There are many--and I would count myself among them--who felt that the officials played too large a part in determining the outcome of Monday night's Ravens-Patriots game. Specifically, I am talking about the 4th and 5 defensive holding call. Now, this call is certainly more controversial than, say, the "holding" calls against Pitt from Saturday, not only because the call against the Ravens actually turned a victory into defeat, but also because it is far less clear that the defensive holding call actually was bad.
Peter King, for instance, defended the call, saying:

"Once Watson gets past the 8-yard line, it's illegal for Winborne to have anything but
incidental contact with Watson, but he clearly has an arm on him well past the 8, and all the way into the end zone. Maybe the call should have been holding, maybe the call should have been illegal contact, but it was a legitimate call, not a ticky-tack one."

There are two ways, I think, to interpret what King is saying here when he calls the flag "legitimate" and not "ticky-tack". The first would be that, as per the events he describes, Winborne's actions fit the description of defensive holding, and therefore the call was legitimate (in this scenario, a "ticky-tack" call would involve something, perhaps, that looked like a penalty but strictly speaking was not). The second interpretation is that, with regards to the context in which the penalty was called, the penalty was legitimate.
Before I rebut King's point, let me briefly state my own position, which will in turn clarify my problem with his argument. I subscribe to the 'prevailing' notion that the players, not the officials, should decide ballgames. Absent any concrete circumstances, this can sound vague and rhetorical; but in practice I think it generally means that officiating needs to be contextual. That is, the range of what fouls/penalties/etc. get called might need to change given the context of the game. And I know I am not alone in holding that when a game gets down to the final minute(s), or the last few plays/possessions in a big game, that officials ought to "let the players play", so to speak, and save penalty flags and whistles for only the truly egregious fouls.
So it is important to understand that I (and others who feel similarly) are not necessarily criticizing the defensive holding flag insofar as it was actually a penalty--the criticism isn't that no defensive holding took place (this might be our criticism of the holding calls in the WVU-Pitt game), but that the holding was not egregious enough to be called at such an important juncture of the game. Which is why it matters, to some extent, which interpretation we attribute to King. For on the first interpretation, his point misses the mark, since most are not denying that, technically, defensive holding took place; the call was bad because "ticky-tack" defensive holding shouldn't have been called on a play of this magnitude. If we (perhaps more charitably) attribute the latter meaning to his argument, he is certainly addressing the meat of our argument, but I am not sure that anything he says ultimately supports his point. For the situation he describes (Winborne riding Watson past the 5-yard mark where contact is allowed) doesn't seem to merit a flag within this context. It's fine if King doesn't think that the call was "ticky-tack" like many do--but everything he says merely shows that the flag was correct only in the most technical sense. Which is exactly what people mean when they call a penalty "ticky-tack".

Cardinal's-Eye View

There were some crazy football games this weekend, but it seemed to take place admist some very poor officiating. Pitt beat West Virginia despite what could only be described as the officials' best efforts to give WVU the game (two ridiculously bad holding calls on two of the game's biggest plays, and the second one followed by a pretty questionable no-call on defensive holding against WVU). But, yeah, that outcome was... unexpected.
In any case, I was very happy to see my Rams improve to 3-9 (though maybe I shouldn't be, since at this point we're only costing ourselves draft position...) and Ohio State luck into the championship game. The only thing that ruined it was the Browns losing. Now, granted, they didn't play very well, turned it over four times, so I guess in some sense they 'deserved' to lose--but this game is the type of game that good playoff teams find a way to win, and in a very real sense we should have won that game. And we would have won that game, if not for an extremely bad call at the end of the game. I mean, if I were to give someone a textbook example of what a "force-out" was, this would be the play I would show. If that catch by Kellen Winslow isn't a force-out, then what is? And what was that official even looking at? It looked like he wasn't even watching, like he was expecting the ball to be incomplete-- or perhaps he was in a hurry to get the game over with so he could go collect his giant bag of money from the Cardinals.

Contracts, Abortion, and You

One of the most common arguments, against both libertarian outcry that "taxation is theft" and against abortion, is the 'tacit consent' argument. Essentially, it is posited that by doing some action (in the case of the State and taxation, it is remaining in the country and using tax-funded goods and services; in the case of abortion, it is having consensual sex), you have actually tacitly contracted to do something further (pay taxes or not have an abortion).

Now, I think this is a bad argument for several reasons (and in the not too distant future I hope to elaborate more on this), not the least of which is that these seem like highly improable cases to even consider for a tacit consent argument. But I think one of the biggest problems with such arguments is that they ignore the inalienabilty of our rights. To say that our right to self-ownership is inalienable is to say that that nothing we say or do (or contract) could possibly give up our right of self-ownership. (This is why, for instance, I would argue that on libertarian principles one could never sell oneself into slavery.)
The importance of this point to the matter at hand is that contracts are always 'breakable', in the sense that even if I contract to do X, I could always change my mind. I may owe compensation to the person with whom I contracted, but that person would have no right to force me to do X. Thus, e.g., I might agree to mow my neighbor's lawn. Then, the day that I'm going to mow it, something comes up and I can't do it. I may owe my neighbor compensation for not mowing her lawn and breaking our contract, but my neighbor couldn't use force to make me mow my lawn.
I think this point is apllicable both to arguments against social contract theory, as well as arguments in favor of legalizing abortion. Focusing on the latter, let's assume that a woman having consensual sex is tantamount to 'tacit consent' to bear any child that may come of her actions (I think this is a very weak argument and hard to maintain, but that's a different matter). I still don't think this would be a strong argument against abortion, since the woman has every right to change her mind and break her "contract." Since no contract can take away a person's inalienable right of self-ownership, her 'consent' to bear the child doesn't bar her from the future action of having an abortion.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

1. That San Diego-Indy game was one of the weirder games I can remember watching recently. At this point it seems pretty safe to say that San Diego isn't going to be a threat in the playoffs, since they have no ability to pass the football. Rivers has looked awful every time I've watched him this year. Oh, and Vinitari missing that 29-yarder was absolutely shocking. I was stunned and unable to move for at least 5 minutes.

2. How big was that botched call early in the Ohio State-Illinois game? After OSU went up 7-0 in like 20 seconds, Illinois responded with a 80 yard run to OSU's 3 yard line, at the end of which the runner clearly fumbled and was recovered by Ohio State. For whatever reason, the play wasn't challenged, reviewed, etc. Talk about a game-changing performace; as bad as Ohio State looked that game, I don't think they lose the game if that play is reviewed and they get the ball back, up 7-0 still, ready to add more points at home.

3. After my Rams won on Sunday (actually looking good for once!) I had to entertain wild thoughts about them winning out (their schedule isn't too tough, but they do have Green Bay and Pittsburgh) and slipping into the division title. What's scary, though, is that the scenario, while unrealistic, isn't as unrealistic as it ought to be. San Francisco is terrible (they should be winless right no, as they were completely outplayed in their two wins), Arizona is still Arizona, and Seattle is inconsistent and overrated. That said, the Rams probably won't win out (they were 0-8 before Sunday for more reasons than massive injuries), andd Seattle will probably end up better than 8-8 (though maybe not by much). But I have to keep the dream alive!

4. I just finished reading Dune; not exactly sure what to think about it. It was definitely good, but I felt like maybe it was not quite as good as I was expecting/hoping. I plan on watching the movie (the mini-series one) soon, so maybe I'll have more thoughts after that.

5. The new Lego Star Wars game, like all the ones before it, is way more fun than it has any right to be. Honestly, I'd probably keep playing it for the next month or so, except that both Mass Effect (Nov 20th) and the new Star Wars: Legacy of the Force novel (Nov 27th) are out soon.

6. Speaking of Mass Effect, I'm currently reading the prequel-novel thing (by Drew Karpyshyn, also the author of the Darth Bane Star Wars EU novel). So far, so good, and I can't wait for Mass Effect.

Seriously?

Last Sunday, I had a choice between watching the local Cleveland Browns (playing against my hapless and injury-depleted St. Louis Rams) and watching the Bears-Lions game. Now, I wouldn't call the Bears-Lions a terrible game, but it isn't a game that's going to excite many people outside of Detroit and Chicago. *Especially* Cleveland fans who don't really care what happens in the NFC North.
This weekend, the very same Cleveland market is being denied the Patriots-Colts game (which should but won't be airing in Cleveland opposite the Browns at 4:00 ET).
So let me get this straight: last weekend, it was okay to show a game opposite the Browns, when that game was insignificant. But when there's a really really good game that people might want to actually watch (one of the most anticipated regular season games in NFL history!) it won't be aired because the Browns-Seahawks game is on at the same time on another station. Who comes up with this asinine bullshit? I will pass on a rant here about the monopolies that help bring about such ridiculousness (suffice to say that I think intellectual property rights have a lot to do with this dire situation; I'll try and say more about this later). I will say, though, that this is the type of frusterating thing that legitimately makes me want to boycott the NFL. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I think I love football too much to do that.

The Eternal Struggle?

Gregg Easterbrook (aka Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN) had an interesting take on the Pats-Colts rivalry in his most recent column. In essence, he argues that the Colts and Patriots rivalry has become a classic battle of Good (the Colts) vs. Evil (the Patriots). I won't go into the merits of his particular arguments here, but I more or less agree with his point (though perhaps not to the extent that he takes it). I should add, though, that I have a longstanding anti-Pats bias, one that has not been helped by the Red Sox narrowly defeating my Indians in the ALCS.

Anyways, I found the article interesting for two main reasons. One, I was pleased to see that I wasn't the only one who was more than sick of hearing about New England, and hadn't so quickly forgotten about their cheating and how arrogant Belicheck can be. And two (this being the main one), I found it interesting how drastically the Patriots' image has changed. Back when they won their first ring, they were the 'ultimate team'--humble and selfless, composed of no-name players who thrived on coaching and hard work. They were the "complete team", that year in and year out were able to one-up Manning and the Colts. The Colts were, of course, the exact opposite--a flashy, finesse offense studded with stars like Manning and Harrison, trying to outscore opponents who generally could put up serious points against their inadequate defense. Boy, how time have changed! As Harrison has aged, the offense has really become more complete; it has blossomed into something that isn't dependent on drop-back passes, or on the speed of Harrison and Wayne, etc. Likewise, as their Super Bowl run showed, their defense can handle hard-nosed running teams and high-scoring offenses alike. And what about the Patriots? Well, the cheating scandal has certainly changed how many view them, but that aside, their offense has become more and more finesse while their D doesn't seem as dominant as in years past (not to say that it isn't good; it is).

Anyways, I found it interesting how the roles have been reversed in this case, and I think changes both in the teams' style of play, as well as coaches' deamanor (and, of course, whether or not they've been caught cheating) have brought about this change in view.

Final Fantasy Tactics: Take 2

In addition to finally getting on Xbox Live and playing some Halo 3, I've been playing a fair amount of Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions. The original FFT has long been one of my favorite games, and--thus far at least--the remake (or 'enhanced port' as they call it) has some nice improvements. For those who have played the original, the main differences are the added cutscenes, some new classes and weapons, and much improved dialogue.
Anyways, assuming the remake continues to capture the awesomeness of the original, I highly recommend playing it. Final Fantasy Tactics, in addition to being an enjoyable strategy-RPG, has one of the best storylines in any video game I've played. With political intrigue and betrayal, numerous plot twists, and in-batttle philosophical discussions about social inequality, it is one of the few games I've genuinely wished would just keep going.

Salutations!

Just thought I'd begin my new blog by greeting any readers out there. I also reposted the sole post from my old blog. I am hoping, this time around, to actually post on a consistent basis.

Fear Will Keep the Local Systems in Line

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."I just watched V for Vendetta again last night (for like the sixth time, and it's not even out on dvd yet :-) ) It's one of my favorite movies, and every time I watch it I can't help but see the similarities between it and my other favorite movie(s), Star Wars. On the one hand, this is to be expected, since both movies have libertarian themes. But what I find interesting is that they both focus on the same libertarian theme--the idea that government
capitalizes and survives by producing fear in its citizens. In V for Vendetta, we see the way that the government manipulates the people by actually using biological weapons against them, and then "saves the day"--the government just "happens" to have the only available cure.
In Star Wars (speaking of the entire saga, and not just the original), Palpatine, as powerful as he is, cannot just declare himself Emperor and receive immediate obedience. Rather, he must first make people afraid--and it is to this end that he designs the entire Clone Wars. Star Wars shows how government uses War as an excuse to consolidate and increase its power. And, perhaps more cynically, it shows how government itself is often behind the war in the first place. Of course, after Palpatine's rise to complete power (only made posible by War and the production of fear), he keeps his power by keeping the citizens afraid. Afraid, of course, of the power of the Death Star (much like in V for Vendetta, in which the people are afraid of the government's sheer brutality--curfews, executions, black-bagging, and so forth).

And, of course, I do not think that the examples of the use of fear in either movie should be seen as examples of how a particularly evil government might operate. Rather, we ought to view them as particularly nasty instances of how centralized government must operate. Not every government uses biological attacks on its own citizens--but virtually all deceive their citizens into thinking that, without government's help and good grace, chaos would ensue, free markets would become plague-ridden with huge monopolies, medical care would only be available to the wealthiest of the wealthy, and that the nation would be forever at the mercy of any other nation who wished to invade. By keeping people afraid of being free, government entrenches itself as "the answer" to which people look when confronted with War, Famine, Disease, Poverty, and so forth. But so long as we continue to look to government to solve such problems, we will be at the mercy of the gang of thieves that creates these problems in the first place.