ambien mg overseas ambien order ambien buy ambien cheap 5 mg ambien ambien 5 mg ambien 90 mg at bedtime ambien 10 mg no rx ambien ambien 25 mg dose ambien order ambien 80 mg ambien price help with ambien prescription ambien no rx ambien cheap ambien buy discount 20 mg ambien ambien 20 mg order ambien ambien canada where can i buy some ambien canada ambien buy ambien nr buy ambien cr ambien 80 mg ambien first rx ambien cr price ambien discount cheap ambien cr ambien no prescription usa ambien get high can you get addicted to ambien purchase ambien ambien buy line price of ambien ambien cr 18 mg ambien purchase ambien buy ambien 15 mg cheap ambien ambien cr canada buy ambien no rx overnight ambien can you get high on ambien order ambien cr ambien rx online ambien with no rx get ambien online ambien 25 mg dose ambien without rx buy ambien online how to get ambien ambien buy online help with ambien prescription buy generic ambien ambien cr purchase ambien buy discount purchase ambien cr buy ambien on line lowest price ambien ambien buy discount where can i buy some ambien cheap ambien online ambien online cheap ambien canada cheap ambien 80 mg where to buy ambien purchase ambien cod order ambien online cheap generic ambien ambien no prescription usa buying ambien online can you get addicted to ambien ambien online canada generic ambien 10 mg buy ambien for cheap ambien 10 mg tablets order ambien on line ambien buy ambien 15 mg cheap ambien generic ambien cheap buy ambien cr online

My favorite ad of the night:

Here’s the story of how the ad came together, including this nugget: to film the ad, Leno “enter[ed] the Ed Sullivan Theater during the taping of Letterman’s show [last Tuesday], when there’s often commotion from fans on Broadway, but Leno wore a disguise: ‘A hooded sweatshirt, dark sunglasses and a fake moustache,’ says Burnett. ‘He snuck into Broadway into the back lobby,’ and from there, to a 10th-floor office.” Heh!

I’m billing this as a “live chat” rather than a “live blog,” since I don’t know how much I’ll be participating in it, what with girls being awake for much of the game. But, at the very least, my occasional tweets will appear automatically in the chat window below.

[WARNING: Political ranting ahead, with some profanity. I'm pissed off.]

I’ll be the first to admit that, as a relatively new Coloradan, I don’t pay as much attention to state politics as I should. But tonight, on my commute home, I heard a story on Colorado Public Radio about the current budget debate — and it made me furious with the Republicans in this state. But my reaction was broader than that, because the story perfectly encapsulates, albeit on a local level, the utter irresponsibility and cynicism of so many Republicans and “conservatives” nationally right now — the very sort of thing Andrew Sullivan has been decrying as nihilistic oppositionism. This story is, in a nutshell, why the excitable Sully is, in this instance, absolutely correct.

Colorado, like many states, is in the midst of a huge budget crisis. Many painful spending cuts have already been made, but the shortfall remains huge. Yet, Keynes and Krugman be damned, the budget has to be balanced, come hell or mile-high water. So the Democrats are now pushing bills that would eliminate tax exemptions for various things, from soda to candy to bull semen — yes, bull semen. Republicans and business leaders object on the grounds that these are effectively tax hikes (which is true) and would hurt businesses, thus resulting in the elimination of jobs (and the reduction of other forms of tax revenue, offsetting some of the fiscal gains).

As I listened to the voices of folks criticizing the bills, I found myself feeling pretty sympathetic to the Republicans’ position. I needed to know more details, certainly, but at first blush, this seemed to me like a case where maybe the Democrats are raising taxes when they should instead be cutting more spending. My inner fiscal conservative was awakened, and felt predisposed to oppose the Dems’ plan.

And then they started talking about the Republican “alternative.”

The Republican bill would require that some specified amount of money — I forget the exact number — be trimmed from the state budget through state employee layoffs, pay cuts and the like. Okay, well, as the son of two Connecticut state employees, I wasn’t instantly on board — I know all too well what the misleading siren song of anti-state-employee demagoguery sounds like — but I was willing to listen. Hey, maybe the GOP had found some places where cuts could genuinely be made. I was certainly curious to hear the details.

But there’s the rub. There are no details. The Republican proposal would simply mandate that X amount has to be cut from the budget, and then leave it at that, requiring that the governor decide what, specifically, to cut from state services. “Layoffs and pay cuts,” the GOP would say, without providing any guidance about who or what. So the Republicans would get to take credit for being fiscally responsible and preventing tax increases, while the governor — who, I should add, is a lame-duck Democrat — has to make all the hard choices, and suffer all the blowback from those choices.

Pardon my French, but what fucking bullshit.

That is not a good-faith proposal. It is not policy-making. It is not legislation. It is not governance. It is not even an advancement of conservative principles; a principled conservative would put his money (or lack thereof) where his mouth is, and propose specific cuts that would shrink the size of government in ways that would make Ronald Reagan smile. But that’s not what this is. This is just an absolute, total abdication of responsibility by one of the two major political parties in this state.

Their “proposal” to solve the state’s serious, crisis-level fiscal problems is to proclaim a number from On High, declare their job done, and let someone else — some liberal! — figure out the details?!? Are you fucking kidding me?!? This is the conservative alternative I’m supposed to sign onto, if I think the Democrats are being a little too tax-and-spendy? This utterly irresponsible bollocks is my only other choice? Really?!?!?

The cynical political calculus couldn’t be more obvious, of course. As I said, the GOP gets credit for preventing tax hikes, and the Democrats get the blame for whichever painful cuts they decide to make. That’s if the proposal somehow succeeds. If it fails, as it’s pretty much guaranteed to (you might say designed to), the GOP gets credit for trying to prevent tax hikes, and the Democrats get the blame for opposing the GOP’s brilliant anti-tax proposal. And the public is too stupid to realize they’re being played. Politically, I get it. But governmentally? Good grief! This is our government?!

In a sense, this is precisely why our system is broken — but you know what, that’s not good enough. This isn’t a structural problem; this is a problem of cynical individuals, acting of their own free will, making indefensible choices. The Republicans could act like grown-ups, and participate in the political affairs of the state (and the nation) like partners in governance — or at least give the majority Democrats the opportunity to accept or reject such a partnership. But they’ve chosen not to do that. They’re not offering an actual partnership. They’re not offering anything real. They’ve chosen instead to be purely cynical obstructionists, with nothing to offer but transparent bullshit. That was and is their choice; they could have chosen differently. And so they don’t deserve to have me, or anyone else, make excuses for them. Pointing out that liberals also do irresponsible, cynical things at times is letting the Republicans off the hook much too easily for this particular abdication of the job we, the people, elected them to do. Next time the Dems do something similarly shameless, get back to me and I’ll consider the facts of the specific situation. But right now, it’s the Republicans who are doing it, and you know what? The sort of cynical, irresponsible jackasses who would make such a transparently political, hopelessly useless, shamelessly demagogic “proposal” — in the midst of a serious, extraordinarily difficult-to-solve crisis — have no business governing a homeowner’s association, let alone a state or a nation. These people should be voted out of office, every last one of them.

And until they are — until someone makes the “conservative” opposition in this state and this country understand that being a loyal opposition requires making some attempt at proposing constructive solutions to the problems we face instead of merely opposing the Democrats’ proposals, calling them liberals, hippies and socialists, and making transparently bad-faith counterproposals that are intended solely to score political points — is it any wonder I’ll be voting Democrat, and supporting the leaders, like Ritter and Obama, who are at least trying to grapple with the insanely intractable and difficult problems we face? Not because I agree with them or their proposed solutions, necessarily, but because they are the only functioning political party in this country right now whose actions reflect any intent or desire to actually govern.

Continuing on with the discussion in my prior tweets and links and longer blog posts about the possibility of NCAA Tournament expansion, I want to expand on something I proposed in comments the other day.

If the NCAA is absolutely dead set on expansion, there’s a right way to do it, and a wrong way. The wrong way is to create a haphazard-feeling play-in round, with bizarre, uninteresting, and out-of-place matchups like #9 vs. #24 playing for the right to take on #8 (who cares?!), and #16 vs. #17 — both mid-level NIT teams in the present system — vying for the right to challenge #1. This setup would fail to reward teams on the top 4 seed lines for their excellent seasons because, instead of round-of-64 matchups against low-major auto bid teams that have little chance of winning, they’d get relatively solid, mid-60s RPI type teams, coming off big wins. At the same time, it would fail to give those low-major teams a chance at the truly magical, Hampton-esque moments that are the very best thing about the tournament.

Think about it: If, rather than being a #15 seed stunning a #2 with legit national-title ambitions, Hampton had been a #23 seed and had merely beaten a #10 seed — the sixth-place team in the Big 12, say, instead of its champion — who would remember it?

The right way to do expansion — the way to preserve the opportunity for unforgettably magical One Shining Moments like the one shown above, which are what make March Madness so special — is to do something like this:

Instead of expanding the field to 96 as such, replace the “opening round game” (i.e., the play-in game) with an actual opening round — a round that, crucially, isn’t considered part of the tournament, but rather is a final prerequisite for all potential at-large teams to make the tournament in the first place.

Since there are 31 auto bids, we need 33 at-larges for a 64-team tournament. So, have the committee select the 66 best teams that didn’t receive automatic bids — everyone from whichever two teams out of the Kansas-Texas-KState trifecta don’t win the Big 12 tourney, all the way down to BCS-conference mediocrities like Notre Dame and iffy mid-majors like Wichita State — seed those teams from #1 to #66, and match them up in 33 unbracketed opening-round games (1 vs. 66, 2 vs. 65, etc.). Then take the 33 winners, call them “NCAA Tournament at-large teams,” throw them into the field with the 31 auto bid winners, re-seed the entire field into a proper 64-team bracket (so a top-notch at-large team like Kansas/Texas/K-State could still get a #1 seed, and the auto-bid bottom feeders like Morehead State would still be #16 seeds), and go from there.

This, to my delight and Andrew’s chagrin, would preserve the frequent lopsidedness — but occasional absolute Hampton-style magic — of the games between #1-4 seeds and #13-16 seeds, since #s 13-16 would still be lowly auto-bid teams, as God intended. :) Yet meanwhile, Andrew, and others who feel there aren’t enough competitive games in the early rounds, would still get their desired extra round of potential upsets, since the highest level teams (with the exception, basically, of the six auto-bid winners from the BCS conferences) would be playing in the opening round against teams whom they’d periodically lose to — and they’d have to win those games in order to call themselves “tournament teams,” and earn the right to play the Morehead State type teams in the first round of the actual tournament (i.e., the round of 64).

My scheme would somewhat (though not entirely) restore the old notion of the NCAA Tournament being a “tournament of champions.” Conference champs like, say, a Morehead State would actually get an advantage over a non-champion like, say, a Kansas team that loses to Texas or K-State in the Big 12 tourney. Morehead would automatically be in the tournament from the get-go, while the Jayhawks would have an extra hurdle to clear (i.e., winning an opening-round game over a Notre Dame-type team). If you’re a conference championship purist, this is a feature, not a bug. At-larges can join the party, but only when they’ve earned their way in — they don’t just get selected in by a committee, they’ve gotta win a game to get in (and it’s not that easy of a game).

Mid-major-haters and other non-tournament-of-champions-purists may say this isn’t “fair” to the Kansases of the world, teams from tough conferences like the Big 12 or Big East, for whom winning an auto bid is more challenging than it is for a team like Morehead State. To which I say: gimme a break. The Kansases and Kentuckys have more structural advantages over the Moreheads and Chattanoogas than you can possibly imagine. There’s nothing “unfair” about rewarding conference champions for being champions, and if this gives a tiny leg up to teams below the Red Line, it’s still like pissing into a hurricane in the grand scheme of things. If Kansas or Syracuse or Villanova or Kentucky is as good as you think they are, surely they can win one extra piddly little game to prove it. It’s simple: they gotta either win their conference tournament, or they gotta win an extra game against a team they should (but aren’t guaranteed to) beat. Once they do that, they’re in, they’re seeded properly, and they’ve got the same national championship shot as everyone else.

Having said that, I will happily concede — and again, I think this is a feature, not a bug — that my setup would probably increase somewhat (but not too much, IMHO) the number of upsets in the eventual #1-4 vs. #13-16 games during the round-of-64, for two reasons: (1) the quality of teams on the #1-4 lines would be slightly diluted, since you’d always lose a few teams in opening-round upsets that were otherwise destined for high seeds; and (2) perhaps more importantly, those #1-4 seeds who were at-larges (and thus had to survive an opening-round game) would be playing on short rest as compared to #13-16s, who would almost always be auto bids. Don’t think Morehead has a shot against Kansas? Neither do I — but if the Jayhawks, regular-season but not tournament champions of the Big 12, are running on fumes while their lowly opponents are well-rested, the odds increase slightly, certainly of a competitive game, and occasionally of a stunning upset. Which would be great for the tournament as a whole.

My system would also solve a major objection to expansion: the specter of mediocre-to-bad teams *cough*FireMikeBrey*cough* being able to rest on their flimsy laurels and claim they had a quasi-successful season by saying, in the height of lameness, “we made the tournament” by being in the field of 96. No, you didn’t: you only “make the tournament” if you either: 1) win your conference tournament, or 2) win your opening-round game.

Heck, if desired, in order to further emphasize that the opening round is separate and distinct from The Dance, the opening-round losers can be shunted over to the NIT. This would have the side effect of making the NIT more interesting to casual fans because, instead of being purely made of mediocrities, it’d have the occasional Kansas or Kentucky, a really good team that loses in its conference tournament and then loses its opening round game, and thus misses the NCAAs entirely, but is still super awesome and talented and fun to watch.

Another very improtant benefit: this would create a huge incentive to win your conference tournament, for everyone. Right now, many teams are guaranteed a bid (and in some cases a high seed) regardless of how they do in their conference tournaments. As a result, teams sometimes arguably “mail it in” a bit. In this new system, on the other hand, winning your conference tournament eliminates a potentially difficult opening-round game, protects you from the potential of a dangerous round-of-64 showdown with a perhaps inferior but well-rested opponent (indeed it allows you to be the well-rested one, if such a matchup occurs), and means you only have to win 6 games, instead of 7, to be the national champion. So it would make all conference tournaments more compelling, across the board, because everyone is fighting for something concrete (instead of the current situation, where a lot of BCS conference teams are just “playing for seeding,” which is an awfully amorphous goal, since nobody knows for sure what their status-quo seed is, or what their if-they-win seed is).

Continue reading »

Guest post by Tim Stevens

I’m not a man prone to big shows of emotion (excepting, of course, rage) or speaking about things with dramatic flourishes. I don’t tend to run very hot or very cold and therefore lack the emotional reserves to pull that sort of thing off. So please, bear that in mind as you read this. When I go heartfelt, it can be awkward. Very, very awkward.

Disclaimer done.

When I was growing up Cape Cod, and Chatham in particular, was a magical place. In a lot of ways, even though I am at the tender age of 28, it still exists in that way.

Continue reading »