This is an email I got on the upcoming wireless meetings in New York:
I just wanted to remind everyone of our upcoming hearing on wireless Internet access in New York City parks on Monday, May 15 at 1 PM in the Committee Room, City Hall. Apologies for the lateness of this reminder. If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Baker (jeffrey.baker@council.nyc.ny.us / 212-788-9193), Counsel to the Committee on Technology in Government, or Colleen Pagter (colleen.pagter@council.nyc.ny.us), Policy Analyst to the Committee on Technology in Government.
On Monday, May 15, 1:00 to 4:00 PM in the Committee Room, City Hall, the Committee on Technology in Government, chaired by Council Member Gale Brewer, will be holding a joint oversight hearing with the Committee on Parks, chaired by Council Member Helen Foster of the Bronx, on the topic of wireless Internet access in New York City parks. The Parks Department, the Central Park Conservancy and several private technology providers are expected to testify.
On Thursday, May 18, 1:00 to 2:00 PM, the Council Chambers, City Hall, the Committee on Land Use and the Committee on Technology in Government will hold the Executive Budget Hearing with the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications.
As always, the public is welcome. No RSVP is necessary.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Matt Leinart Rags On The Media - ESPN.Com
Matt's a little upset with the media and bloggers like me. But what he doesn't understand is that he's public figure and that anything he does -- especially in an Internet world -- gets reported immediately and often.
What he also fails to mention are the perks he gets for being "Matt Leinart:" the free dinners, the killer table at Spago, the loaner cars, and so on.
When I headed the effort to bring the Super Bowl to Oakland, I worked a 14-day stretch with about four hours of sleep per night. Then, after a "Master Of The Universe" type day, I went out and had cocktails -- lots of them. The end result was that I fell asleep at the wheel of my car and almost ended up in an accident because I went the wrong way up a freeway ramp.
The story was in the Oakland Tribune. I offered to resign, but the City Manager, Robert Bobb, didn't take it, saying "I guess you understand that you're a public figure now."
Yep.
Here's Matt
Leinart feels image is blown out of proportion
By Matt Leinart
Special to ESPN.com
Editor's note: Former USC QB Matt Leinart gave ESPN.com an exclusive look into his life leading up to and following the NFL draft.
My draft party in Las Vegas last week was great. I had been looking forward to it since I was in New York City for the NFL draft. It wasn't meant to be a spectacle. It was meant to be a place where I could get away and enjoy myself one last time with my close family and friends. That's all it was. I had a great time. My family had a nice dinner. It was an intimate setting. It was a celebration.
People can make whatever they want about it. It amazes me what went on in the media in regard to Paris Hilton following my party.
There are people in the media who just want to see what they want to see and write what they want to write. "Oh he's linked with so and so." No, I'm hanging out with someone who's a friend.
It's all this media attention. I guess you could say it's my fault, but at the same time, I'm just being a normal dude. It's hard because people who are close to me know who I am and how I act. I'm hanging out and having a good time with friends. I have my circle of friends who I've known since I was younger and trust. Then there are people who I've built relationships with in the L.A. world. There are guys in my situation that would've been a hundred million times worse than me. I didn't take advantage of anything. I haven't done anything other than be a normal person.
Celebrities have no privacy. When I was growing up, I used to look at them differently because of their fame. They're always in the tabloids. When something is said about them and you don't know if it's true, you just choose to believe it's true because it's written. It's entertainment. They're stories. My life has almost become a part of that for whatever reason.
Celebrities are really just normal people. They're just as normal as any other human being. The media portrays them in a certain way. It constantly involves their private life and it sucks. It really does. I've gotten a taste of that. It's always: Who am I dating? I'm not dating anyone. I'm really not. There's no time for me to date anybody. I hang out with people. I have a good time. I turned 23 years old today. What people don't even realize is that I was in a relationship for a year that just ended a few months back. It's a joke.
Everywhere I go and everybody I talk to gets out in the media. It makes me look a certain way when in reality I'm just a normal guy. I'm having a good time. I realize I have to make good choices and I've done all the right things. It just sucks. I'm not going to sit in my house every night, play with my thumbs and not go out.
Some of these people in the media are just a joke. I realize people are doing their jobs, but there are some people who aren't doing a good job of it. They like getting involved in people's business. They like making people miserable and bending the truth just to make their stories look good. That's all the gossip magazines are. That's what the draft became. I was really disappointed in the process because it takes away from the football. It gets to all the other little technical stuff. I realize that's part of it, but what does me being too "Hollywood" or being from L.A. have to do with me playing football? It doesn't make sense. These people have nothing else to say. I had a great three years. There's really nothing bad to say, so of course they want to say something bad. They just want to find the negatives.
My No. 1 priority is football. It always has been football. Look at my résumé. Look at the last three years. I still had to deal with all the media and "Hollywood" stuff that's going on. It didn't affect my play. I can guarantee you there were thousands of football players out there doing worse things than me. No one even gave a crap about what they were doing. It's dumb, if you ask me.
I put all my time and effort into being a football player. I want to be the best quarterback I can possibly be. I want to win the Super Bowl. I want to be in the Pro Bowl. I have goals and expectations.
When my teammates in Arizona get to know me, they're going to see I'm just a normal dude that came from L.A., loves football, and is going to be a leader.
I'm not going to let the media and all these other people control my life. I'm better than that.
What he also fails to mention are the perks he gets for being "Matt Leinart:" the free dinners, the killer table at Spago, the loaner cars, and so on.
When I headed the effort to bring the Super Bowl to Oakland, I worked a 14-day stretch with about four hours of sleep per night. Then, after a "Master Of The Universe" type day, I went out and had cocktails -- lots of them. The end result was that I fell asleep at the wheel of my car and almost ended up in an accident because I went the wrong way up a freeway ramp.
The story was in the Oakland Tribune. I offered to resign, but the City Manager, Robert Bobb, didn't take it, saying "I guess you understand that you're a public figure now."
Yep.
Here's Matt
Leinart feels image is blown out of proportion
By Matt Leinart
Special to ESPN.com
Editor's note: Former USC QB Matt Leinart gave ESPN.com an exclusive look into his life leading up to and following the NFL draft.
My draft party in Las Vegas last week was great. I had been looking forward to it since I was in New York City for the NFL draft. It wasn't meant to be a spectacle. It was meant to be a place where I could get away and enjoy myself one last time with my close family and friends. That's all it was. I had a great time. My family had a nice dinner. It was an intimate setting. It was a celebration.
People can make whatever they want about it. It amazes me what went on in the media in regard to Paris Hilton following my party.
There are people in the media who just want to see what they want to see and write what they want to write. "Oh he's linked with so and so." No, I'm hanging out with someone who's a friend.
It's all this media attention. I guess you could say it's my fault, but at the same time, I'm just being a normal dude. It's hard because people who are close to me know who I am and how I act. I'm hanging out and having a good time with friends. I have my circle of friends who I've known since I was younger and trust. Then there are people who I've built relationships with in the L.A. world. There are guys in my situation that would've been a hundred million times worse than me. I didn't take advantage of anything. I haven't done anything other than be a normal person.
Celebrities have no privacy. When I was growing up, I used to look at them differently because of their fame. They're always in the tabloids. When something is said about them and you don't know if it's true, you just choose to believe it's true because it's written. It's entertainment. They're stories. My life has almost become a part of that for whatever reason.
Celebrities are really just normal people. They're just as normal as any other human being. The media portrays them in a certain way. It constantly involves their private life and it sucks. It really does. I've gotten a taste of that. It's always: Who am I dating? I'm not dating anyone. I'm really not. There's no time for me to date anybody. I hang out with people. I have a good time. I turned 23 years old today. What people don't even realize is that I was in a relationship for a year that just ended a few months back. It's a joke.
Everywhere I go and everybody I talk to gets out in the media. It makes me look a certain way when in reality I'm just a normal guy. I'm having a good time. I realize I have to make good choices and I've done all the right things. It just sucks. I'm not going to sit in my house every night, play with my thumbs and not go out.
Some of these people in the media are just a joke. I realize people are doing their jobs, but there are some people who aren't doing a good job of it. They like getting involved in people's business. They like making people miserable and bending the truth just to make their stories look good. That's all the gossip magazines are. That's what the draft became. I was really disappointed in the process because it takes away from the football. It gets to all the other little technical stuff. I realize that's part of it, but what does me being too "Hollywood" or being from L.A. have to do with me playing football? It doesn't make sense. These people have nothing else to say. I had a great three years. There's really nothing bad to say, so of course they want to say something bad. They just want to find the negatives.
My No. 1 priority is football. It always has been football. Look at my résumé. Look at the last three years. I still had to deal with all the media and "Hollywood" stuff that's going on. It didn't affect my play. I can guarantee you there were thousands of football players out there doing worse things than me. No one even gave a crap about what they were doing. It's dumb, if you ask me.
I put all my time and effort into being a football player. I want to be the best quarterback I can possibly be. I want to win the Super Bowl. I want to be in the Pro Bowl. I have goals and expectations.
When my teammates in Arizona get to know me, they're going to see I'm just a normal dude that came from L.A., loves football, and is going to be a leader.
I'm not going to let the media and all these other people control my life. I'm better than that.
I've Never Heard Of A Divore Party Until Now
I was riding with my godmother and Mom while here visiting Atlanta, and my godmother mentioned something about a "Divorce Party." I'd never even knew that existed, so I did some research. Click on the link to this post for more information.
What's funny to me is the "Whom To Invite" section:
"Whom to invite
People who have been through divorce are usually the best guests to invite to your divorce party. Your divorce lawyer will probably appreciate being invited but probably won't come. Most women I know invite only other women, and most men I know (who are far less likely to throw divorce parties) invite both genders. Because of the probability you're going to get stupid, you probably should avoid inviting anyone from your workplace or others whose impression of you would change if they see you in a (ahem) state.
Unless you and your spouse are really cooperative, your divorce party is no place for your children, even if they're adult children. Your children need to maintain as good a relationship as possible with both their parents, and inviting them to your divorce party is unlikely to help.
I'm going to scare many of you when I say this, but you shouldn't think it heretical to invite your STBX. For many of you, the whole idea of this is to celebrate not being with your spouse, and if so, you shouldn't consider inviting your STBX. But knowing as I do that most couples who divorce don't hate their spouse, I understand that far more divorcing spouses get along with their STBX than the culture realizes. If you and your STBX still have friends and interests in common and would enjoy spending the evening together, by all means throw a party together."
..Interesting!
What's funny to me is the "Whom To Invite" section:
"Whom to invite
People who have been through divorce are usually the best guests to invite to your divorce party. Your divorce lawyer will probably appreciate being invited but probably won't come. Most women I know invite only other women, and most men I know (who are far less likely to throw divorce parties) invite both genders. Because of the probability you're going to get stupid, you probably should avoid inviting anyone from your workplace or others whose impression of you would change if they see you in a (ahem) state.
Unless you and your spouse are really cooperative, your divorce party is no place for your children, even if they're adult children. Your children need to maintain as good a relationship as possible with both their parents, and inviting them to your divorce party is unlikely to help.
I'm going to scare many of you when I say this, but you shouldn't think it heretical to invite your STBX. For many of you, the whole idea of this is to celebrate not being with your spouse, and if so, you shouldn't consider inviting your STBX. But knowing as I do that most couples who divorce don't hate their spouse, I understand that far more divorcing spouses get along with their STBX than the culture realizes. If you and your STBX still have friends and interests in common and would enjoy spending the evening together, by all means throw a party together."
..Interesting!
More On The Houston Texans / Profootballtalk.com War - A Motherload Of Rumors Of "Backstabbing" Fears In The Texans Organization
Forio at Profootballtalk.com knows how to stoke the fires of ire. This time, he's obviously got the hairs of Houston Texans representatives standing on end with a constant flow of rumors about Charley Casserly. Forio's good at communicating what he's told, but should note it as rumor until confirmed. Writing "a league source tells us" can only work for so long.
But with this post it's apparent that Profootballtalk.com's launching a kind of nasty attempt to throw all of the possible Texans-related heresay rumors out in one shot. This could backfire. I do agree with Forio regarding how the Houston Chronicle covered the Casserly story, but there's also a fine line of access to the team they have to protect. Forio -- it seems -- doesn't have such concerns.
I mean it's not a CIA-level issue, so some level of care should be excercized. But that written, I love Forio's work.
Here's the latest:
McCLAIN MOPS UP
Renowned and respected NFL journalist John McClain of the Houston Chronicle, who has drawn our ire of late with his decidedly un-journalistic approach to the dissolution of the relationship between Texans owner Bob McNair and G.M. Charley Casserly, finished the job in grand fashion in the paper's Thursday edition with a headline proclaiming that "McNair Rejects Reports That Casserly Was Fired."
Since we're the only quasi-publication that ever reported that Casserly was getting the heave-ho -- and since we received multiple communications from the team's front office disputing our report -- it's clear that McClain was referring to us.
McClain says that McNair "emphatically" denied that Charley got the pointy-toed boot. "No, he has not been fired, so you can forget that," McNair said during the press conference announcing Casserly's departure.
McClain also writes that Casserly is not happy with reports that his exit wasn't voluntary. "Yeah, I am upset about that," Casserly said. "I'm glad that question was asked and Bob answered it. I have not been fired. There's absolutely no truth to it. I could have stayed on but chose not to."
Apparently, however, NO ONE has asked McNair or Casserly whether there will be a buyout of the final year of Charley's deal. As we've recently explained, G.M.'s and coaches who get fired are entitled to continue to be paid. G.M.'s and coaches who quit on their own with no input or pressure from the organization are not. If (as we've heard from multiple sources) Casserly received a buyout, the implication is that the move wasn't truly a resignation.
There's more objective evidence to suggest that this wasn't Charley's decision. He wants to become the NFL's vice president of football operations, a position that was vacated earlier this year by Art Shell. But Charley hasn't applied for the job yet.
So who in his right mind quits the job he now has before finding out whether he'll get the job that he desires?
With the NFL currently in the very early stages of a search for the next Commissioner, don't you think that the folks at Park Avenue might decide to wait on permanently filling that position until, you know, the guy who'll be running the place after Paul Tagliabue steps down has a chance to provide his input? So it would have made sense for Casserly to stay put for another year, see how the Commissioner selection process plays out, work subtly behind the scenes to figure out who will likely be the next Commish, throw support and effort behind that person, and let nature take its course.
Unless, of course, Casserly was pushed.
And we firmly believe, based on everything we've heard, that he was.
An industry source informed us on Wednesday that Broncos coach Mike Shanahan warned new Texans coach Gary Kubiak that Casserly would try to claim credit if/when Kubiak turns the team around. Thus, the thinking is that Kubiak concluded that Casserly needed to go. The source also told us that Casserly still wanted the team to select Reggie Bush with the first overall pick in the draft, and that it was McNair and Kubiak who came together and decided that Mario Williams was the right call -- especially since Kubiak's offenses in Denver churned up plenty of yards with no-name tailbacks.
Why do we care about any of this? Because we've got a low tolerance for bullsh-t. And we think that's precisely what the Texans have cooked up -- and what McClain has been serving with a side of home fries.
Finally, some might wonder why McNair would be so adamant that Casserly wasn't fired. Here's our theory. McNair feels genuine gratitude for Casserly's efforts, and McNair wants him to be able to leave on a positive note -- regardless of anything that was said or done behind closed doors. Besides, successful sports franchises don't fire key employees, because successful sports franchises don't hire employees who later should be fired. We've actually heard this week that McNair didn't want to fire coach Dom Capers, and we believe that the "firing everyone will make us look stupid for hiring them in the first place" dynamic played a role in McNair's thinking. In McNair's mind, poop-canning the team's original head coach and original G.M. after a 2-14 effort in the franchise's fourth season of play could be seen as an implicit admission that, to date, the Texans have failed.
Of course, they have failed on the field. (In the bank accounts, it's a different story.) Regardless, the last guy who should be declaring defeat at a time the team is launching a new era with Reggie, er, Mario Williams is the dude who owns the joint.
But with this post it's apparent that Profootballtalk.com's launching a kind of nasty attempt to throw all of the possible Texans-related heresay rumors out in one shot. This could backfire. I do agree with Forio regarding how the Houston Chronicle covered the Casserly story, but there's also a fine line of access to the team they have to protect. Forio -- it seems -- doesn't have such concerns.
I mean it's not a CIA-level issue, so some level of care should be excercized. But that written, I love Forio's work.
Here's the latest:
McCLAIN MOPS UP
Renowned and respected NFL journalist John McClain of the Houston Chronicle, who has drawn our ire of late with his decidedly un-journalistic approach to the dissolution of the relationship between Texans owner Bob McNair and G.M. Charley Casserly, finished the job in grand fashion in the paper's Thursday edition with a headline proclaiming that "McNair Rejects Reports That Casserly Was Fired."
Since we're the only quasi-publication that ever reported that Casserly was getting the heave-ho -- and since we received multiple communications from the team's front office disputing our report -- it's clear that McClain was referring to us.
McClain says that McNair "emphatically" denied that Charley got the pointy-toed boot. "No, he has not been fired, so you can forget that," McNair said during the press conference announcing Casserly's departure.
McClain also writes that Casserly is not happy with reports that his exit wasn't voluntary. "Yeah, I am upset about that," Casserly said. "I'm glad that question was asked and Bob answered it. I have not been fired. There's absolutely no truth to it. I could have stayed on but chose not to."
Apparently, however, NO ONE has asked McNair or Casserly whether there will be a buyout of the final year of Charley's deal. As we've recently explained, G.M.'s and coaches who get fired are entitled to continue to be paid. G.M.'s and coaches who quit on their own with no input or pressure from the organization are not. If (as we've heard from multiple sources) Casserly received a buyout, the implication is that the move wasn't truly a resignation.
There's more objective evidence to suggest that this wasn't Charley's decision. He wants to become the NFL's vice president of football operations, a position that was vacated earlier this year by Art Shell. But Charley hasn't applied for the job yet.
So who in his right mind quits the job he now has before finding out whether he'll get the job that he desires?
With the NFL currently in the very early stages of a search for the next Commissioner, don't you think that the folks at Park Avenue might decide to wait on permanently filling that position until, you know, the guy who'll be running the place after Paul Tagliabue steps down has a chance to provide his input? So it would have made sense for Casserly to stay put for another year, see how the Commissioner selection process plays out, work subtly behind the scenes to figure out who will likely be the next Commish, throw support and effort behind that person, and let nature take its course.
Unless, of course, Casserly was pushed.
And we firmly believe, based on everything we've heard, that he was.
An industry source informed us on Wednesday that Broncos coach Mike Shanahan warned new Texans coach Gary Kubiak that Casserly would try to claim credit if/when Kubiak turns the team around. Thus, the thinking is that Kubiak concluded that Casserly needed to go. The source also told us that Casserly still wanted the team to select Reggie Bush with the first overall pick in the draft, and that it was McNair and Kubiak who came together and decided that Mario Williams was the right call -- especially since Kubiak's offenses in Denver churned up plenty of yards with no-name tailbacks.
Why do we care about any of this? Because we've got a low tolerance for bullsh-t. And we think that's precisely what the Texans have cooked up -- and what McClain has been serving with a side of home fries.
Finally, some might wonder why McNair would be so adamant that Casserly wasn't fired. Here's our theory. McNair feels genuine gratitude for Casserly's efforts, and McNair wants him to be able to leave on a positive note -- regardless of anything that was said or done behind closed doors. Besides, successful sports franchises don't fire key employees, because successful sports franchises don't hire employees who later should be fired. We've actually heard this week that McNair didn't want to fire coach Dom Capers, and we believe that the "firing everyone will make us look stupid for hiring them in the first place" dynamic played a role in McNair's thinking. In McNair's mind, poop-canning the team's original head coach and original G.M. after a 2-14 effort in the franchise's fourth season of play could be seen as an implicit admission that, to date, the Texans have failed.
Of course, they have failed on the field. (In the bank accounts, it's a different story.) Regardless, the last guy who should be declaring defeat at a time the team is launching a new era with Reggie, er, Mario Williams is the dude who owns the joint.
Rumor - Ex- Houston Texans Casserly Reportedly Believed Bush Wasn't Telling Truth About Agent Problems - Profootballtalk.com
Another Charley Casserly-related rumor from Profootballtalk.com. This one has sting and gives some look into why Reggie Bush didn't become a Texan. But if this is the case, why did the Saints feel obligated to take the Heisman Trophy-winner with the second pick? What did Bush say? Did the Texans have a PI looking at Bush? Or is Profootballtalk.com just being fed a rumor to put the Bush story back into play?
Here's what was on Profootballtalk.com
CASSERLY THINKS BUSH WASN'T TRUTHFUL
A league source tells us that former Texans G.M. Charley Casserly believes running back Reggie Bush was not truthful in a pre-draft interview with Casserly and Texans owner Bob McNair regarding reports that Bush and/or his family received benefits in violation of NCAA rules during his career at USC.
The source contacted us on this point in specific response to our recent suggestion that Casserly wanted to select Bush with the No. 1 overall pick in the draft, even after McNair and coach Gary Kubiak had decided to focus on Mario Williams.
Per the source, Casserly and McNair both concluded after interviewing Bush regarding the reports that they did not believe him. Thus, they decided that they didn't want Bush to be the face of the franchise moving forward.
We're also told that Casserly, a member of the competition committee prior to his official Wednesday resignation, had been arguing vehemently against allowing Bush to wear No. 5 as a member of the Saints, and that Casserly's position was influenced by the belief that Bush had not been truthful -- and by his opinion that the situation surrounding Bush embarrassed the league in the days leading up to the draft.
Officially, the league and the competition committee have taken no action regarding Bush's request, according to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The jersey numbering system, which is reviewed and modified from time to time, is on the [competition committee's] agenda," he said in a Thursday morning e-mail. "Whether it will be presented for a vote at the league meeting in Denver on May 23 is TBD."
Most of the league insiders to whom we have spoken believe that Bush's request ultimately will be rejected. When one player can dictate NFL rule changes, where does the process stop? And what kind of a message does that send to guys like Edgerrin James, who has wanted to wear No. 5 since joining the league in 1999?
Also, the notion of the league bending for Bush could imply to the casual observer that Bush is somehow bigger than the league. When the USFL changed its jersey rules in the mid-1980s as an inducement to get Michigan receiver Anthony Carter (who wanted to wear No. 1), the move was further evidence that the "other" football league was a chicken sh-t operation.
Does the NFL really want to be in that same category? We doubt it. Not for Bush. Not for anyone.
Here's what was on Profootballtalk.com
CASSERLY THINKS BUSH WASN'T TRUTHFUL
A league source tells us that former Texans G.M. Charley Casserly believes running back Reggie Bush was not truthful in a pre-draft interview with Casserly and Texans owner Bob McNair regarding reports that Bush and/or his family received benefits in violation of NCAA rules during his career at USC.
The source contacted us on this point in specific response to our recent suggestion that Casserly wanted to select Bush with the No. 1 overall pick in the draft, even after McNair and coach Gary Kubiak had decided to focus on Mario Williams.
Per the source, Casserly and McNair both concluded after interviewing Bush regarding the reports that they did not believe him. Thus, they decided that they didn't want Bush to be the face of the franchise moving forward.
We're also told that Casserly, a member of the competition committee prior to his official Wednesday resignation, had been arguing vehemently against allowing Bush to wear No. 5 as a member of the Saints, and that Casserly's position was influenced by the belief that Bush had not been truthful -- and by his opinion that the situation surrounding Bush embarrassed the league in the days leading up to the draft.
Officially, the league and the competition committee have taken no action regarding Bush's request, according to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The jersey numbering system, which is reviewed and modified from time to time, is on the [competition committee's] agenda," he said in a Thursday morning e-mail. "Whether it will be presented for a vote at the league meeting in Denver on May 23 is TBD."
Most of the league insiders to whom we have spoken believe that Bush's request ultimately will be rejected. When one player can dictate NFL rule changes, where does the process stop? And what kind of a message does that send to guys like Edgerrin James, who has wanted to wear No. 5 since joining the league in 1999?
Also, the notion of the league bending for Bush could imply to the casual observer that Bush is somehow bigger than the league. When the USFL changed its jersey rules in the mid-1980s as an inducement to get Michigan receiver Anthony Carter (who wanted to wear No. 1), the move was further evidence that the "other" football league was a chicken sh-t operation.
Does the NFL really want to be in that same category? We doubt it. Not for Bush. Not for anyone.
Seattle Seahawks Plan New Headquarters in Renton, WA - Seattle PI
Seahawks have grand plans for new headquarters
By DANNY O'NEIL
SEATTLE P-I REPORTER
KIRKLAND -- The image depicts a boat pulling away from a modern and angular facility sitting lakeside.
It's a computer-generated image sharp enough to be mistaken for a portrait. There are even birds gliding above the boat, and on Tuesday, Seahawks CEO Tod Leiweke gave voice to the vision behind the graphic.
"As we say, the boat pulling away from the site depicts the most coveted free agent in the NFL pulling away to get on a seaplane having just signed a contract to be a Seahawk," Leiweke said.
That is one of the hopes on which the Seahawks' new headquarters is built, put on the 19-acre site that sits between I-405 and Lake Washington. Paul Allen acquired the land with hopes of locating his technology companies, and in less than two years it will be the home for his football team.
The plans were officially announced Tuesday in Kirkland in a presentation that began when the lights dimmed for a slideshow. It showed the team's original training facility, which was on the water at Carillon Point in Kirkland. Then it displayed the present facility on the Northwest University campus, and finally, the plans for the future facility in Renton, which will be on twice as much land as the current headquarters and include five times as much square footage.
It's a project designed to take the franchise in the upper-left corner of the country and put it in the center of the league's landscape with a facility attractive enough to counteract the handicap of Seattle's geography in the NFL.
"We have to work harder than some other teams because of where the flow of players are and where they're coming from," president Tim Ruskell said. "We have to go above and beyond, do a little bit more in that regard, and we do that for the most part.
"I think the last part of the puzzle was the facility. Not only to attract them, but to keep players here."
Construction will begin in October. The timeline for completion is about 20 months. Training camp will be held at the facility beginning in 2008 instead of at Eastern Washington University in Cheney.
Logistics still need to be worked out as to what access fans will have to watch training-camp workouts. Leiweke pointed out that because Qwest Field is fewer than 10 miles from headquarters, it will make it easy to hold preseason events such as a scrimmage at the stadium.
The seeds for a new headquarters can be traced to when Ruskell was hired as president in February 2005. One of Ruskell's first observations, Lieweke said, when he took over was the possibility of expanding the current facilities.
"We realized there weren't a lot of opportunities to do that so we started dreaming the first day Tim was here," Leiweke said.
Ruskell has seen what the lack of a new facility can mean for a franchise. In 17 years with the Buccaneers, the team stayed in the same headquarters. He spent one year in Atlanta before coming to Seattle, and that season showed him the boost a state-of-the-art facility can provide. Falcons owner Arthur Blank modified the Falcons' practice facility in Flowery Branch, Ga., to make it one of the best in the league. A dining room, players' lounge and dormitory all were added to the construction project.
The result was higher participation in offseason training programs, said Ruskell, improving from somewhere around 40 percent to more than 90 percent.
The headquarters became a magnet that didn't just attract players to the team, but pulled guys already on the roster closer.
"It was a facility that players wanted to go to and you had more and more players living in the community," Ruskell said.
Ruskell said he was initially surprised the Seahawks did not have a permanent indoor practice facility given the frequency of precipitation in the area. The team had a practice bubble, a tent-like, inflated structure. The bubble blocks the view of nearby apartment units, and the team can only use the bubble during designated periods.
"That hurt our offseason program in terms of players would have to go over to the University of Washington to make sure they got their workout in in the offseason," Ruskell said.
Ruskell first saw the site for the new facility from the water. He was in a boat with Leiweke.
"I think we were pulling his kids on a 'tube,'" Ruskell said. "We weren't looking for land. It wasn't like we were Lewis and Clark."
But it was clear that even before the Seahawks played in their first Super Bowl last season they were looking at a new frontier of expectations.
By DANNY O'NEIL
SEATTLE P-I REPORTER
KIRKLAND -- The image depicts a boat pulling away from a modern and angular facility sitting lakeside.
It's a computer-generated image sharp enough to be mistaken for a portrait. There are even birds gliding above the boat, and on Tuesday, Seahawks CEO Tod Leiweke gave voice to the vision behind the graphic.
"As we say, the boat pulling away from the site depicts the most coveted free agent in the NFL pulling away to get on a seaplane having just signed a contract to be a Seahawk," Leiweke said.
That is one of the hopes on which the Seahawks' new headquarters is built, put on the 19-acre site that sits between I-405 and Lake Washington. Paul Allen acquired the land with hopes of locating his technology companies, and in less than two years it will be the home for his football team.
The plans were officially announced Tuesday in Kirkland in a presentation that began when the lights dimmed for a slideshow. It showed the team's original training facility, which was on the water at Carillon Point in Kirkland. Then it displayed the present facility on the Northwest University campus, and finally, the plans for the future facility in Renton, which will be on twice as much land as the current headquarters and include five times as much square footage.
It's a project designed to take the franchise in the upper-left corner of the country and put it in the center of the league's landscape with a facility attractive enough to counteract the handicap of Seattle's geography in the NFL.
"We have to work harder than some other teams because of where the flow of players are and where they're coming from," president Tim Ruskell said. "We have to go above and beyond, do a little bit more in that regard, and we do that for the most part.
"I think the last part of the puzzle was the facility. Not only to attract them, but to keep players here."
Construction will begin in October. The timeline for completion is about 20 months. Training camp will be held at the facility beginning in 2008 instead of at Eastern Washington University in Cheney.
Logistics still need to be worked out as to what access fans will have to watch training-camp workouts. Leiweke pointed out that because Qwest Field is fewer than 10 miles from headquarters, it will make it easy to hold preseason events such as a scrimmage at the stadium.
The seeds for a new headquarters can be traced to when Ruskell was hired as president in February 2005. One of Ruskell's first observations, Lieweke said, when he took over was the possibility of expanding the current facilities.
"We realized there weren't a lot of opportunities to do that so we started dreaming the first day Tim was here," Leiweke said.
Ruskell has seen what the lack of a new facility can mean for a franchise. In 17 years with the Buccaneers, the team stayed in the same headquarters. He spent one year in Atlanta before coming to Seattle, and that season showed him the boost a state-of-the-art facility can provide. Falcons owner Arthur Blank modified the Falcons' practice facility in Flowery Branch, Ga., to make it one of the best in the league. A dining room, players' lounge and dormitory all were added to the construction project.
The result was higher participation in offseason training programs, said Ruskell, improving from somewhere around 40 percent to more than 90 percent.
The headquarters became a magnet that didn't just attract players to the team, but pulled guys already on the roster closer.
"It was a facility that players wanted to go to and you had more and more players living in the community," Ruskell said.
Ruskell said he was initially surprised the Seahawks did not have a permanent indoor practice facility given the frequency of precipitation in the area. The team had a practice bubble, a tent-like, inflated structure. The bubble blocks the view of nearby apartment units, and the team can only use the bubble during designated periods.
"That hurt our offseason program in terms of players would have to go over to the University of Washington to make sure they got their workout in in the offseason," Ruskell said.
Ruskell first saw the site for the new facility from the water. He was in a boat with Leiweke.
"I think we were pulling his kids on a 'tube,'" Ruskell said. "We weren't looking for land. It wasn't like we were Lewis and Clark."
But it was clear that even before the Seahawks played in their first Super Bowl last season they were looking at a new frontier of expectations.
Texans Casserly Resigns - Houston Chronicle Report
Well fired or resigning Charley Casserly's no longer with the Houston Texans as of today.
My guess on the overall problem with the Texans organization is their are too many "company men" who are seem afraid to really take a position opposite team owner Bob McNair and stick with it. Your response may be "they want to keep their jobs" but I don't think it lead to making good decisions. The result seems to be too much analysis, rather than a mix of gut level "trigger pulling" and analysis. In that case, Reggie Bush or Vince Young would have been a Texan.
But was Casserly fired? This was all fueled by speculation. It may be that Charley just plain wanted out of the GM grind and saw an avenue and took it.
I'll have more on that.
May 11, 2006, 2:57AM
McNair rejects reports that Casserly was fired
By JOHN MCCLAIN
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
One of the worst-kept secrets in the NFL became public Wednesday when Charley Casserly resigned as the Texans' general manager to pursue a position as vice president of football operations and development at the league office in New York.
Casserly and Texans owner Bob McNair denied reports he had been fired.
"No, he has not been fired, so you can forget that," McNair said emphatically during a news conference at Reliant Stadium.
Casserly, who will stay on the job until June 1, was angry at reports he was fired.
"Yeah, I am upset about that," he said. "I'm glad that question was asked and Bob answered it. I have not been fired. There's absolutely no truth to it. I could have stayed on but chose not to."
Casserly could have stayed for the last year of his contract. He said the late-season hiring of consultant Dan Reeves behind his back had nothing to do with his decision.
When Art Shell left his job as the NFL's vice president of football operations to return to Oakland as the Raiders' coach, Casserly became interested in the job.
"Charley indicated to me that he would like to pursue some other opportunities and that he has an interest in a position that's open in the league office," McNair said. "I've told Charley that I will support him in every way to secure a position there.
"I've already talked to (NFL executive vice president and chief operating officer) Roger Goodell about it and recommended Charley. I think he would be terrific for the spot."
John Beake has filled Shell's job on an interim basis.
"When I first spoke to Charley about (a contract extension), he made it known to me his interest in the position at the league office," McNair said. "I'm disappointed that Charley won't be with us. I can't thank him enough for all he's done — his loyalty to the organization, his hard work and his contributions."
McNair will wait a week before starting a search for Casserly's replacement. McNair will meet with coach Gary Kubiak before he starts the interview process.
Expect Denver assistant general manager Rick Smith and Green Bay director of pro personnel Reggie McKenzie to become the leading candidates.
"I don't foresee any kind of drastic thing," McNair said about a possible front-office restructuring. "Organizations evolve, and as we go forward, we'll look at what our needs are and (find) the best way to organize to take care of those needs.
"This is a big change because Charley's the guy I've been working with all this time. I valued his advice and counsel. He's had a tremendous impact on our organization."
Casserly could have resigned after the season, but he wanted to work with Kubiak to try to repair the damage created by the 2-14 campaign.
"You leave either in December, or you leave in May after the draft," Casserly said. "I didn't feel comfortable leaving at the end of a 2-14 season.
"I thought Gary was a tremendous hire. I wanted to go through free agency and the draft working with him. I enjoyed my time with him. I thought we had a productive offseason, and I think this team's headed in the right direction.
"I don't know that anybody in the league had a better offseason than we did."
Casserly and Kubiak developed a good relationship.
"I hate to see Charley go," Kubiak said. "I worked well with him. I have tremendous respect for him. We had four good months together, and I'm sorry it's not going to be more. I learned a great deal from him.
"This has been a tough day, but I realize this is a business and that we have to move on."
After 29 years with the Washington Redskins and Texans, Casserly said he's not interested in another general manager's job right now.
"This was a difficult decision, but it's a decision that I made based on the things I want to do at this point in my life," he said. "I've enjoyed my time in Houston. I've enjoyed the relationships, especially with the staff.
"I think we have a tremendous staff here. I think anybody that comes in and wants to make any changes is making a huge mistake."
Black Eyed Peas Concert Tickets - Video: Let's Get It Started!
This is one of the best videos produced in my opinion, as it captures what the song's about. "Let's get it started" You can buy or sell "Peas" tickets with a click on the title of this post.
Here's the video.
Here's the video.
Video - Pearl Jam In Concert Performing "Betterman"
Just in time for their concert series, Pearl Jam performs "Betterman" in this video.
You can get Pearl Jam concert tickets with a click on the tile of this post.
Here's Pearl Jam:
You can get Pearl Jam concert tickets with a click on the tile of this post.
Here's Pearl Jam:
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
COMMISSIONER TAGLIABUE PRESS CONFERENCE - LOS ANGELES STADIUM WORKING GROUP
From NFLmedia.com
DALLAS – MAY 2, 2006
We had some very good meetings. All 11 of the owners on the Los Angeles working group were here. We started with an internal discussion last night and met early this morning. We officially began shortly after 8:30am and went until
after 2:00pm. The commitment of time, the interest and the energy of the owners were very good. Most of all, it was a reflection of the quality of the presentations that we had from Anaheim and Los Angeles, in particular the Coliseum.
Both of them gave us a really good overview, not only of the stadium projects, but of the demographics of the immediate fan base and also the overall development of downtown LA and the core of Orange County. Both presentations, which were very high quality, were very informative and really provided the basis for some excellent dialogue. The owners all appreciated not
only Mayor Villaraigosa and Mayor Pringle being here, but also the governor as well. The dialogue when the governor was present focused to some degree on the importance of the business community and having the business communities
be supportive and be committed, making everybody understand the value of an NFL team as an economic engine in the community and also as a community asset.
We also appreciated the Pasadena representatives being here. We had an excellent exchange with them.
The long and short of it is that we have a lot of information to digest. Certainly our staff has been immersed in these issues for the past year or more. But for our owners, this type of first-hand dialogue and first-hand opportunity to speak with political leadership in these communities, including the entire state with the presence of the governor, gives us a lot to digest.
We will be having a conference call with this working group next week to talk about their thoughts and ideas on next steps. We will be meeting with the working group in Denver on Monday, May 22. We will then report to the membership on Tuesday, May 23. We are also going to discuss further with the Pasadena representatives next week and try to understand exactly the status of their proposal, including the ballot initiative. If need be, we will talk more with members of the working group on Pasadena issues separately from our conversation next week on the Los Angeles Coliseum and Anaheim issues.
Q: Will a decision be made on May 23?
PT: That’s what we’re going to be talking about. There is a lot to digest here, not just in terms of projects, but in terms of business community support.
Q: The governor talked about the possibility of having two teams in the market. How realistic is that in the short-term and near future?
PT: If you limit it to the short-term and near future, then one team is our immediate goal. We’d like to have one team in a state-of-the-art stadium, wellsupported both in the short-term and long-term within the community. Longerterm, two teams is a realistic goal.
Q: If there is too much to digest to make a decision soon, where does that leave Anaheim with the upcoming May deadline?
PT: I’m not going to speculate on that.
Q: What stood out in each presentation?
PT: They both emphasized that their stadiums would be very fine NFL football stadiums.
In Anaheim, previously, we shared a baseball stadium. This would not be the case in Anaheim this time. It would be a football stadium located in close proximity to the Angels’ stadium. It would be at the core of a lot of the broader residential and commercial development efforts.
Similar things we’re discussing in respect to the Coliseum. It would be a state-of-the-art stadium, not a retro stadium. They emphasized and highlighted all the investment that’s taken place in downtown LA.
I think both groups did a terrific job of emphasizing the attractiveness of their stadiums and the broader economic developments in the context in which the stadium is being projected. We did have a discussion about costs, which is a
continuing concern. There is a recognition that construction costs have escalated dramatically and will continue to escalate given the worldwide economic pressures that there are for steel, petroleum and everything else that factors into construction costs. Those in turn led to some good discussion on financing, naming rights, PSLs and about the role of the business community being a surrogate, in a sense, for public investment of tax dollars. The business community, as in the case of Carolina and New England, has strongly supported those teams in a variety of ways. So, financing a stadium with private resources, team resources and league resources becomes realistic.
Q: Did each side provide convincing arguments that the costs of each project would be made up in the long run?
PT: Each side clearly understands the challenges and we’ve identified a number of areas to look into. A lot of additional work will have to be done.
Q: What do you think was the biggest accomplishment today?
PT: First of all, uninterrupted four-to-five hours of focused discussion on issues in southern California is an accomplishment. With the expanded group of 11 owners, we had a lot of new, different points of view from Steve Tisch, Jeff Lurie, Bob McNair, Jerry Jones and others who previously weren’t part of the working group. Everyone came away feeling that it was the best time spent on these issues. I felt that having it here, having it in this setting, having it focused with a relatively small group and with a compact group presenting gives us an excellent understanding of these issues.
Q: You’ve always been accused of not wanting to rush…
PT: Nobody has accused me of rushing this issue.
Q: If there is any uncertainty when you get to Denver, will you rush this and move ahead?
PT: I’m not going to get into that. I’m not going to rush, but I want to emphasize that this is the year for us to make a decision, up or down. We’re not going to keep moving sideways.
# # #
DALLAS – MAY 2, 2006
We had some very good meetings. All 11 of the owners on the Los Angeles working group were here. We started with an internal discussion last night and met early this morning. We officially began shortly after 8:30am and went until
after 2:00pm. The commitment of time, the interest and the energy of the owners were very good. Most of all, it was a reflection of the quality of the presentations that we had from Anaheim and Los Angeles, in particular the Coliseum.
Both of them gave us a really good overview, not only of the stadium projects, but of the demographics of the immediate fan base and also the overall development of downtown LA and the core of Orange County. Both presentations, which were very high quality, were very informative and really provided the basis for some excellent dialogue. The owners all appreciated not
only Mayor Villaraigosa and Mayor Pringle being here, but also the governor as well. The dialogue when the governor was present focused to some degree on the importance of the business community and having the business communities
be supportive and be committed, making everybody understand the value of an NFL team as an economic engine in the community and also as a community asset.
We also appreciated the Pasadena representatives being here. We had an excellent exchange with them.
The long and short of it is that we have a lot of information to digest. Certainly our staff has been immersed in these issues for the past year or more. But for our owners, this type of first-hand dialogue and first-hand opportunity to speak with political leadership in these communities, including the entire state with the presence of the governor, gives us a lot to digest.
We will be having a conference call with this working group next week to talk about their thoughts and ideas on next steps. We will be meeting with the working group in Denver on Monday, May 22. We will then report to the membership on Tuesday, May 23. We are also going to discuss further with the Pasadena representatives next week and try to understand exactly the status of their proposal, including the ballot initiative. If need be, we will talk more with members of the working group on Pasadena issues separately from our conversation next week on the Los Angeles Coliseum and Anaheim issues.
Q: Will a decision be made on May 23?
PT: That’s what we’re going to be talking about. There is a lot to digest here, not just in terms of projects, but in terms of business community support.
Q: The governor talked about the possibility of having two teams in the market. How realistic is that in the short-term and near future?
PT: If you limit it to the short-term and near future, then one team is our immediate goal. We’d like to have one team in a state-of-the-art stadium, wellsupported both in the short-term and long-term within the community. Longerterm, two teams is a realistic goal.
Q: If there is too much to digest to make a decision soon, where does that leave Anaheim with the upcoming May deadline?
PT: I’m not going to speculate on that.
Q: What stood out in each presentation?
PT: They both emphasized that their stadiums would be very fine NFL football stadiums.
In Anaheim, previously, we shared a baseball stadium. This would not be the case in Anaheim this time. It would be a football stadium located in close proximity to the Angels’ stadium. It would be at the core of a lot of the broader residential and commercial development efforts.
Similar things we’re discussing in respect to the Coliseum. It would be a state-of-the-art stadium, not a retro stadium. They emphasized and highlighted all the investment that’s taken place in downtown LA.
I think both groups did a terrific job of emphasizing the attractiveness of their stadiums and the broader economic developments in the context in which the stadium is being projected. We did have a discussion about costs, which is a
continuing concern. There is a recognition that construction costs have escalated dramatically and will continue to escalate given the worldwide economic pressures that there are for steel, petroleum and everything else that factors into construction costs. Those in turn led to some good discussion on financing, naming rights, PSLs and about the role of the business community being a surrogate, in a sense, for public investment of tax dollars. The business community, as in the case of Carolina and New England, has strongly supported those teams in a variety of ways. So, financing a stadium with private resources, team resources and league resources becomes realistic.
Q: Did each side provide convincing arguments that the costs of each project would be made up in the long run?
PT: Each side clearly understands the challenges and we’ve identified a number of areas to look into. A lot of additional work will have to be done.
Q: What do you think was the biggest accomplishment today?
PT: First of all, uninterrupted four-to-five hours of focused discussion on issues in southern California is an accomplishment. With the expanded group of 11 owners, we had a lot of new, different points of view from Steve Tisch, Jeff Lurie, Bob McNair, Jerry Jones and others who previously weren’t part of the working group. Everyone came away feeling that it was the best time spent on these issues. I felt that having it here, having it in this setting, having it focused with a relatively small group and with a compact group presenting gives us an excellent understanding of these issues.
Q: You’ve always been accused of not wanting to rush…
PT: Nobody has accused me of rushing this issue.
Q: If there is any uncertainty when you get to Denver, will you rush this and move ahead?
PT: I’m not going to get into that. I’m not going to rush, but I want to emphasize that this is the year for us to make a decision, up or down. We’re not going to keep moving sideways.
# # #
Day Three Of Raiders Mini Camp Features - "Seabass" Kicks Ball Into Next Property
This report is from Raiderfan.net, which you can access with a click on the title of this post. As usual "RaiderDee" -- DeMarcus Davis -- gives a good and complete report of Day Three at Oakland Raiders.
"Other notables from today’s camp was Sebastian Janikowski kicking a 42 yard field goal so hard that it not only went through the uprights, it went over the uprights, over the net, and beyond the barrier fence that separates the Raiders facility and the adjacent Oakland International Airport! ‘Seabass’ also successfully kicked a 45 yarder and a 55 yard field goal. He didn’t miss any today. Perhaps it was Coach Shell’s proclamation that the entire team would have to run one lap for every missed field goal by Seabass! Shell informed both Janikowski and the team what the consequences were. To my knowledge, no one has had to run any laps.
Speaking of running laps, there was no making the Rookies run shuttle drills. In years past, rookies would have to run sprints after the last day of mini-camp (Sunday). Coach Shell said that he never made any of his rookies run laps when he coached the first time and that he wasn’t going to while he was coaching this team. Veteran OL Adam Treu had the look of guilty disappointment when the word was given that there was no ‘running of the rookies.’"
"Other notables from today’s camp was Sebastian Janikowski kicking a 42 yard field goal so hard that it not only went through the uprights, it went over the uprights, over the net, and beyond the barrier fence that separates the Raiders facility and the adjacent Oakland International Airport! ‘Seabass’ also successfully kicked a 45 yarder and a 55 yard field goal. He didn’t miss any today. Perhaps it was Coach Shell’s proclamation that the entire team would have to run one lap for every missed field goal by Seabass! Shell informed both Janikowski and the team what the consequences were. To my knowledge, no one has had to run any laps.
Speaking of running laps, there was no making the Rookies run shuttle drills. In years past, rookies would have to run sprints after the last day of mini-camp (Sunday). Coach Shell said that he never made any of his rookies run laps when he coached the first time and that he wasn’t going to while he was coaching this team. Veteran OL Adam Treu had the look of guilty disappointment when the word was given that there was no ‘running of the rookies.’"
Draft '06 review
The 2006 NFL Draft-A Final Review of day 1
Now that the draft is over, we can begin to look at which teams picked who and why.
Most teams are faced with the challenge each year of needing to go beyond selecting the best player available at each position. This was never more obvious then in this year's draft where the Jets used both their first round choices on offensive linemen. But what about teams that make picks that has you scratching your head saying, "Why did they get him for?"
The Packers had many holes to fill, and traded the talented receiver Javon Walker for a #2 pick to Denver, yet they choose LB A.J. Hawk with their #1 selection, the 5th overall. It's quite clear that Green Bay felt they needed more help on the defensive side of the ball, and had been zeroed in on Hawk for over a month. Many considered Hawk the best defensive player in this draft and were it not for Mario Williams' stock rising so fast, could have been a top 3 pick instead of #5. Are two spots a big deal? It’s only worth a few million dollars.
With the two Bay area teams selecting 5 and 6, I'd have loved to have a copy of the Chronicle from Sunday morning to read the rants of Raiders fans griping about the selection of Michael Huff. While Mr. Huff is a fine talent and the top rated DB in this draft class, he went a bit too high at #7. Same for Donte Whitner to the Bills with the next pick, and Ernie Simms to Detroit following at #9.
Rounding out the top 10 was the second major surprise of the draft. Matt Leinart was not the happiest person in Radio city music hall that early afternoon. When he wasn’t selected #3
by the Titans, we knew he would fall. We didn’t think he'd get past the Raiders at #7, but we knew all along that Oakland owner Al Davis never picks QB’s in the first round. The Cardinals are one happy team however, because they got someone who now has something to prove to the 9 teams that passed him up.
The steal of the first round could be Jay Cutler at #11 to Denver. While he played at Vanderbilt, Cutler has a rep as a hard worker who makes things happen. People have begun to make comparisons to Tommy Maddox, who was drafted in John Elway‘s 9th season, as Cutler has been drafted in current Qb Jake Plummer’s 9th season. I can assure you that Cutler is no Maddox.
Others who reaped the benefits of a twisted draft board in the first round:
Dallas obtained OLB Bobby Carpenter with the 18th selection. His bloodline speaks for itself.
New England selected RB Laurence Maroney with the 21st pick. After Bush, Maroney was in a three-way tie as the next best back in this draft.
After the Steelers traded with the Giants to move up seven spots, they selected wide receiver Santonio Holmes. This was the first year in some time that the wide outs didn’t rise up higher in round one. The other two RB’s considered to be in the top of the draft class were also selected late in round one. DeAngelo Williams went to Carolina at #27, and then Joseph Addai became an Indianapolis Colt at #30.
Round two saw 3 receivers and one "slash"type go to teams that all needed to add speed the position. Chad Jackson was considered to be the best wide out in this draft by many.
So much for that train of thought. He went #36(4th in round 2) to New England.
Eight picks later at #44 the Giants obtained Sinorice Moss, the younger brother of Santana Moss, also a Miami Hurricane wide out. Sinorice told us in a telephone press conference last week how happy he was to be coming to a team that wanted him. There was even talk of him being the Giants first pick after the trade down with the Steelers.
Others who did well the rest of day one: The Jets got what could be a steal in Oregon QB Kellen Clemens, who has incredible zip on his passes according to several insiders. Dallas got Notre Dame TE Anthony Fasano. The Ravens selected OC Chris Chester from Oklahoma. Tampa Bay got Jeremy Trueblood, the OT from Boston College.
Finally, some round three selections that made sense: The Cardinals selection of TE Leonard Pope of Georgia, who was thought of as a round one talent. Miami taking Derek Hagan, the Arizona State wide out. San Diego's selection of QB Charlie Whitehurst of Clemson, and Tampa Bay choosing Notre Dame Receiver Maurice Stovall. The Texans tried to get big at the beginning of the 3rd round with back-to-back Offensive Linemen, Charles Spencer of Pitt, and Eric Winston of Miami.
Next: Day two Gems
Now that the draft is over, we can begin to look at which teams picked who and why.
Most teams are faced with the challenge each year of needing to go beyond selecting the best player available at each position. This was never more obvious then in this year's draft where the Jets used both their first round choices on offensive linemen. But what about teams that make picks that has you scratching your head saying, "Why did they get him for?"
The Packers had many holes to fill, and traded the talented receiver Javon Walker for a #2 pick to Denver, yet they choose LB A.J. Hawk with their #1 selection, the 5th overall. It's quite clear that Green Bay felt they needed more help on the defensive side of the ball, and had been zeroed in on Hawk for over a month. Many considered Hawk the best defensive player in this draft and were it not for Mario Williams' stock rising so fast, could have been a top 3 pick instead of #5. Are two spots a big deal? It’s only worth a few million dollars.
With the two Bay area teams selecting 5 and 6, I'd have loved to have a copy of the Chronicle from Sunday morning to read the rants of Raiders fans griping about the selection of Michael Huff. While Mr. Huff is a fine talent and the top rated DB in this draft class, he went a bit too high at #7. Same for Donte Whitner to the Bills with the next pick, and Ernie Simms to Detroit following at #9.
Rounding out the top 10 was the second major surprise of the draft. Matt Leinart was not the happiest person in Radio city music hall that early afternoon. When he wasn’t selected #3
by the Titans, we knew he would fall. We didn’t think he'd get past the Raiders at #7, but we knew all along that Oakland owner Al Davis never picks QB’s in the first round. The Cardinals are one happy team however, because they got someone who now has something to prove to the 9 teams that passed him up.
The steal of the first round could be Jay Cutler at #11 to Denver. While he played at Vanderbilt, Cutler has a rep as a hard worker who makes things happen. People have begun to make comparisons to Tommy Maddox, who was drafted in John Elway‘s 9th season, as Cutler has been drafted in current Qb Jake Plummer’s 9th season. I can assure you that Cutler is no Maddox.
Others who reaped the benefits of a twisted draft board in the first round:
Dallas obtained OLB Bobby Carpenter with the 18th selection. His bloodline speaks for itself.
New England selected RB Laurence Maroney with the 21st pick. After Bush, Maroney was in a three-way tie as the next best back in this draft.
After the Steelers traded with the Giants to move up seven spots, they selected wide receiver Santonio Holmes. This was the first year in some time that the wide outs didn’t rise up higher in round one. The other two RB’s considered to be in the top of the draft class were also selected late in round one. DeAngelo Williams went to Carolina at #27, and then Joseph Addai became an Indianapolis Colt at #30.
Round two saw 3 receivers and one "slash"type go to teams that all needed to add speed the position. Chad Jackson was considered to be the best wide out in this draft by many.
So much for that train of thought. He went #36(4th in round 2) to New England.
Eight picks later at #44 the Giants obtained Sinorice Moss, the younger brother of Santana Moss, also a Miami Hurricane wide out. Sinorice told us in a telephone press conference last week how happy he was to be coming to a team that wanted him. There was even talk of him being the Giants first pick after the trade down with the Steelers.
Others who did well the rest of day one: The Jets got what could be a steal in Oregon QB Kellen Clemens, who has incredible zip on his passes according to several insiders. Dallas got Notre Dame TE Anthony Fasano. The Ravens selected OC Chris Chester from Oklahoma. Tampa Bay got Jeremy Trueblood, the OT from Boston College.
Finally, some round three selections that made sense: The Cardinals selection of TE Leonard Pope of Georgia, who was thought of as a round one talent. Miami taking Derek Hagan, the Arizona State wide out. San Diego's selection of QB Charlie Whitehurst of Clemson, and Tampa Bay choosing Notre Dame Receiver Maurice Stovall. The Texans tried to get big at the beginning of the 3rd round with back-to-back Offensive Linemen, Charles Spencer of Pitt, and Eric Winston of Miami.
Next: Day two Gems
Madonna Launches Concert Tour - "Beautiful Stranger" Video
Starting at the Forum in Inglewood, Madonna will launch her concert tour.
Madonna's simply one of the most popular pop-icons. See her perform in this Austin Powers Video "Beautiful Stranger":
Madonna's simply one of the most popular pop-icons. See her perform in this Austin Powers Video "Beautiful Stranger":
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
"Golden Girl" Cal's Olympic Star Natalie Coghlan and Writer Michael Silver and Talk About The New Book
My friend Michael Silver spent much of his life litterally dumped into the pool of water that is the culture of the Cal Women's Swimming Team. He dived in to write about Seven-Gold-Metal Champion Swimmer Natalie Coghland, and came out with a great book called "Golden Girl."
I took a video of their book presentation held at The Book Passage In Corte Madera in Marin County.
Here's the video.
I took a video of their book presentation held at The Book Passage In Corte Madera in Marin County.
Here's the video.
Stephen Colbert In "The 1 Second Film" Made At Sundance 2005
These guys are attempting to raise $1 million by making one second film clips but all tied together. Their video making the rounds is funny, and has an even higher level of relevance because Stephen Colbert carved out a great role in the film.
Check it out:
Check it out:
The NFL Playbook: The Poorly Written Document A Rookie Faces - The Mike Martz Playbook
It's rookie mini-camp time, and like your third date with that girl you always liked it marks the time to get excited all over again -- only this time about the upcoming football season.
But for a rookie it's a hard time, especially because they have to memorize the contents in the playbook they're given. If they're Detroit Lions first year offense players under offensive coordinator Mike Martz, they're forced to absorb the contents of a playbook that's over 400 pages -- and poorly written.
How do I know? Because I'm reading the St. Louis Rams offense playbook from 1999 -- there's little different from the offense shown in this playbook and what the Lions and Washington Redskins players will learn this year.
This is what the Lions' Wide Receiver Mike Williams has to remember:
"We will number our holes according to the points of attack with EVEN numbers going to the right and ODD numbers going to the LEFT."
"Numbering of Backs: QB is #1, R is #2 regardless of set; H is #3 regardless of set."
Williams has to remember not only what a "Zero" route is (a shallow pattern into the short middle of field just five yard deep) but how to run it against "Retreat Zone", "Retreat Man" ,"Cloud" , "Trail", "Bump" , and vs. "Quads" -- all are types of defensive coverage approaches.
He has to know the difference between "Trade Deuce Right" and "Trade Double Right" (the fullback is next to the weakside tackle in the former and in the slot between the weakside tackle and the split end in the latter), and that's just in the "D Variations"
The what?
But hey, I'm reading the playbook. He's got to remember this stuff.
What ads to this is the playbook itself is so poorly written. There's not an extensive table of contents. The plays are not well organized. Indeed, there should be a chapter for each kind of pass there is. And each play should have it's own page and segmented so that each offensive player knows what they're supposed to do in that play. Kind of like the Cal offense.
I've got that playbook too. It's the best organized playbook I've ever seen. Each play has it's own page. There's a page on special strategies. For eample, Cal calls it's two minute offense "Bonzai" -- who can forget that? There are also special chapters on screen passes.
How do I know this? Because I'm looking at Cal's offensive playbook, too.
In fact, It's clear to me that some NFL teams should study their college counterparts for playbook design ideas. The 2005 Notre Dame Offense playbook is well-segmented, yet detailed and there's no play that's simpler than what's ran in the NFL. Moreover it' reveals a varied offensive attack that has just one weak spot: an apparent vulnerability to defenses that play multiple-fronts and zone blitz.
But heck, if you've got to get to that level of complexity to beat Notre Dame, that's saying something for their playbook. The only other answer is to have better athletes, but that's another story.
Rookies coming into the NFL have to learn a new playbook and absorb a lot of information. Since the concepts in the NFL are really not more advanced than those at colleges like Notre Dame and Cal, why not make the playbooks easier to read?
There's no sense in fooling your own players.
24 Star! - Pernell Harris Is Agent Harris Of Fox TV's "24" - Video
If you remember the scene in 24 where Jack Baeur crash lands on an island, then you may remember an African American FBI agent on that plane. You may also remember him as the person who asks Baeur to "stand down" with his gun pointed at Mr. Baeur.
That man is "Agent Harris." His real name is Pernell Harris and lives and works in Oakland, California. He's currenly Assistant GM at Gold's Gym in Oakland. In my next video, we'll include scenes from 24 featuring Parnell. But for now, here's the video interview of Parnell Harris:
Damon Connolly For Assembly - Marin County
My good friend Damon Connolly's running for assembly in Marin County, California. I took this brief video at one of the many house parties thrown for him this year. Ever the gracious host stopping to talk to all of the attendees, Damon managed to give me some of his time to encourage you to vote June 6th and to explain who he is and that his main concern is getting the state to give kids -- he's a father of two girls -- the best education possible.
Here's Damon Connolly:
Here's Damon Connolly:
Stephen Colbert's "Attack" On Bush - Two Views: Richard Cohen and William Rivers Pitt
Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert has more than caught the Zeitgeist with his blog-and-You-Tube reported lampooning of President Bush. It's also pitted journalists against bloggers, or is it blogging journalists versus non-blogging journalists. Hmmm...
I got the article by William Rivers Pitt from a friend and decided to post it and the Richard Cohen article here on my blog as a kind of comparison. I dispensed with the links because I don't know how long they're going to be active.
My take is that to a degree Cohen's spot on...about the online anger, I mean. I disagree with his take on Colbert. What made him funny was the simple fact that he had the guts to do it.
Here's William Rivers Pitt attacking Cohen:
An Open Letter to Richard Cohen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 09 May 2006
Greetings! I was inspired to write you after reading your missive in today's Post regarding all the nasty emails you have received of late. Personally, I found Colbert's performance hilarious and timely, the kind of satirical backhand so desperately needed these days. I don't begrudge you your opinion that he wasn't funny, and I agree with your belief that it wasn't your opinion on his performance that motivated such an angry response.
It wasn't. You yourself nailed the reason: "Institution after institution failed America - the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have."
The fact that your Colbert commentary became the flint against this rock doesn't mean that Colbert, or your opinion of him, is to blame for the resulting firestorm. The fact is that people are angry - brain-boilingly, apoplectically, mind-bendingly so - at what has happened to this great country. I am, quite often, so angry that my hands shake. Yes, a former high school teacher from New England here, so filled with bile and rage that I sometimes don't recognize my face in the mirror.
You, sir, should not be asking why so many of your email friends are so angry. You should be asking why you yourself are not with them in their rage. I have admired a number of your articles over these last years, and know that you are no fool regarding our situation in Iraq and here at home. It isn't your grasp of the issues that concerns me, but the absence of outrage. Do you really care about the things you write about, or is all this merely grist for the mill that provides you a paycheck?
"I have seen this anger before," you wrote, "back in the Vietnam War era." No, sir, you have not.
You hearken back to rock-throwing days in Vietnam, and lament hatred and rage. But you do not see that those days are quaint by comparison given our current geopolitical situation. Johnson and Nixon, whatever else their faults may have been, were internationalists who understood the need for connection to the wider world. The war in Vietnam, barbaric as it was, did not inspire tens of thousands of Vietnamese to join martyr's brigades. It did not threaten to unleash chaos in a part of the world that holds the economic lifeblood of our whole existence. It did not threaten to shake loose nuclear weapons from quasi-rogue states like Pakistan.
You speak of the angry mob because you got slapped around via email, but your characterization of the anti-war crowd tells me you have not spent a single moment out in the streets with them. I have. I have covered dozens of protests, large and small, in cities all across this country before and after the invasion of Iraq. Millions upon millions of Americans participated in these, and never once, not one time, was a rock thrown.
No violence was offered anywhere, unless it was violence offered to old ladies by riot-garbed police, as was evidenced in Portland several years ago. I have the photographs to prove it. If you want to see anger, enjoy this picture of a 60-year-old woman holding an anti-war sign while being placed in a hammer-lock by a riot cop:
"The hatred is back," you say, as if such hatred is beyond justification. It is interesting that you make so many allusions to Vietnam; the comparison is apt, yet not on point. This is not a situation of "Then" and "Now," but "Then" and "Again." The two issues are joined by a common theme: official malfeasance, presidential lies, administrative fear-mongering and horrific body counts in a faraway land. The lesson of Vietnam was so searing, many believed, that it would never have to be learned again.
Why the anger? Because that lesson didn't take, at least with this crowd. Why the anger? Because millions of people are staggered by the idea that, yes Virginia, we have to go through this again. We have to watch soldiers slaughter and be slaughtered for reasons that bear no markings of truth. We have to watch the reputation of this great nation be savaged. We have to watch as our leaders lie to us with their bare faces hanging out.
Why the anger? It can be summed up in one run-on sentence: We have lost two towers in New York, a part of the Pentagon, an important American city called New Orleans, our economic solvency, our global reputation, our moral authority, our children's future, we have lost tens of thousands of American soldiers to death and grievous injury, we must endure the Abramoffs and the Cunninghams and the Libbys and the whores and the bribes and the utter corruption, we must contemplate the staggering depth of the hole we have been hurled down into, and we expect little to no help from the mainstream DC press, whose lazy go-along-to-get-along cocktail-circuit mentality allowed so much of this to happen because they failed comprehensively to do their job.
George W. Bush and his pals used September 11th against the American people, used perhaps the most horrific day in our collective history, deliberately and with intent, to foster a war of choice that has killed untold tens of thousands of human beings and basically bankrupted our country. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq. They destroyed the career of a CIA agent who was tasked to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear ambitions, and did so to exact petty political revenge against a critic. They tortured people, and spied on American civilians.
You cannot fathom anger arising from this?
I wrote a book called "War on Iraq" in the summer of 2002. That book stated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no al Qaeda connections in Iraq, no connections to 9/11 in Iraq, and thus no reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is now almost the summer of 2006. That book was right then, and is right now, and the millions of Americans who agree with the facts contained therein have shared these four years with me in a state of disbelief, shock, sorrow and yes, anger. None of this had to happen, and the fact that it was allowed to happen inspires the kind of vitriol you got a taste of via email.
If you want anger, you should try reading some of the emails I get on a weekly basis. The mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, husbands and children of American soldiers killed in Iraq write to me asking why it happened, what can be done, how this is possible. They write to me because I wrote that book, because somehow they think I have an answer to that bottomless question.
I am sorry you were so wounded by the messages you received. I wish that hadn't happened; I am personally from the more-flies-with-honey school of journalistic correspondence. But in the end, truth be told, I don't feel too badly for you. It isn't an excess of outrage that plagues this nation today, but an abject lack of it. Instead of castigating those who take an interest, who have gotten justifiably furious over all that has happened, I suggest you take a moment within yourself and ask why you don't share their feelings.
This isn't Vietnam, Mr. Cohen. This is a whole new ballgame, and the stakes are higher by orders of magnitude. It took almost ten years of Vietnam for people to reach the boiling point you are so apparently horrified by (and worthy of note, that rage may have elected Nixon, but also served to stop the killing in Southeast Asia). Should those of us who are angry today wait until 2013 to raise hell?
At a minimum, I suggest you head down to your local hardware store and buy a few sheets of 40-grit sandpaper. Apply it liberally - pardon the pun - to any and all parts of your body that may be exposed to the scary anger of the anti-war Left. Toughen up that hide of yours, and greet the coming days with a leathery mien impervious to a few angry emails.
Afterwards, you could perhaps figure out why the anger of those who see this war as a crime and this administration as a disaster is so terribly threatening to you. Anger is a gift, after all, one that inspires change. If you don't think we need a change, real change, I can only shake my head.
P.S. Another reason for the anger you have absorbed can be laid, frankly, at your own feet. There are enough of us around who can still remember your words from November of 2000: "Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush."
Locate a mirror, Mr. Cohen. Stare deep within it. Know full well that today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, will recast all your yesterdays as having passed like a comforting dream. Your ability to remain within the safe bubble of the beltway clubhouse, drifting this way and that in some meandering, rudderless fog, has ended. Al Gore invented the internet, or so we are told, and some bright-eyed editor decided to staple your email address to the bottom of your works. Welcome to the age of electronic accountability.
Here's what Richard Cohen wrote:
So Not Funny
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, May 4, 2006; Page A25
First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" -- as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. All the rest is commentary.
The commentary, though, is also what I do, and it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.
Colbert made jokes about Bush's approval rating, which hovers in the middle 30s. He made jokes about Bush's intelligence, mockingly comparing it to his own. "We're not some brainiacs on nerd patrol," he said. Boy, that's funny.
Colbert took a swipe at Bush's Iraq policy, at domestic eavesdropping, and he took a shot at the news corps for purportedly being nothing more than stenographers recording what the Bush White House said. He referred to the recent staff changes at the White House, chiding the media for supposedly repeating the cliche "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" when he would have put it differently: "This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." A mixed metaphor, and lame as can be.
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.
I am not a member of the White House Correspondents' Association, and I have not attended its dinner in years (I watched this year's on C-SPAN). The gala is an essentially harmless event that requires the presence of one man, the president. If presidents started not to show up, the organization would have to transform itself into a burial association. But presidents come and suffer through a ritual that most of them find mildly painful, not to mention boring. Whatever the case, they are guests. They don't have to be there -- and if I were Bush, next year I would not. Spring is a marvelous time to be at Camp David.
On television, Colbert is often funny. But on his own show he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness. In Washington he was playing to a different crowd, and he failed dismally in the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently. He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he was a man for our times.
He also wasn't funny.
...And here's what Cohen wrote in response to the emails he got:
Digital Lynch Mob
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 9, 2006; Page A23
Two weeks ago I wrote about Al Gore's new movie on global warming. I liked the film. In response, I instantly got more than 1,000 e-mails, most of them praising Gore, some calling him the usual names and some concluding there was no such thing as global warming, if only because Gore said there was. I put the messages aside for a slow day, when I would answer them. Then I wrote about Stephen Colbert and his unfunny performance at the White House correspondents' dinner.
Kapow! Within a day, I got more than 2,000 e-mails. A day later, I got 1,000 more. By the fourth day, the number had reached 3,499 -- a figure that does not include the usual offers of nubile Russian women or loot from African dictators. The Colbert messages began with Patrick Manley ("You wouldn't know funny if it slapped you in the face") and ended with Ron ("Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER") who was so proud of his thought that he copied countless others. Ron, you're a genius.
Truth to tell, I peeked into only a few of the e-mails. I did this because I would sometimes recognize a name I thought I knew, which was almost always a mistake. When I guilelessly clicked on the name, I would get a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face.
Usually, the subject line said it all. Some were friendly and agreed that Colbert had not been funny. Most, though, were in what we shall call disagreement. Fine. I said the man wasn't funny and not funny has a bullying quality to it; others (including some of my friends) said he was funny. But because I held such a view, my attentive critics were convinced I had a political agenda. I was -- as was most of the press, I found out -- George W. Bush's lap dog. If this is the case, Bush had better check his lap.
It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation.
What to make of all this? First, it's not about Colbert. His show has an audience of about 1 million -- not exactly "American Idol" numbers. Second, it marks the end of a silly pretense about interactive media: We give you our e-mail addresses and then, in theory, we have this nice chat. Forget about it. Not only is e-mail too often a kind of epistolary spitball, but there's no way I can even read the 3,506 e-mails now backed up in my queue -- seven more since I started writing this column.
But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.
The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls.
I got the article by William Rivers Pitt from a friend and decided to post it and the Richard Cohen article here on my blog as a kind of comparison. I dispensed with the links because I don't know how long they're going to be active.
My take is that to a degree Cohen's spot on...about the online anger, I mean. I disagree with his take on Colbert. What made him funny was the simple fact that he had the guts to do it.
Here's William Rivers Pitt attacking Cohen:
An Open Letter to Richard Cohen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 09 May 2006
Greetings! I was inspired to write you after reading your missive in today's Post regarding all the nasty emails you have received of late. Personally, I found Colbert's performance hilarious and timely, the kind of satirical backhand so desperately needed these days. I don't begrudge you your opinion that he wasn't funny, and I agree with your belief that it wasn't your opinion on his performance that motivated such an angry response.
It wasn't. You yourself nailed the reason: "Institution after institution failed America - the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have."
The fact that your Colbert commentary became the flint against this rock doesn't mean that Colbert, or your opinion of him, is to blame for the resulting firestorm. The fact is that people are angry - brain-boilingly, apoplectically, mind-bendingly so - at what has happened to this great country. I am, quite often, so angry that my hands shake. Yes, a former high school teacher from New England here, so filled with bile and rage that I sometimes don't recognize my face in the mirror.
You, sir, should not be asking why so many of your email friends are so angry. You should be asking why you yourself are not with them in their rage. I have admired a number of your articles over these last years, and know that you are no fool regarding our situation in Iraq and here at home. It isn't your grasp of the issues that concerns me, but the absence of outrage. Do you really care about the things you write about, or is all this merely grist for the mill that provides you a paycheck?
"I have seen this anger before," you wrote, "back in the Vietnam War era." No, sir, you have not.
You hearken back to rock-throwing days in Vietnam, and lament hatred and rage. But you do not see that those days are quaint by comparison given our current geopolitical situation. Johnson and Nixon, whatever else their faults may have been, were internationalists who understood the need for connection to the wider world. The war in Vietnam, barbaric as it was, did not inspire tens of thousands of Vietnamese to join martyr's brigades. It did not threaten to unleash chaos in a part of the world that holds the economic lifeblood of our whole existence. It did not threaten to shake loose nuclear weapons from quasi-rogue states like Pakistan.
You speak of the angry mob because you got slapped around via email, but your characterization of the anti-war crowd tells me you have not spent a single moment out in the streets with them. I have. I have covered dozens of protests, large and small, in cities all across this country before and after the invasion of Iraq. Millions upon millions of Americans participated in these, and never once, not one time, was a rock thrown.
No violence was offered anywhere, unless it was violence offered to old ladies by riot-garbed police, as was evidenced in Portland several years ago. I have the photographs to prove it. If you want to see anger, enjoy this picture of a 60-year-old woman holding an anti-war sign while being placed in a hammer-lock by a riot cop:
"The hatred is back," you say, as if such hatred is beyond justification. It is interesting that you make so many allusions to Vietnam; the comparison is apt, yet not on point. This is not a situation of "Then" and "Now," but "Then" and "Again." The two issues are joined by a common theme: official malfeasance, presidential lies, administrative fear-mongering and horrific body counts in a faraway land. The lesson of Vietnam was so searing, many believed, that it would never have to be learned again.
Why the anger? Because that lesson didn't take, at least with this crowd. Why the anger? Because millions of people are staggered by the idea that, yes Virginia, we have to go through this again. We have to watch soldiers slaughter and be slaughtered for reasons that bear no markings of truth. We have to watch the reputation of this great nation be savaged. We have to watch as our leaders lie to us with their bare faces hanging out.
Why the anger? It can be summed up in one run-on sentence: We have lost two towers in New York, a part of the Pentagon, an important American city called New Orleans, our economic solvency, our global reputation, our moral authority, our children's future, we have lost tens of thousands of American soldiers to death and grievous injury, we must endure the Abramoffs and the Cunninghams and the Libbys and the whores and the bribes and the utter corruption, we must contemplate the staggering depth of the hole we have been hurled down into, and we expect little to no help from the mainstream DC press, whose lazy go-along-to-get-along cocktail-circuit mentality allowed so much of this to happen because they failed comprehensively to do their job.
George W. Bush and his pals used September 11th against the American people, used perhaps the most horrific day in our collective history, deliberately and with intent, to foster a war of choice that has killed untold tens of thousands of human beings and basically bankrupted our country. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq. They destroyed the career of a CIA agent who was tasked to keep an eye on Iran's nuclear ambitions, and did so to exact petty political revenge against a critic. They tortured people, and spied on American civilians.
You cannot fathom anger arising from this?
I wrote a book called "War on Iraq" in the summer of 2002. That book stated there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no al Qaeda connections in Iraq, no connections to 9/11 in Iraq, and thus no reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is now almost the summer of 2006. That book was right then, and is right now, and the millions of Americans who agree with the facts contained therein have shared these four years with me in a state of disbelief, shock, sorrow and yes, anger. None of this had to happen, and the fact that it was allowed to happen inspires the kind of vitriol you got a taste of via email.
If you want anger, you should try reading some of the emails I get on a weekly basis. The mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, husbands and children of American soldiers killed in Iraq write to me asking why it happened, what can be done, how this is possible. They write to me because I wrote that book, because somehow they think I have an answer to that bottomless question.
I am sorry you were so wounded by the messages you received. I wish that hadn't happened; I am personally from the more-flies-with-honey school of journalistic correspondence. But in the end, truth be told, I don't feel too badly for you. It isn't an excess of outrage that plagues this nation today, but an abject lack of it. Instead of castigating those who take an interest, who have gotten justifiably furious over all that has happened, I suggest you take a moment within yourself and ask why you don't share their feelings.
This isn't Vietnam, Mr. Cohen. This is a whole new ballgame, and the stakes are higher by orders of magnitude. It took almost ten years of Vietnam for people to reach the boiling point you are so apparently horrified by (and worthy of note, that rage may have elected Nixon, but also served to stop the killing in Southeast Asia). Should those of us who are angry today wait until 2013 to raise hell?
At a minimum, I suggest you head down to your local hardware store and buy a few sheets of 40-grit sandpaper. Apply it liberally - pardon the pun - to any and all parts of your body that may be exposed to the scary anger of the anti-war Left. Toughen up that hide of yours, and greet the coming days with a leathery mien impervious to a few angry emails.
Afterwards, you could perhaps figure out why the anger of those who see this war as a crime and this administration as a disaster is so terribly threatening to you. Anger is a gift, after all, one that inspires change. If you don't think we need a change, real change, I can only shake my head.
P.S. Another reason for the anger you have absorbed can be laid, frankly, at your own feet. There are enough of us around who can still remember your words from November of 2000: "Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush."
Locate a mirror, Mr. Cohen. Stare deep within it. Know full well that today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, will recast all your yesterdays as having passed like a comforting dream. Your ability to remain within the safe bubble of the beltway clubhouse, drifting this way and that in some meandering, rudderless fog, has ended. Al Gore invented the internet, or so we are told, and some bright-eyed editor decided to staple your email address to the bottom of your works. Welcome to the age of electronic accountability.
Here's what Richard Cohen wrote:
So Not Funny
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, May 4, 2006; Page A25
First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" -- as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. All the rest is commentary.
The commentary, though, is also what I do, and it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.
Colbert made jokes about Bush's approval rating, which hovers in the middle 30s. He made jokes about Bush's intelligence, mockingly comparing it to his own. "We're not some brainiacs on nerd patrol," he said. Boy, that's funny.
Colbert took a swipe at Bush's Iraq policy, at domestic eavesdropping, and he took a shot at the news corps for purportedly being nothing more than stenographers recording what the Bush White House said. He referred to the recent staff changes at the White House, chiding the media for supposedly repeating the cliche "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" when he would have put it differently: "This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." A mixed metaphor, and lame as can be.
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.
I am not a member of the White House Correspondents' Association, and I have not attended its dinner in years (I watched this year's on C-SPAN). The gala is an essentially harmless event that requires the presence of one man, the president. If presidents started not to show up, the organization would have to transform itself into a burial association. But presidents come and suffer through a ritual that most of them find mildly painful, not to mention boring. Whatever the case, they are guests. They don't have to be there -- and if I were Bush, next year I would not. Spring is a marvelous time to be at Camp David.
On television, Colbert is often funny. But on his own show he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness. In Washington he was playing to a different crowd, and he failed dismally in the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently. He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he was a man for our times.
He also wasn't funny.
...And here's what Cohen wrote in response to the emails he got:
Digital Lynch Mob
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 9, 2006; Page A23
Two weeks ago I wrote about Al Gore's new movie on global warming. I liked the film. In response, I instantly got more than 1,000 e-mails, most of them praising Gore, some calling him the usual names and some concluding there was no such thing as global warming, if only because Gore said there was. I put the messages aside for a slow day, when I would answer them. Then I wrote about Stephen Colbert and his unfunny performance at the White House correspondents' dinner.
Kapow! Within a day, I got more than 2,000 e-mails. A day later, I got 1,000 more. By the fourth day, the number had reached 3,499 -- a figure that does not include the usual offers of nubile Russian women or loot from African dictators. The Colbert messages began with Patrick Manley ("You wouldn't know funny if it slapped you in the face") and ended with Ron ("Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER") who was so proud of his thought that he copied countless others. Ron, you're a genius.
Truth to tell, I peeked into only a few of the e-mails. I did this because I would sometimes recognize a name I thought I knew, which was almost always a mistake. When I guilelessly clicked on the name, I would get a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face.
Usually, the subject line said it all. Some were friendly and agreed that Colbert had not been funny. Most, though, were in what we shall call disagreement. Fine. I said the man wasn't funny and not funny has a bullying quality to it; others (including some of my friends) said he was funny. But because I held such a view, my attentive critics were convinced I had a political agenda. I was -- as was most of the press, I found out -- George W. Bush's lap dog. If this is the case, Bush had better check his lap.
It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation.
What to make of all this? First, it's not about Colbert. His show has an audience of about 1 million -- not exactly "American Idol" numbers. Second, it marks the end of a silly pretense about interactive media: We give you our e-mail addresses and then, in theory, we have this nice chat. Forget about it. Not only is e-mail too often a kind of epistolary spitball, but there's no way I can even read the 3,506 e-mails now backed up in my queue -- seven more since I started writing this column.
But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.
The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls.
Rumor: Houston Texans GM Charley Casserly Fired - Profootballtalk.com
According to today's Profootballtalk.com, Houston Texans GM Charley Casserly has been fired. Here's their report, with a link to it at the title of this post.
CASSERLY OUT IN HOUSTON
A league source tells us that the Texans and G.M. Charley Casserly officially have parted ways after a six-year relationship, which preceded by more than two full years the team's official arrival to the NFL.
For now, we don't know whether the move is being characterized as a resignation or a termination. Our guess is that it will be described to the media as voluntary.
Several weeks back, we reported that Casserly would be fired after the draft. Our report prompted a strong denial from the team and from owner Bob McNair. Our prediction at the time was that all parties were hoping to preserve the appearance that Casserly's ultimate departure was not in any way forced.
His name has been mentioned as a potential replacement for Art Shell in the league office, but we've heard that the rumors of Casserly's candidacy for that specific position trace not to the Park Avenue, but to Casserly himself.
And based on things we're hearing it now appears that the Texans will make a run at Broncos assistant G.M. Rick Smith before moving on to other candidates. Some league insiders believe that the Broncos would never give Smith permission to leave, and other league insiders believe that the Texans don't (or at least shouldn't) want Smith given his close relationship with new head coach Gary Kubiak.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)