Trade Brandon Roy?

Too soon?

He's sucking it up lately, as is widely reported in the local press. And it seems he just can't seem to put together a decent streak with our present line-up. Whether it's slowness, bad knees, some sort of mental disorder, or whatever, it is seeming like B-Roy is perhaps becoming a liability.

Clearly, he can still have good games. But he seems to be of the opinion that our current line-up is a hindrance and not a help. What to do?

Some feel B-Roy is still untouchable. I'm coming to be less and less of that opinion all the time. We have Matthews, Batum, and Fernandez, all of whom can platoon his position as we shed his weight with Pryzbilla or Miller's expiring contract (which are probably the only thing that would add sizzle to a B-Roy trade-steak at this point). Roy probably has substantial value somewhere; it's seeming less-and-less likely that that value is here, this year or for the next couple.

I'm coming to be of the opinion that it's time to start cutting bait and moving toward tomorrow. Today, clearly, sucks...

WTF is going on at UO?

So University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer announced yesterday that Mike Bellotti is Oregon's new AD, and Chip Kelly (the current offensive coordinator for the football team) is the new head coach for the Ducks.

Except for one thing.

The moves will take place in an indisclosed time. John Canzano showed up on today's MSP to discuss, and said that Bellotti's identified the timeframe for the transition as being within the next 10 years.

Canzano expressed exasperation at the move, saying that it doesn't make sense for Oregon to enter into this sort of agreement if the move is not goin gto happen soon. The only rationale he could identify would be to ease the minds of recruits, since Chip's been identified as a head coach candidate by other schools and appeared ready to move. MSP host Gavin Dawson pointed out that a solid timeline raised the danger of a lame-duck scenario.

So what is going on? I think this move automatically raises a lame-duck scenario, with or without a set timeline. Much like the situation in Dallas with the Cowboys coaching situation, people will start looking at Bellotti as a caretaker and a head coach in name only. Sure, as the next AD he'll always be Chip's boss and Chip needs to toe the line, but when the players know that Bellotti's heading out (whenever that happens) and that Chip's the guy they have to suck up to, it creates issues in leading the team.

Besides, I don't think the team does this to keep recruits interested. The teams been through several offensive coordinators in the last 5 years, and has been consistently great. That indicates a solid program and solid leadership at the top, and so as long as Bellotti is there running the program, changing coordinators isn't the issue.

I don't think Chip Kelly signs this contract (and I'm sure there's a contract here) without some pretty specific assurances. I don't think he rides backseat to Mike for an indetermined amount of time when he could be a head coach now. And I don't think he signs a deal for a short term, either. The upside of this deal is that UO is a BCS power-program and has developed into a juggernaut; it's not likely he'd get a better shot anywhere else for a while. The downside is that (as Canzano said today) his offense will lose its luster and his stock will drop -- he must know football well enough to know that he needs to make his power play now.

I think we'll find out in the next few weeks (translation: after the impending bowl game) that Bellotti will coach one more season. Pat Kilkenny, who gets the credit for getting the new basketball arena built, will stick long enough to see the project through and, perhaps, bring on a new basketball coach (like Mark Few from Gonzaga), and then the transition takes place to a new sports regime with a new AD, football, and hoops coach rising (or falling) together. Meanwhile, I'm sure Chip is getting a nice Christmas bonus and, I'd guess, will play a pretty huge role in recruiting once the situation has gelled in the press.

Time will tell. I think it's a good move as long as it plays out in the near-term. If this transition takes more than a year, I think a lot of people will regret yesterday's announcement.

CONGRATULATIONS TO BARACK OBABA

And thanks to John McCain for being first-class in accepting defeat. Though I didn't vote for you, you are a great American.

Now, This IS A Scary Thought

From a Newsweek commentator, interviewed by CNN...

CNN: Does [the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate] make you concerned about Sen. McCain as a president?

Zakaria: Yes, and I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance.

Here's a link to Zakaria's artical at Newsweek, "Palin is Ready? Please." Frankly, a better title, there isn't.

"Everyone Has Their Dan Quayle"

I love my best friend, JLowe. But I can't, CAN NOT, see how we can let this person be a heartbeat away. I'm no state governor, and I'm certainly no vice presidential candidate, but I'd argue that putting this person in line to be president is reason enough to vote against John McCain.





Sarah Palin seems like a great lady. But she's not presidential, she's not vice presidential, and she's not the person to put in the batter's box.

I have a dream, too...

That some day, this day, a man will fulfill his promise.

And that this country, our country, will let him.



Go Barack.

Should We Kill the Kiddie Rapists?

Exciting night in Portland. NBA Draft, lots of news on the Blazers front.

On most NBA Draft nights (like last year), I'd be going crazy with excitement over the team and what's going on. It's a time of great promise and great hope.

But, instead, my mind is stuck on something it was seizing upon this morning: the recent US Supreme Court decision ruling that capital punishment shouldn't apply to people who rape children.

Background: as most of my actual readers know, I'm a lawyer. I'm also a person, so any legal insights I have are tempered by my human frailties (emotion and irrational, illogical thinking, for instance). Further, I've read a nutshell summary of the opinion created by a law student at Willamette, so don't think for a minute that I've read the actual opinion, the facts of this particular case, or the legal reasoning involved as applied to the case.

What I know: a guy raped his step-daughter, who was under the age of 12. He may or may not have done it. He was convicted and, under state law, sentenced to death. The Supreme Court essentially found that killing a person for rape was disproportionate to the crime and created too many problems to allow it to stand.

The case is a messy one to serve as a foundation for my premise, even with the scant amount of knowledge that I have. The premise being that few crimes are more deserving of the death penalty than raping a child. So, I discuss generally, and not in the particulars of this case.

I went into my office today and decided to launch the rare idealogical bomb to see what happened. I commonly rest on my philosophical laurels and lead a live-and-let-live sort of existence. Everyone's free to think or feel what they want, provided it doesn't create a mess for everyone else at work, because I'm not to judge them and I expect them not to judge me on the basis of our variant opinions, ideals, or beliefs.

But I was so beside myself with consternation at the Court's ruling that I decided to share it with my peers.

One was predictably on my side, as she always is in any real debate. Another was, again predictably, contrary to me, as we tend to have a different idealogical bent, despite being very close friends who respect and trust eachother inherently. The last, a college student interning with us, was a wild card, as she's only been around for a week.

I forwarded my position: the Supreme Court called it wrong, and child rapists should be fair game in a society that condones capital punishment. My agreeable peer agreed, as I previously alluded. My disagreeable peer gave good reasons for his disagreement.

His primary thesis is that capital punishment is wrong, that it constitutes us playing god (despite he, himself, being somewhat agnostic), and that the whole freaking system of capital punishment is out of order anyway. The intern primarily jumped on the faulty-system bandwagon.

I, of course, have to agree that the system is out of order. There are people subject to the death penalty that shouldn't be. I allowed for this truth in my argument.

But, I opined, if our society and our courts are going to deem it appropriate to terminate some criminals' lives for some crimes they've committed, then certainly child rape should make the list.

My main thrust in the argument was that few crimes are as injurious to society and to the actual victim as raping them. Although I didn't voice it, I was thinking more particularly of adults in a position of trust, such as parentals/teachers/baby-sitters, taking advantage of the youths in their care. But, certainly, any rape of a child is among the most reprehensible of all crimes. In fact, I think it's worse to rape a kid than to murder someone, because while the murder of someone has the effect of cutting off their future, the rape of a child has the effect of completely marring, scarring, and destroying a future that they must live through.

To his credit, my friend saw my points regarding how child rape was worse than many of the murders committed to get people on death row. But he opined that the death penalty's aim in these cases was to appease ourselves as opposed to creating justice. It was to make us feel better.

He is, of course, right. By killing a person, you remove their capacity to reform, to learn from their wrongs, to change. But, by killing that person, you let people know how their conduct is viewed, you state in the strongest possible way to the victim that they are valued and protected by society, and you, in no uncertain terms, mete out the highest degree of allowable punishment available for an extremely high degree of evil that has been committed. And, in acknowledgment of my friend's concern, it absolutely is a way to exorcise the rage we feel towards these people for what they've done.

We ended up debating the death penalty, ultimately, and essentially agreeing to disagree. Thus is the nature of a reasoned society debating openly about various views.

But I still ask, is the Court right? Should capital punishment be reserved to only murderers?

A Great Night for America; A Small Moment for Clinton

America celebrates a great moment in its history tonight, as a land that once counted blacks as 2/5 of a person now has one poised to become the nation's President.

The best reason to vote for Barack Obama for President, though, is not his color. It's because, between him and John McCain, Barack is the best person for the job.

Obama steps forward tonight as the duly-elected nominee for the Democratic Party for President of the United States. In his victory speech tonight, both out of real character and political need, he was magnanimous and kind to his primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, beyond that, he caught fire in a speech which captured the imagination and created a thrill for what could be.

Meanwhile, the greatest hope that America has ever had of seeing a woman run the country showed just how little she could be tonight. After having already started trying to push her name forward as a good VP candidate to go to the White House on Obama's coat-tails, Clinton further embarassed herself tonight by deciding not to concede, even as she essentially acknowledged that she'd lost.

Obama will be forced to consider her as a possibility for the back seat on his ticket. But, really, why should he entertain the thought? Clinton doesn't have the temperament of a number two, and her ambition (I believe) would prevent her from fulfilling the tacit understanding that a Vice President's job is to support her boss.

One line of thinking is that Obama needs to reach out to Clinton, because otherwise Clinton's voters won't support him in the national election. But, really, does that make sense? Sure, some of Clinton's supporters are racist whites who'll decide not to vote for Obama simply because of his skin color, but the majority are committed liberals who want to loose the Republican grasp on the White House. In a national election with no Hillary, where will they cast their vote? They certainly won't sit on it, and they certainly won't give it to McCain. Out of a lack of options, their votes will go to Obama, even if they don't like pulling the lever in his favor.

Obama's likely running mate, in my opinion, will be John Edwards. A Northern and a Southern candidate, both energetic and (at least publicly) committed to some pretty sweeping and, frankly, exciting social reforms, would excite the whole base of the Democratic party, while Edwards would wisely see this as a good stepping stool to the Presidency and would behave in an appropriately supportive fashion.

Of course, much remains yet to be seen. For tonight, I simply see confirmation of what I've known for weeks: the right person with the right temperament won, and the other person continues to be a classless and graceless loser, just as she's been for years.

Can Obama Win?

I think a better question might be "does it matter?"

JLowe sent me a link to an interesting article discussing the inherent racism on display in our current Democratic race for the presidency.

Basically, the point raised is this: Hillary Clinton asserts, perhaps not always openly, that she's the only candidate who can challenge John McCain, and the primary reason is because she's white.

The article also notes that Barack Obama understands the challenge of race in this election: "as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it."

And that, I think, is an important point. I think that it's important for Barack to be the candidate to face John McCain in the actual presidential election not only because I believe he is the best person for the White House (yes, I'll be voting for him, despite being a registered Republican), but also because it will finally break a glass ceiling that is in place in our current society.

Sure, people have a problem with the concept of a female president. But, as a whole, women have had much more ready access to power and opportunity in this country (especially white ones) than racial minorities. By admitting that, as a white, she's in a better position to win, Hillary Clinton reinforces a shameful truth of America today--that we only see skin deep--and asks us to affirm its correctness.

America may not be ready for a black president. I hope we are. But for those who can't wrap their head around the idea, the only way to get them to acknowledge the possibility, and start thinking about substance over form (or content over color) is to force them to consider whether to cast their vote for a black (or yellow, or green, or red, or whatever) person and then explain why they won't.

Can Obama win? I don't know. I hope so. But, whether he can or can't, Obama for President is, in my mind, an important message to perpetuate for as long as possible.

Why We Bracket

I have three different NCAA Brackets in four different pools. One office pool, one buddy pool (those are both comprised of my one entry at ESPN.com, and I'm winning both right now), one in John Canzano's B Pool at CBSSportsline (I didn't get in on time to be in the A Pool, though I should've been in it since I've participated twice before) where I'm tied for third with eleventy-nine other people, and one in the Utterlyboring.com pool at Yahoo (where I'm in second, which is where I finished last year).

Why am I in these pools? Canzano asked the people in his tourney pool why, and I decided to share.

The answer is a firm "I don't know." I don't follow college hoops, beyond keeping a loose awareness of who the top few teams in the country are and how the Ducks and Beavers and Zags are doing. I don't really even like college hoops. I probably should, but since they are composed now of a bunch of one-and-done exciting players coupled with a bunch of utility guys, it just doesn't interest me at all. I like teams with players I can follow for at least 3 years at a time.

So, it's not out of enthusiasm for the sport. And it isn't out of great enthusiasm for money, since the office pool is small potatoes (total pot = $70) and the others are essentially non-profit.

I guess it's just out of a desire to see if my knee-jerk, loosely-informed decision-making process will be vindicated. In my line of work, a lot of what I do relies on my ability to make quick judgments and to ride them to whereever they take me. So, like with my job, my pools are based on stuff I hear others say, my own gut feelings, and prejudice (Duke sucks, always bet against BYU in basketball, UCLA can never be number one, even if they deserve to be).

I will note that I broke my BYU rule this year. I decided to play that part of the bracket straight, and it's effed me. So that rule will be strictly enforced from now on.

How about you? Why do you bracket?

Arlen Specter, Patriot(hater)

Arlen Specter, long-in-the-tooth Republican senator and general boob, is raising a ruckus trying to pull the commissioner of the NFL before Congress to discuss the destruction of the "Spygate" NFL tapes. Specter's reasoning appears to be that, as football enjoys some protection from federal anti-trust laws, it is important to police the game to guarantee integrity to the fans.

Whatever.

It's one thing for Congress to prod into baseball. There, the only American game to be completely shielded from anti-trust laws was (at least tacitly) encouraging the use of drugs that are (and have long been) illegal to drive interest in particular players and the game in general, and as such was promoting a product that was wrong on many, many levels.

But with the NFL, and Spygate, we have one team using lawful measures (videotaping) to gain a competitive advantage, and the league stepping in and taking pretty extraordinary measures when it was investigated.

My guess is that Congress is trying to throw MLB a bone by drawing attention away from them, even as Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite are being grilled on Capitol Hill. It reeks of cronyism to me.

But, just to make my point, here are just a few things I'd like Congress to deal with before worrying about who videotapes who in professional football:

1. The War(s) in the Mid-East
2. Funding cures for cancer, AIDS, and a plethora of other diseases
3. Adequately funding our educational institutions (and students)
4. Forgiving my student loan debt
5. Encouraging business to go green while still being profitable
6. Interstate Bridge repair
7. Expatriating OJ Simpson
8. Finally, once-and-for-all annexing Canada
9. Strengthening the dollar
10. Making a world safe for my 2 year-old daughter.

Once Congress does something on each of these fronts, I'll entertain their notion that valuable time needs to be devoted to "Spygate." But unless and until there's some sort of satisfactory demonstration of why this is worthy of such devoted attention by the lawmakers of our nation, I'll just call it what it is.

Ridiculous.

Suck it, Steve Patterson!

Cudos to Canzano for pointing out this study which rates past and present NBA GM's based on a variety of performance criteria.

What does it show us? What we already knew, which is that (A) Steve Patterson sucked, and (B) Kevin Pritchard's going to rock (note that, in order to get him and the other first-year GM's into the study, they were each given a league-average season plus their current performance; Pritchard still comes in the upper 50%, which says he's trending nicely).

I love KP, and I love the team these days. Too bad I haven't had the time or the scratch to get to a game. By the way, whenever I do, Mark Mason promised me a beer to make up for the previously-mentioned snub for the Sam Adams party (which, it turns out, was likely as much my fault as Mark and Dave's). Mark Mason made it clear in the e-mail that he's read some of my other stuff, which I appreciated.

"Thank god"?

Why?

I've been relatively quiet lately. Combination of work, play, Christmas shopping, and my dog's fleas.

My dog got some fleas, and brought them into our house, and they manifested into a full-fledged invasion force. My basement, which is where our comfy couch and TV and computer are generally located, has been a ghost town of late.

But, I digress. Suffice it to say, I've thought of lots of stuff to write about, and just not gotten to it for lack of time or for lack of a desire to get bit to death.

General snippets of thought: happy the American-born child of the American lady and the Mexican national jailbird, who's in foster care somewhere in Oregon, gets to stay (who's bright idea was it to deport an American, anyway?); anti-Arizona's plan to try to thwart the rights of American-born children of illegal aliens to their right of citizenship by denying them birth certificates (when did we get in the business of deciding which Constitutionally-approved Americans are good enough to be Americans?); tired of all the press Britney Spears is getting (she's a train wreck, I get it); wondering at the idea that the Blazers always seem to do better when their starting power forward is out, regardless of who the starting power forward is (and pondering that it probably indicates that our former point guard coach has trouble devising a system that effectively uses the PF while keeping everyone eles productive); and noticing that I'm getting fat as the holidays approach, and starting to plan a weight-loss system, but I'm still dutifully eating my way to New Year's.

Now that those broad ideas, which have been bouncing around my head of late, are exorcised, I can get to today's topic: God with a little "g."

I was sparked in my reading, today, of the letters to the editor in Willamette Week. Namely, one by an individual named Chris Iverson, in Ashland, Oregon, who said (in part) the following: "Thank god that sometimes even bad publicity is good publicity."

Mister Iverson was responding to an article from last week that I haven't read (meant to, just never got to it), and so I have no idea whether his comments in his letter are educated, asinine, or even germane to the subject matter of the article. So I've got nothing to say as to the merits of his letter as a piece of editorial literature.

But I wonder at the people who invoke the name of God with a little "g."

The way I see it, there are three kinds of people. There are those that recognize and subscribe to a monotheistic, nameless God, who is the supreme power in the universe and who, by virtue of that, gets capitalized.

There are those that subscribe to a different idea of deity or deities, like Allah (who, some would say, is God, but I'll leave that for another discusser in another discussion), Vishnu, Jah, or whatever. They capitalize their deity, which is appropriate in the context of that person's usage of the name, given their feelings towards their deity.

Then there are the atheists, non-theists, secular humanists, and agnostic sorts who don't recognize or acknowledge the truth of a God-type deity. These are the ones that say God with a little "g," because they speak with no particularity and with no respect.

I'll digress quickly just to say that these people would never dream of not capitalizing Allah or Vishnu, but will with the more-generic (but generally Judeo-Christian proprietary) "God." For whatever reason. I'll leave it at that, and continue with my main point.

I wonder why someone who doesn't believe in, or appreciate, or adhere to any god would bother thanking one. And, if you're going to thank just one, isn't that One important enough to capitalize?

Sure, "thank God" has been watered down into just-another-figure-of-speech. But a thoughtful person like Chris Iverson certainly has the vocabulary to say "thankfully" instead, which would make his point just as effectively without being confusing (or revealing) as to his system of beliefs. In fact, by making the effort to make sure to fail to capitalize God in his submission, Mr. Iverson was saying exactly what he meant to say. Which is that he's a slave to the English language and is therefore bound to thank a God in Whom he doesn't believe.

Clearly I'm one who takes some sort of umbrage at these minor affronts. Is it just a lack of understanding on my part? Or is it a semi-righteous indignation at a person's demonstration of their lack of respect? Or is it understandable confusion at the thanking of one in whom a person sees no reason for actual thanks? Probably a combination of all of them.

Ultimately, I thank God I'm in a place where I'm able to do so, and even where Chris Iverson's able to not. But, really, if you don't believe in God, don't thank god. Because it clearly doesn't mean anything to you.

Fire Mike Bellotti

This season has been glorious. Mike Bellotti put together a wonderful team, a wonderful coaching staff, and had us all on the edge of our seats thinking about Oregon's first shot at a national championship.

In fact, over the years, Bellotti has done far more good than bad as Oregon's coach, and has been a key piece in bringing the team to its almost-current prominent (and dominant) position nationally.

All that said, assuming John Hunt and John Canzano at the Oregonian are telling the truth (and I'm assuming they are), Mike Bellotti needs to be let go. Now.

Quoth Hunt: "Dixon had a torn anterior cruciate ligament, but he did not suffer the injury on that first-quarter play. He had torn it on a similar move 12 days earlier, against Arizona State. After that game, and after discussing his short- and long-term future with those closest to him, he decided to try to play with a completely torn ACL.

"'Dennis asked of us, on behalf of himself and his family, to not let anybody know -- he wanted to continue to try to play,' Oregon coach Mike Bellotti said of Dixon, who has rehabbed the knee since the ASU game and wore a brace Thursday night. 'But he did feel some instability, obviously, on the play in question -- that was the concern that we had.

"'Our doctors had talked with him extensively about his knee and his situation, and I had told him I would support him in whatever he wanted to do -- whether he wanted to play or not play.'"

Quoth Canzano: "Team doctors knew about Dixon's injury, suffered Nov. 3 against Arizona State. Trainers knew. Coach Mike Bellotti and his staff knew. Dixon and his family knew. And so did the Ducks' teammates. Turns out, the only ones who were in position to do a preemptive thing about it -- the coaching staff -- decided the best plan was to bet the house and play ACL-roulette?"

WTF? Sure, Dixon's no kid. He's a fifth-year senior playing his heart and his guts (and his knees) out for a team he loves and a cause he believes in. That said, it's up to Bellotti and the team's coaches and staff to look out for this guy who had been their meal ticket and make the mature and responsible choice when his heart wouldn't let him. There's no way a guy who's future is in jeopardy and who's at risk to lose millions of dollars should be allowed by his college coach to play on an already-torn ACL. That's simply ridiculous. I'm terribly, terribly disappointed.

As much as I was hoping for the Ducks to finish at the top this season, I would never ask Dixon to play with a torn ACL, even though I've already said on this very blog that the Ducks have no hope of doing anything without him. And if some no-name idiot like me is smart enough and responsible enough to make the right call despite my sincere wish to see the Ducks go all the way, the coach making the millions should be held to that same standard.

Fire Mike Bellotti. Like the Blazers before, I'd rather see integrity and character than success.

Get Out and Vote!

Generally I don't like people holding signs along the roadside. I always appreciate the get-out-the-vote signers you see as you drive into downtown at election time, though. Honestly, it's a great service.

Here's my ballot, which I just delivered at Courthouse Square.


You may agree with how I voted. You may not. Either way, the only legitimate means of voicing your opinion in an election is to vote it. So comment if you'd like, but more importantly, GET OUT AND VOTE.

Hey, Mark & Dave, Where's My Invite?

Isaac noted over at his blog tonight that Mark & Dave had invited him to the Sam Adams Domain-Gifting shindig tomorrow thanks to his supportive discussion at his blog.

That's all well and good. But, really, where's my invite? After all, I have a whole topic devoted to the issue.

You can e-mail me at rustyblog at gmaildotcom. Don't make me boycott you...

The Boycott Shall Never Cease!

Sam Adams noted on Mark & Dave's show last week that Sam Adams (the non-candidate) had "said uncle" and told him that he could use the websites registered by Mark & Dave. He seemed to imply that the arrangement was not-so-open-ended, but he certainly didn't say that there was any restriction.

Whatever. I don't care. Without a formal apology, I don't regard this as being over.

This boycott, as far as the web goes, has become old hat and uninteresting. I'll let you know if I ever give up, but know for now that Sam Adams beer is verboten in the Rusty universe.

By the way, the eggheads at Harvard dissected the letter here. I'm not sure what their final analysis indicates. To me, it says Sam Adams Beer never had a leg to stand on.

Sam Adams Boycott, Days 5-7

Well, the (3-day) weekend (for me, that is) is past. After spending a full day celebrating my daughter's second birthday, I've had a chance to play a little catch up.

As noted here this weekend, Sam Adams (the beer) has taken conciliatory steps towards Sam Adams (the candidate). In fact, in a press release issued by Boston Brewing, the company appears to be stepping down entirely.

On the other hand, there have been occasions over the years when individuals actually named “Sam Adams” have registered domain names that included the words Sam Adams, and we have had no quarrel with that.

Similarly, we believe that Sam Adams, the mayoral candidate, has every bit as much right to use his name as we do. Our namesake, the patriot Samuel Adams, stood for public service and free speech, and we do too. We hope these URLs will, in fact, be transferred to candidate Sam Adams where they rightfully belong.

Candidate Sam Adams – shout your name from the rooftops and your Web site!

This half-assed effort at smoothing things over isn't convincing to me or to anyone else. In my own ear, these words ring hollow to me for (at least) a couple of reasons.

First, the implicit statement here is that, until the sites are actually legally transferred to Adams, there's still an issue. "We hope these URL will...be transferred to candidate Sam Adams where they rightfully belong," along with being grammatically incorrect, injects the corporate IP lawyers' thought that there's a difference between buying them for a candidate, and a candidate buying them for himself. By saying "shout your name from...your website," it appears that Boston Brewing is saying "once it's in your name, we no longer care."

Subtle, but still troubling.

Let me ask you this, Boston Brewing geniuses. Having myself once run a campaign for a local candidate, and having gone to steps to put together a website, I'm privy to a couple of facts. Many candidates don't own their campaign. It's actually funded by a committee, run by a campaign manager, and manned by a bunch of different people who do different things, often without the candidate's specific knowledge. What's the difference between a campaign committee buying a candidate a URL and a couple of well-wishing DJ's doing the same? It seems to me the implication here is that, unless Sam Adams himself actually owns these URL's, we're still operating solely by the good graces of Boston Brewing. They're being nice, as opposed to actually acknowledging that they're full of shit.

Further, I was thinking about their original Cease and Desist letter (again, viewable here). It alleges a serious violation of Federal law by Mark and Dave and, if read in the broad sense it was meant, by Sam Adams (the candidate) if used for his campaign. Suddenly we're supposed to just accept that Federal law was not an issue?

This pisses me off. Lawyers (which, again, I am one of) threaten non-lawyers with inaccurate readings of laws, implicitly accusing people of violating the law in a strong-arm attempt to bully people into submission. When it doesn't work, or when the back-lash finally hits them, they drop the issue. If the law was really being broken, I'm sure they wouldn't. They knew when they wrote the letter that the use of the URL's, as intended, was legal. They were simply trying to protect their monopoly on the name Sam Adams.

Really, they expect me to believe they don't use Google? Either that's true and these are the stupidest people alive, or it's a lie and they are guilty of super-assholery. Either way, I'm still not done boycotting.

Not unless, and until, a full apology is rendered for this capricious act of corporate violence against everyman will I back down from this boycott. Mark and Dave themselves continue to request that a Boston Brewing lackey speak directly to them, and they continue to be refused. Not until their website indicates that they've been given a satisfactory apology will I consider this war over.

I encourage anyone still reading this drivel to take the same stand.

(P.S. Still waiting for someone to accept the Wikipedia challenge...)

Have They Really Apologized?

Read here.

Sam Adams (the beer) has offered a semi-apology to Sam Adams (the candidate). It's not clear to me if they've allowed the usage of the websites registered by Mark and Dave, or if (as their attorney said earlier) such use would be subject to constraints placed by Boston Brewing.

Tell me what you think. Should the Boycott end now? Has Boston Beer surrendered their ludicrous stand?

Sam Adams Boycott: The Weekend

Today I'm drinking beer. If plans go my way, I'll have a few. That'll compliment the few I had to celebrate the end of the week yesterday.

Yesterday, on Day 4 or the Boycott, I had some Bridgeport Blue Heron Pale Ale.

Today, I'll have some Hammerhead from McMenamins.

By the way, when the Boycott ends, when Sam Adams Beer does the right thing, I'll buy a sixer of that swill and drink it. Not all at once, but I will reward the corporation for doing the right thing.

Another by the way: Sam Adams Beer has brewed blends named after various patriots, including our first president, George Washington. Given their celebration of political types, they should feel honored to have a candidate, whom they were named after (if not in spirit, in time) who is doing his patriotic duty of serving his community (whether you agree with his politics or not, public service is, in and of itself, a noble quality). They should feel embiggened that Sam Adams, the candidate, is running for mayor of Portland, and they should do their part to support such endeavors, instead of quashing them.

Boston Brewing, and Sam Adams Beer, I call on you to honor America, and honor our political process, and honor the spirits of the very Founding Fathers whose names you yourselves take advantage of for your own pocketbooks. Cease and desist your ridiculous demands of Mark and Dave and Sam Adams to do the same. Immediately.