round of the playoffs is over and it was sure full of surprises. There were at least two upsets. (Is the Ram victory an upset? I picked it, so it's not a surprise. But I guess it would have to be considered an upset too, since they were the lower seed.) The one bastion of sanity was the Colt juggernaut, which looks pretty darned unstoppable. Of course, they looked pretty unstoppable last year, too, until then they visited Foxboro.

I feel bad for the Chargers. They played their hearts out this year, defying every prediction, including my own. After all that, it comes down to a 30 yard field goal attempt in over time. I guess they should be glad they got that chance. Were it not for a stupid play by Jet linebacker Eric Barton, roughing the passer on an incomplete pass at 4th and goal that would have otherwise ended the game in regulation. But still, one wanted to see the Chargers get one playoff victory to complete their surprising season. Oh well.

To me, both personally and as a general fan, the biggest surprise had to be the Viking upset of Green Bay. The shock is not only that they won, but that they won so easily. I wrote a few times early in the season that the Packers struggle when they get forced out of their usual offense. Injuries to several key players on their offense forced them out of their preferred run-oriented offense, and out of their typical passing game. Their top two running backs were playing with rib injuries, and hardly themselves. Two of the top three receivers were out for most (Walker) or all (Ferguson) of the game. To top things off, they lose their left tackle, which forces a shuffle to the offensive line. Without a running game to worry about and facing a shuffled line, the usually overmatched Viking front seven were able to tee off on Favre, who had to rush too many throws and run out of the pocket too many times.

Then, of course, there is the issue of tackling in the Packer defense. Or, should I say, the lack of tackling. For some reason, the Packer defense is such that everyone appears to have to play perfectly for it to work. Somebody misses a tackle or make any kind of mistake, and it's over. Look at Michael Bennett's long touchdown run in the Christmas Eve game. Nick Barnett has him pegged in the backfield for a loss, but misses the tackle. No other Packer came close in the next 40 yards. Aren't there supposed to be layers of defense, such that if someone misses up front, someone else will come in downfield? Apparently, not in Green Bay. Look at Randy Moss' second touchdown, the "moon" play. Al Harris make a mistake in coverage for a split second, biting on a short crossing pattern and leaving Moss to limp past him. That split second was all that was needed. It figures, as soon as the commentators say the Packers don't need to double Moss any more, he limps past Harris and scores a touchdown which wouldn't have happened if Sharper was in double coverage.

By the way, that play has to be the finest pass I have ever seen Culpepper make. I know it sounds weird, but think about it. According to the commentators, the play was a designed run, so Daunte starts off running like he's supposed to. In an instant, he notices Moss open downfield, makes the decision to abort the run and throw, does whatever physics calculations necessary to make the throw, and, on the run, lobs a picture perfect touch pass into Moss' hands, hitting him in stride for the touchdown. That is a mature quarterback in the zone. He may throw prettier passes or longer passes, but that was one heck of a display of intelligence and physical ability coming together. (Compare that play to Favre's great display of improvisation, throwing a shovel pass for a touchdown, about four yards beyond the line of scrimmage.)

Writing about a really good throw and catch brings me to Seattle. Can anyone in Seattle be counted on to catch a ball? I know some of those catches are hard, especially the last one. But these guys get paid huge salaries to make those catches. Who was that Raider receiver back in the 80's who always slathered his hands with some kind of goop to make the ball stick to his hands? The Seahawks should get truckloads of the stuff for their guys before next season. That was just terrible. How much more can one ask of Hasselbeck? It just goes to show you football is a team sport, and someone can be the best passer in the game, but if the receivers don't catch the ball, it won't matter.

Can any of these wildcard teams win next week? Yes, especially in the junior conference. Yes, the Vikings have a shot at winning. Remember, many have been warning about rust accumulating in Philadelphia with the extended rest time given to the key players left on offense. So, if Minnesota can play defense as well next week as they did this week, this have a chance. Of course, I don't think too many teams totally re-invent themselves in the playoffs, so don't hold your breath.

Gonzales' Impact on National Security

Comparing Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales to a "sleazy attorney advising a client on how not to be convicted of an ongoing crime," Robert Scheer of The Nation writes

a group of military legal experts, including Rear Adm. John Hutson, who was recently the Navy's judge advocate general, released a letter to the Judiciary Committee noting that Gonzales' recommendations "fostered greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world."

How could anyone vote to confirm a man whose legal writings have added to the risks facing US soldiers in the field?

Professionals in the State Department

In reporting on Secretary of State-designate Rice's choice of a deputy, the Washingon Post observes

What is striking about Zoellick and others being talked about as candidates for top jobs at State, foreign policy analysts said, is that most of them are professional diplomats.

Why is this striking? This is a strange statement. Who does the Post expect to fill top diplomatic posts, bums off the street? What's next, the "striking" observation that the CIA is hiring professional from the espionage community? Maybe the Treasury will hire economic professionals? How striking would that be?

Balkin on Gonzales

Jack Balkin writes

The hearings on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States have begun. Will no one in Congress say what should be obvious? That Gonzales has brought shame on our country by trying to devise legal strategies and arguments to circumvent laws against torture and to define away the abuse of prisoners? That such a man should not be the nation's chief law enforcement officer? This is not mere cronyism or financial corruption we are talking about. It is torture.

How can we tell the other countries of the world that we are genuinely interested in democracy or in human rights? Who will listen to us when our own soldiers are captured and abused?

Who indeed.

NFL Wild Card Predictions

The post-season is upon us. During the season, I made multiple predictions on playoff seeding and game outcomes. My most recent seed predictions were fairly accurate for the AFC, only missing on the 6th seed. I was much more off for the NFC, where I swapped Minnesota and Green Bay, and missed again on St. Louis. Now we will get into the details of each game.

Each of the four wild card games this weekend is a rematch of at least one regular season game, which can be a guide to predicting the rematch winners, but not necessarily. For the NFC games, both feature matchups between division rivals and in which one team swept the other in the two regular season matchups.

Onto this week.

Vikings @ Packers
I'm not one to put undue faith in stats. Stats rarely tell the whole story. Therefore, let's look at some recent stats. The Packers have win the last three matchups with Minnesota. The Vikings have lost 20 of their last 21 games outdoors, though it should be noted the one win was at Lambeau last season. In the last matchup between the two teams on Christmas Eve, the Packer defense did a very good job stopping the Viking offense in the second half, allowing the offense only one field goal. The Vikings are 3-7 in their last ten games, whereas the Packers are 8-2 over their last ten. The Vikings are 1-4 in their last five games, and the one win was by a point due to a botched extra point attempt. The Vikings are having some personnel issues in the locker room this week, thanks to Randy Moss' most recent outburst of immaturity. None of this bodes well for the Vikings. Prediction: Packers.

Rams @ Seahawks
Seattle never really recovered from their fourth quarter collapse against the Rams in Week 5. They finished fairly well, with a two game winning streak, including a win over the second seeded Falcons (who rested their starters for much of the game) in the season finale. But neither game was impressive. The Rams also finished with a two game winning streak, against the Eagle second string and the Jets. I am not a big fan of the Rams, but the Seahawks are just too inconsistent. Few of their wins have been impressive. The Rams have the experience of being in the post-season, and have swept the Seahawks this year, something which I'm sure is in the back of every Seattle player's mind. Prediction: Rams.

Broncos @ Colts
For the second year in a row, the Colts open the playoffs hosting Denver, in a rematch of a late December regular season game. Denver won last year in the regular season, and in last week's finale, and both by impressive margins. But the Colts destroyed the Broncos in the playoffs last year. Denver has the weapons to be a dangerous team in the playoffs, but like Seattle, they are far too inconsistent. Jake Plummer set a franchise single season passing record and tied the franchise touchdown pass record, but also threw 20 interceptions. Now, sometimes high touchdown numbers go hand in hand with high interception numbers. Kurt Warner in 2001 led the league in both categories, and his team went to the Super Bowl. The difference was that Warner's interceptions did not cost his team games, whereas Plummer's have. On paper, this matchup would seem to favor Denver. Both teams have powerful running games and powerful passing games. But the Broncos have the better defense (4th in the league, versus Indy's 29th ranked D). But that defense has been burned by other top offenses, e.g. the Chiefs three weeks ago. And in terms of points scored, the Broncos have less than a three point per game advantage over Indianapolis (19.0 for Denver, 21.9 for the Colts). That's really the only stat that matters, and the Broncos advantage is not large, and far less than the Colts' 8.8 point advantage in points scored (32.6 for Indy, 23.8 for Denver). Prediction: Colts.

Jets @ Chargers
This is the only game this weekend without a lot of recent history between the two teams. The Jets won the matchup in San Diego in Week 2. But that was back when Charger fans were still booing the team and Drew Brees was barely hanging onto a job. A lot has changed since then. The Chargers have developed into one of the dominant teams in the AFC, with an explosive offense and an improving defense. The Jets have had a good season (they are in the playoffs after all), but have not looked good against better opponents. In the six games they have played against teams in this year's playoffs, they have only won against the Chargers and Seahawks, and the Charger win deserves an asterisk because of where San Diego was then. The Jets do have several things going for them. They have the league's leading rusher in Curtis Martin and a defense that is tied for second fewest points allowed. But their passing game has been unimpressive overall, and they have lost three of their last four games. The Chargers have won three of their last four, and in fact nine of their last 10. Only the Colts have stopped them, and that by a mere field goal in a game they probably should have won. The Chargers will destroy the Jets. Prediction: Chargers.

Regular Season: 158-98
Playoffs: 0-0

Yet Another Comment on Benching Starters

This is definitely an ongoing theme for me at the end of the NFL season. From Brett Favre:

Any regular-season game, regardless of your situation, to me is important. I look at Denver last year when they played us. They had just beat Indy the week before and sat most of their guys and didn't play all that well. I don't think they gave it much effort and then they went back the next week and got crushed by Indianapolis (in the playoffs).

I just think that the morale is better. I don't see any plusses in not playing the game to win.

More on Eagles Benching Starters

Continuing on my theme of the possible repercussions of Andy Reid's decision to bench his primary starters for the last two weeks, Brian Baldinger writes

By the time the Eagles play in the divisional round of the playoffs, they will have gone a month without their starters playing competitive football. That's a long time to be sitting around. The Eagles are approaching the playoffs like many teams approach the preseason -- sitting the regulars, then hoping they can flip a switch and play at a high level. Some teams can do that, but many can't, which is why there are so many early-season upsets. Similarly, teams that haven't had everyone on the field playing together at game speed are ripe for a postseason upset.

Baldinger closes with the ominous warning, "I understand Reid's reasoning, but I'll be surprised if it doesn't backfire on him -- and cost the team a trip to the Super Bowl."

Quick Thoughts on the Season

Well, the NFL season is now over. As far as my picks go, my streak of double digit right picks ended this week, with a 9-7 performance for a season total of 158-98. Not too bad. In the Yahoo Pro Pick'Em contest, that gets me in the 95th percentile. I will continue to make my picks in the post-season.

I really like what Cris Carter had to say about the Eagle approach to the last two weeks:

I really believe the Eagles went about the last two weeks the wrong way. They suffered back-to-back, very lopsided losses, and it's not easy to turn it on when you get into the playoffs.

Of course, the Eagles will be heavily favored when they begin the playoffs, but they could've gotten a good test from Cincinnati to answer some questions about their run and deep-pass defenses. Also, Donovan McNabb could've gotten some reps with the team's young receivers, Greg Lewis in particular, to see what kind of chemistry they might have. I think this is going to come back and haunt the Eagles.

I wrote something similar last week. The last time the starting Eagle offense was on the field for extended play, they did not look good against the Cowboys, only mustering 12 points. That offense needed the last couple of games to work on their chemistry in preparation for the playoffs. Without it, the Eagles will come out rusty and underprepared in the divisional playoff game, so do not be surprised to see an early exit for the Eagles.

The Steelers look truly dominating. Playing primarily backups, they easily handled what looked like a playoff team in Buffalo. The backup defense did a great job against what has been a powerful offense, and the backup offense did a pretty good job against one of the better defenses. This team is going to be hard to beat in the playoffs.

This is the second straight year the Vikings have started strong and then endured a 3-7 record to close out the season. If it's any consolation to the Viking fans, look at San Diego. They followed the same pattern for two years, followed those with a truly disastrous 2003, but then look at 2004. I really cannot say why the Vikings don't do better. They have all the offensive weapons they need, though I note they are one of the most highly sacked teams in the league. Everyone knows their defense stinks, but neither Green Bay nor Indianapolis are blessed with great defenses either, and they win. Both those teams have difference making players on the defensive line, KGB for the Packers and Freeney for the Colts. The Vikings don't have anyone up front. I don't know that that's the difference, but it is noteworthy. Earlier in the season, I referenced a stat from Monday Night Football that showed the Vikings are very bad at making comebacks. Based on that, one would expect to see a team hovering around .500, which they have the last two seasons. One also has to note the Viking struggles against weaker teams. They just don't get up for games a lot of the time, and they lose.

I'm amazed at Bronco fans. They have been booing Jake Plummer often this season. Yet, Plummer has set a franchise record for total yardage and tied the record for touchdown passes. The legendary John Elway never had a season as good as Plummer's, in those statistical categories. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying Plummer is in Elway's league. Come on. Elway is one of the two or three best quarterbacks of the last quarter century. But, it's not like Plummer is stinking up the place either. He's still too inconsistent, making bad decisions that result in 20 interceptions (tied for fifth most in the league). One has to question whether he will ever overcome those bad habits at this stage of his career, where things are pretty deeply ingrained. But, come one. Two straight seasons in the playoffs for the first time AE (after Elway) and franchise records in production this year. Give the guy a little break. He isn't that bad.

The Redskins are not in as bad a shape as their 6-10 record appears. They won 3 of their last 5, and the two losses were by a total of 6 points. In the three wins, they put up a minimum of 21 points. (That for a team that had put up a maximum of 18 over the first 11 games.) The have one of the best defenses in the league, and Clinton Portis as the starting running back. Joe Gibbs' biggest mistake was making Brunell the starter, a mistake compounded by his refusal to acknowledge the failure that decision was, staying far too long with Brunell. With Ramsey as the starter from training camp on next year, the 'Skins can be competitive, especially in a sad NFC.

The playoffs should be exciting. All four division winners in the AFC have a realistic shot at making the Super Bowl, though I noted above the dominance of the Steelers. With the Eagles being brought back to Earth, the NFC is wide open. My first take would be that the Eagles, Falcons, and Packers all have realistic chances of making the big game. But the AFC will still take it in the end.

Long-Term Detention

The Washington Post reports

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations.

One of the proposals is

the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries. The prisons would be operated by those countries.

As part of this proposal, the US will

build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, according to defense officials.

This has long been one of the most disgraceful parts of the administration's approach to the so-called war on terror. The government has no evidence to charge these people with crimes, so really they have no idea if they are terrorists or not. But they get imprisoned anyway. Not only do they get imprisoned, they are denied access to lawyers, never charged with a crime, and given no means of getting out of prison. Essentially, the government picks up people and locks them away, perhaps for life, without ever having to justify the detention.

That this is blatantly unconstitutional is immediately obvious. (Among other things, the Constitution provides the right to habeas corpus, i.e. the right of a prisoner to be brought before a judge to challenge the lawfulness of the imprisonment, and a right to due process.) This was shown in the Hamdi case, where the government's indefinite detention of a terror suspect was declared unconstitutional. Hence, the idea of transferring the prisoners to foreign nations where things like the Constitution, rule of law, and American way will not get in the way of things.

This is despicable, and not a little scary. Just think, we get four more years of this.