PATRIOTS MORNING AFTER TOUCHDOWNS (PATS MATS) - Week 3

 

A Satisfying Win – I could write this any time we beat the Raiders, whether they happen to dwell in Oakland, L.A., Vegas, or, as will undoubtedly be the case once a member of the Davis family sees a chance to piss off the NFL brass and some money in it – Mars.  However, in this case the win was (slightly) less about the opponent and more about the following takeaways:

1.        1. Takeaways – This team still seems to be able to ball hawk and come away with possession.  This was a critical element to the defence’s success last year and, with the opt outs of key players, was one of the areas that it seemed might drop off.  Not so far.  While there are some worrying tendencies (refs seem to be watching Steph Gilmore far more closely, and at the end of the first half the ability of the opposition to move the ball downfield quickly could be a problem) the overall ability to get stops and win the turnover battle against a good, well coached team is highly encouraging.

 

2.       2. Diversity is a good thing Red, maybe the best thing – I can’t say enough about how good it is to see the range of offensive weapons that were on display this game.  I also can’t say enough about the offensive weapons that weren’t on display this game that didn’t matter. The Raiders clearly determined that they were not going to allow Julian Edelman to be a major factor in the game early on.  They were determined to take him away as a weapon.  This is a classic Belichick tactic – take the thing you feel the other team wants to do more than any other away from them and make them beat you with something else.  Vegas tried to turn the tables – and it didn’t work. 

The Pats were able to counter with an effective ground game, the threat of Cam Newton taking off and running (a truly new weapon), the use of alternative targets when necessary and the threat of multiple sets out of which an array of plays could be run.  They did this even though they don’t have any QB/receiver/back/tight end tandems that have played together previously.  (They can’t – they have a first year quarterback).  Didn’t matter – aside from a few timing issues the team worked well together, which reflects positively on the coaching staff and the players’ collective football IQ’s.  The fact that you can do a lot of things, early in the season – and not look like you’re still learning – a really good sign.

 

3.       3. All you gotta do to beat me is punch like Tyson, move like Ali, have a jab like Holmes and a better dentist than Leon Spinks.  While questions remain on defense – it still seems that the secondary, while weaker, is still able to stand up to a QB that falls short of the “elite” label.  Russell Wilson gives us problems, everyone else – you may get one or two big plays but in today’s league everyone gets one or two big plays.  Of course, next week we get to face another elite category QB – which we have to do this coming week.  I'll be a lot less upset if we lose to KC on the road than I still am over that damn loss to Seattle - but there is no doubting that this is going to be a real test of the re-constituted defense.  By the way, Congrats to the Ghost, who kicked six field goals this week, including another game winner.  In the words of Bob Lobel "Why can't we ever get guys like that?".

Short Review of “The Dynasty” – I’ve completed Jeff Benedict’s new book and, as promised, here is a short recap:

1.      1. The “H” Word – Benedict had extensive access to Patriot’s key sources and obviously received cooperation from Bob Kraft, Tom Brady and even Bill Belichick.  This leads to the inevitable question – “is this a hagiography or a true work of reportage”?  Well, the answer, unsurprisingly, lies somewhere in between.  “Hagiography” is defined as “a biography that treats its subject with undue reverence”.  “The Dynasty” does fall afoul of this tendency in a number of places.  Reading it you come to believe that Bob Kraft led more people to the Holy Land than Moses.  (I mean that literally, the book recounts separate trips with network execs, assorted friends, Tom Brady, Joe Montana and consultants used to build the first football field in Israel). However – it leaves you with enough information to suspect that the treatment is not really “undue”.  Brady, Kraft and Belichick clearly are the key components in a sports drama that is worthy of high regard (just, maybe not “reverence”, at least not yet).

Still, the number of “I love you man’s” that appear in the text, especially towards the end of the book, make it so sweet that diabetics may wish to take care when reading it.  That said – there are many, many insights here, especially in the books’ opening chapters, that make it a fascinating read.

2.      2. Massachusetts’ Politics – Look – I’m a political junkie, and the intrigue’s that went in to the process of keeping the Patriot’s in New England, and then in Foxboro, are like a Tom Clancy novel.  One quick observation.  In the 1980’s Massachusetts’ politics were awash in high profile personalities like Governor Bill Weld, Senate President Billy Bulger, Boston Mayor Ray Flynn and House Speaker Tom Finneran.  All these people appeared in the press regularly, loved the camera and each would have you believing that they were the man to talk to get things done in the Commonwealth.  Benedict’s book reflects all of this manipulation – but in the end the guy who comes out looking like the person who actually was able to get things done is someone who never spent much time in front of the camera. Bulger’s successor, Senate President Thomas Birmingham, clearly emerges as the person who was finally able to sit both sides down, end the drive to move the Patriots to Hartford, get the necessary infrastructure credits put in place to build Gillette Stadium – and essentially pave the way for the franchise we know today.  Full disclosure – my wife worked for Birmingham for a period so I knew he was effective before this book came out – but there is nothing in here to dissuade me from a long held view – watch for the people who don’t say anything at a press conference – they often tell you more about what’s really happening.

 

3.     3.  Deflategate was Bullshit – If anyone had any doubts about this before reading this book – it is made eminently clear that nothing untoward went on with the footballs being used by the Patriots and suspending Brady was nothing more than the NFL’s (specifically Roger Goodell’s) attempt to deflect attention from how soft they looked following the domestic violence scandals that had hit the league prior to this issue being raised.  By the way – I always point this out but no one ever seems to understand its importance – the book reiterates that on the day of the AFC Championship Game that started this whole thing – a substantial number of the Colts’ footballs measured below the NFL standard for inflation as well.  It was a cold and wet day people – that’s what happens to balls.  Roger Goodell ignored this fact because, well, he doesn’t have any.

 

4.     4.  The Best Part of the Book is the Beginning – The story of how the Sullivan’s lost the Patriots – and Bob Kraft managed to get them – is fascinating and never ceases to amaze.  Someone should do a book just about this.  Here’s the thing about the Sullivans that I think gets overlooked – they loved the football team.  The fact that there even is a franchise in New England is totally down to them.  The problem was this – the Sullivans were not cheap – they just didn’t have any money.  There’s a difference – a big difference. So, when things were finally turning the corner for them – they didn’t really know what to do – and the Jackson’s Victory Tour seemed like a sure thing.  Benedict makes it clear how this was a key event in the story of the Patriots going to Kraft.  The other key event?  Remember last weeks’ entry concerning the cratered, car swallowing, lunar like parking lots surrounding the old stadium?  The place where you could put a canoe in some of the potholes? Buying the rights to park cars in that dump turns out to be one of the major reasons Bob Kraft ended up owning the Patriots. 

In the words of the immortal Joaquin Andujar “Youneverknow”.

Everything Old is New Again

 Well, you can't say I didn't tell you so.  This past weekend the New York Times published an extensively researched and exhaustively sourced review of Donald Trump's tax returns over the past 18 years.  People seem to forget that this is not the first time the Times has been able to access tax records relating to Donald Trump - the difference this time is that they have been able to look at more returns in greater detail.  However, four plus years ago the Times published a review of Trump's tax profile which (again, without any input from Trump himself) revealed a great deal about the possible ramifications of Trump's business activities.  For me, the most extraordinary revelation contained in the earlier article concerned the enormous level of debt and loss that seemed to be associated with Trump's business activities.  Here is what I wrote, on this blog, back in 2016.  I've updated and annotated it to see just how much has been confirmed/clarified by the latest reporting.

http://sheamonu-granfalloons.blogspot.com/2016/10/five-takeaways-from-trump-tax-article.html

Here are some things we may have learned from the recent revelations:

1.        The losses described in the article appear to be actual losses as opposed to "paper losses" - and this is important.  "Actual losses" mean that businesses in which Trump was involved suffered commercial setbacks that are actual and measurable as opposed to being based upon a purported depreciation schedule, “tax shelter” or accounting quirk.  This is a double edged sword for Trump.  He is claiming that the way he has manipulated the tax code is proof of his "genius".  That would seem to imply that he really didn't lose the money - he just was able to structure his finances in a way that took advantage of loopholes and left him owing nothing - but still, very, very, very rich.  Hardly an argument a conventional candidate would make, but, as has been said many times - Trump is not a conventional candidate. 

The problem with this, of course, is the fact that you or I cannot manipulate the system in this way without going to jail.  Trump is advocating a tax cut for people (like himself) who can afford to manipulate the system - and his own tax returns are the best possible argument for the idea that these people scarcely need to pay less tax.  This is buttressed by the fact that Mitt Romney, a squeaky clean candidate by comparison, was also revealed to have paid a percentage of his income at a rate more akin to a low wage earner than a multi-millionaire.  So why cut taxes for such people instead of just cutting loopholes?

More to the point - every indication is that Trump, in fact, did not manipulate the system that much.  The losses he reported seem to reflect actual business losses associated with disastrous investments in casinos and hotels.  He seemingly did lose nearly one billion dollars in a single year.  That, while less manipulative of the system, is also hardly indicative of a sharp business mind.  You really have to be colossally stupid to lose that much money in a year.  If an analogy to his casinos could be drawn - it looks like Trump took all of his assets and put it on a single number on the roulette wheel.  He seems to have drawn to an inside straight numerous times.  He played the one armed bandits thinking he was going to beat the system.

Yes, this stupidity has left him with losses that he could use to offset future gains on his taxes.  But it also left him in a huge hole, one which it seems he is still trying to dig himself out of.  That is where the second major takeaway from this week's revelations arises. (This seems to have been correct.  The losses that Trump listed in the returns that are now public paint a picture of a particularly inept business person whose primary activity (commercial real estate) has suffered a huge array of losses.  His properties appear to have been kept afloat largely as the result of taking on massive debt, which he has managed ("mismanaged") through rolling over loans in very questionable circumstances or by servicing the debt through the use of secondary business activities (such as the income from "The Apprentice" or, quite distressingly, a highly disputed $70+million tax refund).  The result is someone who is on the precipice of financial meltdown.  He is fully compromised financially. Let's put it this way - I've just written a book outlining corporate governance provisions relating to directors and other officers of financial institutions.  One of requirements for those who wish to serve on the board of directors or as a "pre-approved controlled functionary" of a financial institution is that they submit their financial statements to a regulator before taking any such office.  Based on what this article shows - Donald Trump would not be approved for such a position.  He couldn't be hired as the Irish branch manager of the smallest bank in Luxembourg based on what he is facing.  Why the hell should he be hired as the President of the United States?)

2.       The business losses manifest themselves in ways other than tax savings.  Trump was attacked by Hillary Clinton on two fronts during last week's debate.  The first - the tax return issue - has garnered all the headlines.  Clinton savaged Trump’s failure to disclose his returns, postulating that he has paid little to no federal income taxes. This is what everyone has zeroed in on. However, it is the second line of attack Clinton followed that may be more damaging.  Since we now seem to  know how Trump may have avoided taxes (he has enormous carryover losses) - the question arises - how is he still around despite such an enormous loss?

Here’s how - if he had huge losses he likely would have needed a massive dig out to even think about avoiding ruination.  That is what Clinton was referring to when she said, during one exchange, that it is possible Trump owes "up to $650 million to foreign banks and investors".  That is the second crucial line of attack. To absorb the types of losses he reported in the ‘90's Trump has to have been somehow kept afloat. He doesn't seem to have been kept solvent by rolling up massive profits because that would mean his tax losses would have run out very quickly - (you can only make use of losses to offset gains - and if he had made billions in profits he would presumably have long since used up his accrued losses).  Instead - you can be relatively assured that Trump has, as alleged, relied largely upon extensions of credit to remain in business.  The borrowings he had to have undertaken would be enormous. He must have exposures - huge exposures - to numerous lenders. (This turns out to have been completely spot on.  While Trump's personal exposure seems to run to half a billion dollars, the Trump organization is at least $650 million in the hole and does not seem to have any realistic way of meeting its debt service when these obligations come due over the next four years.  The loans that are revealed in the latest article are of the type that would be considered "ruinous" even if they covered properties that were not concentrated in an area that has been most drastically impacted by Covid-19.  Given that Trump is largely a hotel and resort based operator - his exposure is incredibly risky.)


3.       The fact that he has exposures to outside creditors explains some of the more bizarre choices Trump has made over the past couple of decades.  Why, for instance, would someone who holds such massive wealth (according to him) ever get involved in setting up a venture as shallow (and unprofitable) as "Trump University"?  What billionaire has ever marketed something as crass as "Trump Steaks"?  Where did "Trump the Board Game" come from?  Why, aside from an admittedly massive ego, would such a wealthy individual spend over a decade on a reality TV show like "The Apprentice"?  The list goes on.  One of these side ventures would maybe be understandable.  Two would be excusable.  But Trump never gets off the self promotion wheel.  He seemingly loves the sort of activity most people would see as demeaning.

The reason for this may have a great deal to do with what really keeps Trump afloat financially.  As fellow billionaire Mark Cuban has pointed out - the most valuable thing about Trump is the Trump brand.  If he is in hock for most of his real estate holdings, many of which he doesn't even hold (he just leases out the use of his name - branding again) - then the returns from his hotels, golf courses, resorts and offices are probably earmarked for servicing debt ranging back to his days of losing billions.  His actual cash liquidity must come from things like hosting The Apprentice, selling meat, trying to convince people to enroll at a bogus "university" or otherwise slapping his name on anything that he can shill at an inflated price.  As Cuban (who, while possessing a huge ego himself also backs things up with a razor sharp mind and actual business accomplishment) has stated - Trump needs his brand to survive financially.  One can very plausibly construct the following scenario from the revelations in the Times' story.  Donald Trump lost huge amounts in the mid-1990's.  He may have approached the banks who held the paper or from whom he sought credit and said as follows:  "Guys - I'm not going to be able to pay you according to our original contract.  You can shut me down now - and get about 25% of your money back.  Or - you can stick with me, let me retain the brand and image of a being a savvy financial high flyer - and get everything back.  Which option do you choose"?  If I'm Trump's bankers I say "Sure Donald - you just have to sign every penny of income from your real estate empire over to me.  All the rents, all the proceeds following a sale, all the fees generated off the properties.  You can keep the name and whatever money you can squeeze out of that."

If I were Trump I take that deal - and if that is what happened the obligations would hang around his head like a noose.  Clinton was probably right on both counts - he pays no taxes - but he also is nowhere near as wealthy as he would like you to think, since he has to service a huge debt.  In that case - Donald Trump hosts The Apprentice not because he enjoys the experience - he hosts it because he doesn't want to starve.  (I hit on this one as well.  The reason Trump was so eager to market all those crazy schemes - to make ridiculous expense claims to get a large tax refund, and take deductions based on things like his hair dressing expenses was because that seems to literally have been the only way he had to get enough money to service his enormous debt and fund his ridiculously extravagant lifestyle. (70K! - to end up with a haircut that looks like the "Heat Miser" on a bad hair day?) The debt service on the real estate projects and the rest of Trump Inc. seems to have been rolled over into massive loans with exceedingly small interest rates but completely divested income rights.  Those obligations were simply carried over from year to year, providing losses against income sufficient to keep Trump's tax bill down to the embarrassingly small level reported but certainly leaving him facing a debt level that is unsupportable in the long term. Maybe "noose" isn't the correct analogy - "Sword of Damocles" is more like it.)


4.       The need to retain the Trump name and image explains Trump's unwillingness to commit to a true "blind trust" arrangement.  One of the more amusing news clips of recent times was that of George Stephanopoulos vainly attempting to get Donald Trump Jr. to acknowledge that it is impossible for his brother, sister and himself to run a "blind trust" for the Trump business.  <iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yuOZ_qm7Vq4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>   The very definition of a "blind trust" is that it is not run by family members - the president (in fact, anyone attempting to place assets in a qualifying blind trust) is assumed to have ongoing contact with members of his/her immediate family.  Such contact makes them ineligible as a trustee of a truly blind trust.  But for Trump - whose wealth is solely predicated upon the family name and brand - the possibility of allowing that name to be run by someone other than a family member is terrifying.  That's why there is all the flim-flammery when it comes to committing to do what every president has done for decades - remove themselves from personal involvement in the running of their business ventures.  "Trump" is not a name supporting a vast business empire - it is a vast business empire supporting a name.  And that is what leads us to the final, critical takeaway from the Trump financial disclosures. (This is both true and probably understated - the failure to put the Trump holdings into a blind trust likely derives from the fact that no one could ever really act as trustee and not immediately be faced with the threat of breach of fiduciary duty if they were to keep running things the way Trump has.  The level of poor decision making is astounding - the degree to which this has left Trump utterly compromised is even greater,  Hence the reason that what I called the "final, critical, takeaway" remains even more so today. Donald Trump is already making decisions based on his own (not the country's) best interests - and people are dying.  Read on.


5.       Donald Trump is potentially seriously compromised when it comes to his personal finances.  If Trump indeed owes money on the scale indicated by his past losses and Hillary Clinton's allegations - he is seriously exposed to financial manipulation.  Here is a very basic example of how that might manifest itself.  Let's say that a week-long stay at a high end suite in the Trump Doral costs an individual $10,000 (it may be more, it may be less, but let's use a round figure).  A wealthy lender who has taken a position in Donald Trump's personal finances may wish to bring an entourage of 25 of his closest friends to Doral for a week - and, in the past, knowing that such a stay greases the wheels of finance Mr. Trump may have comped the whole stay.  Trump would see this expense as good for himself personally - keeping the brand strong and maybe gaining some leverage with a lender who will be less inclined to call a note when due.  A family member would know that taking the quarter of a million hit is worth it for them on the back end.  This may not even be illegal - resorts can offer reduced rates.  It is certainly problematic for some of the creditors of Doral - who, if the resort goes Chapter 11 after a few too many such "gratuitous" stays, may end up getting stiffed.  But for the big picture - Trump - or a family member - would take the risk.

A true blind trustee would not.  They would look at the request for the freebie and tell the lender to go pound sand.  That is what keeps Trump awake at night tweeting about Miss Universe.  “How do I keep this whole house of cards from crumbling around me”?  Now - extend that spider's web of financial complexity across continents.  Keep in mind that people you owe money to expect some quid pro quo if they give you a break.  And now think of the kinds of "breaks" a president would be expected to give.  If Donald Trump owes the kind of money that is reflected in his historic losses - then he is not in a financial position to serve as president.  If he owes large amounts of money into countries where American interests conflict with personal interests - he is not in a financial position to be president.  If he cannot remove himself and his family from his financial activities while serving in office – he is not in a financial position to be president.

(As the due date on the massive Trump debt approaches - you might be worried that, in the future, he might be inclined to favor the people controlling that debt in a way that works to his benefit but against the national interest.  That's what I was getting at four years ago when I wrote about this. 

Please, don't worry about that. Don't fret about what might be done in the future.  Instead, you need to be absolutely terrified about what is being done right now.  Trump is already taking these type of actions, people are already dying as a result and the national interest is already being cast aside in favor of Trump, Inc.  The difference is that after the disclosure of these financial/tax records - we now know why.

Consider the following.  One of the things that has bewildered me all through the Covid crisis is why Trump has taken the actions that he has.  The Covid situation, by any reckoning, should have been the thing that insured Trump's re-election.  It was a high-profile, highly manageable emergency that should have raised his profile as a crisis President without having to do more than what every other country was doing.  If he had taken strong steps to support a "hammer and dance" approach, had advocated for a shut down backed with economic supports - he would have had Republican and Democratic backing, would have appeared decisive and would have had the results every other country had.  Well, better than some in the short term, a little worse in the long term - but not the unmitigated disaster that he faces now.  So why the denials, the "down-playing", the failure to accept the science that was apparent to everyone else?

The answer, I believe, lies in the nature of the Trump business.  He simply could not accept that the Covid measures would take as long as they must - because he is in the one business that is going to inevitably suffer the most from such an approach - the resort and hospitality business.  He looked at the numbers and knew that betting it all on the slim (really, completely illusory) hope that things would "magically" go away was the only chance that resorts like the one he has in Ireland at Doonbeg, or in Scotland - or in the domestic U.S., could generate enough cash to give him an opportunity to stretch the debt on those properties just a bit longer.  So - that's what he did.  He gambled - and over 200,000 people lost.

Need more evidence of the possible consequences of his compromised approach?  

Why do you think that he allowed a Saudi prince to murder an American resident with no consequences?  Is it because it is in America's best interest to let that sort of thing happen - or is it because he requires the good-will of those who have access to the purse strings that might save him? 

Why would he throw an absolute fit when Angela Merkel refused to hold a summit at his Doral resort in the middle of a pandemic?  Is it because pulling one-third of the American troop presence in Germany is a strategically valid move - or because not getting the revenue from that event means that the boondoggle project continues to sink him financially?

Why do you think that federal events have been steered towards the Washington Post Office hotel, U.S. military and diplomatic personnel have been sent to the west of Ireland when the logical places to stay are much closer to where their actual business lies?  Is it because those are good, practical decisions - or because the properties they are steered towards are Trump owned?

Why sweetheart deals for dictators like Putin, Erdogan, Assad and the like when those leaders and their governments take actions that are directly contrary to U.S. interests and those of their allies? Is it because somehow cozying up to those who put bounties on U.S. soldiers heads is a smart diplomatic move - or because it could result in a favorable decision on the debt owed by the person making those calls?

Look - I suppose having a cat amongst the pigeons doesn't automatically mean the pigeons are going to end up as cat food.  Still - putting the cat amongst the pigeons is not a wise decision, and if you have a lot less pigeons after doing so...

You're the pigeon.)

WHY THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO BREONNA TAYLOR'S DEATH IS, IN FACT, RACIST

 

(Hint: It’s not because it opposes the liberal agenda – it’s because it opposes conservative values.)

The most recent explosion of outrage at alleged police misconduct and inappropriate government response has centered around the case of Breonna Taylor, a black woman from Louisville Kentucky who was shot and killed on the 13th of March. Her death occurred as the result of a raid on her home conducted by Louisville police operating pursuant to a “no-knock” warrant obtained in connection with an ongoing investigation into people other than Breonna Taylor.

 Taylor has since become a symbol of the outrage felt by African Americans at the manner in which they are treated by law enforcement. The latest manifestation of that outrage occurred this week when a grand jury, following presentations by Kentucky prosecutors, declined to indict the officers involved for anything other than a single “wanton endangerment” charge. Even that charge was largely unrelated to the Taylor death, as it was sustained on the basis of shots having gone through the walls of adjoining apartments. This will conceivably make the granting and execution of the actual warrant used to enter the Taylor residence immaterial, which has led to further outrage.

 It would be the contention of critics of the Kentucky authorities that they did not “vigorously” pursue an indictment and that the structured charges that emerged from the grand jury proceedings are far more indicative of authorities trying to cover their ass than pursue justice. As to why this would be their position please google “ham sandwich” and “grand jury”. The City of Louisville obviously thinks there was a screw up here, even if a grand jury seems to be OK with it. They just wrote a $12 million check to Breonna Taylor’s family. Here’s a hint – you don’t usually pay someone 12 mill if you think you did nothing wrong.

 To counter this criticism the conservative “law and order” response has been largely to attack the personal reputation of Breonna Taylor herself – saying things like “she wasn’t asleep”, “she still was talking to her ex-boyfriend – she even bailed him out once”, “she hadn’t worked as an EMT for a while” “even if the warrant was “no-knock” the cops did knock” and so on. I think that last one is pretty unlikely (there are many witnesses who contradict it, the original police statement was the opposite, the behavior of all parties on site make it HIGHLY unlikely that there was an effective announcement of police presence and, most tellingly, common sense tells you that you don’t get a no-knock warrant and then decide “Ah, just to be nice – let’s knock”.

 But look, I’ll concede every one of those statements above to the Breonna Taylor critics – not because I think any of them are particularly important (or true) – but because they do not represent why people are so pissed off at the conservative response to killings like those of Breonna Taylor. I’m not frustrated because in abandoning Breonna Taylor to the same old tactics of tearing down the victim conservatives are so ready to oppose what would be assumed to be the liberal position. No – I’m frustrated because in adopting that approach conservatives have proven themselves racist by so readily abandoning THEIR OWN stated positions.

 How do I know this to be true? – Review the following timeline concerning the events that happened in the 1990’s at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. There is some commentary I’ve put in there to show why I’ve pulled it up.

 Chronology of events in the siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho:

     * Oct. 24, 1989: Randy Weaver accused of selling two sawed-off shotguns to an undercover federal             agent. (Conservatives have, perhaps rightly, pointed to this as entrapment).

 

1990:

 

* June 12: Federal agents approach Weaver about becoming an informant on other white separatists in northern Idaho.

 

* December: Federal grand jury in Boise indicts Weaver for selling illegal weapons to the undercover agent.

 

1991:

 

* Jan. 17: Weaver and his wife, Vicki, arrested. (See “his wife” as being the equivalent of “ex-girlfriend” as a coercive tactic).

 

* Feb. 20: Weaver fails to appear for trial in Moscow, Idaho. Federal bench warrant issued for his arrest. (The warrant application over states and mis-characterizes the case).

 

* March 14: Weaver indicted for failure to appear at trial.

 

* March 15: The Weavers and their three children begin 18-month sit-in in cabin near Naples, Idaho. Friends keep them supplied; Kevin Harris visits the cabin periodically. Marshals keep the cabin under surveillance.

 

1992:

 

* Aug. 21: Reconnaissance team of deputy marshals unexpectedly encounters Harris, Weaver’s son, Samuel, 14, and family dog. Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan, Samuel Weaver and dog killed in shootout. Federal, state and local authorities and National Guard troops surround cabin. (Botched warrant, resulting in death of an innocent – sound familiar?)

 

* Aug. 22: Mrs. Weaver, 42, killed by FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi, who also wounds Harris and Weaver. Horiuchi said he fired because he believed they would shoot at a surveillance helicopter. (Again – inappropriate use of force ending in the killing of an innocent person. Admittedly – someone who might have been alleged to be involved in a crime – but agents are not judge and jury – or at least aren’t supposed to be).

 

* Aug. 23: Harris charged with Degan’s murder and Weaver charged with lesser crimes in federal case.

 

* Aug. 30: Harris surrenders.

 

*Aug. 31: Weaver surrenders.

 

* Sept. 17: Weaver pleads innocent to aiding in Degan’s murder.

 

*Sept. 18: Harris pleads innocent to murdering Degan.

 

1993:

 

* April 13: Jury selection begins for the murder-conspiracy trial of Weaver and Harris.

 

* July 8: Jury acquits Weaver and Harris in the slaying of Degan. Harris acquitted on all four other charges. Weaver convicted on two minor counts. (Harris claim of self-defense is upheld, in that charges have been dropped against Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend the same can be assumed there as well).

 

1995:

 

* August: Justice Department agrees to pay Weaver $100,000 and each of his three daughters $1 million to settle claims stemming from standoff. (Again, just sayin’, you generally don’t see that many zeros unless there was wrongdoing.)

 

* Sept. 12: Citing his right against self-incrimination, Horiuchi declines to tell U.S. Senate about how he killed Mrs. Weaver. (In the Taylor case the grand-jury record has been sealed).

 

* Sept. 26: Harris tells Senate that law officers fired first.

 

1997:

 

* Aug. 15: Justice Department decides against prosecuting senior FBI officials for alleged cover-up that followed siege. Department’s two-year criminal investigation reaffirms 1994 decision against prosecuting Horiuchi. (In the words of a famous Marine – “Surprise, surprise, surprise”).

 In fact, there are a huge number of similarities between the two events – beginning with the fact that the “war on drugs” is very similar to the ATF pursuit of weapons caches in terms of justifications for governmental overreach. I’m not going to get in to the merits of the case, but the right wing has long pointed to the use of overly broad warrants, in the hands of armed, aggressive and overzealous agents, which needlessly involve innocent third parties, followed by after-the-fact justifications and payoffs - as the real reason why there was an outbreak of violence in places like Ruby Ridge, Waco and, ultimately, Oklahoma City. They state, correctly, that they are not advocating or excusing such violence – but, they also say, “what can you expect when continually faced with an oppressive government willing to bend their own rules”?

 Every single one of those elements is present in the Breonna Taylor case as well. Police investigations into low level crimes were used as justification for ridiculously over the top warrants (why the hell would you need a no-knock warrant to bring in a twenty-something nurse trainee?), which led to events spiraling out of control, which led to deaths, which led to pay-offs, which led to a failure to indict in instances where charges would ordinarily be expected. My God, the two sets of events line up nearly perfectly. There must be some difference between the two that has kept the right wing from adopting the cause of Breonna Taylor. What might that difference be? What is different between Breonna Taylor and Vicki Weaver? What COULD it be? Anything come to mind?

 Anything?

 Oh yeah – that.

 Conservatives have claimed that if there was an actual case that showed police REALLY were acting improperly, that governments REALLY were papering over race-based screw ups, that people were REALLY dying because of systemic malfeasance - sure, they’d be the first to condemn what went on. But George Floyd was on angel dust, Rayshard Brooks was running away with a taser he had stolen, Jacob Blake had a knife under the front seat of his car, there was no way to know Kyle Rittenhouse had just shot three people… Excuse after excuse after excuse.

 But, with Breonna Taylor, here’s a case where the elements all line up perfectly with the type of activity where, when it was a white person who was the victim – it became a conservative cause célèbre – a reason for outrage - but let a black person be at the other end of the gun…

 Well, not so much.

 Conservatives – Breonna Taylor was your chance to show that your objections to the criticisms levelled against the law enforcement structure were not race-based, were, in fact, color blind, not color coded. That the set of rules you wanted to live by were applied equally. That those cases cited above – well, those weren’t irrational excuses, they were logical conclusions. Instead, you turned to the same old “blame the victim” approach – and you f*cked it up yet again.

 I’m not anti-police. Some of the people closest to me are members of the law enforcement community. Some of my most diligent readers spent their entire life’s career in uniform. My thing is – I can’t believe it is in the best interest of either the police, or, in a larger sense “law and order” to avoid the fairly obvious conclusion that there is a problem here. If every couple of years (more recently, months) cities explode because of yet another killing – something needs to change. Not EVERY victim can be wrong, not EVERY allegation can be unfounded, not EVERY statistic can be mis-leading, not EVERY shooting can be justified. It is time to face facts.

 However, instead of facing facts, conservatives (or, perhaps more accurately, those who follow the lead of the current resident of the White House) create fables. Those fables lead conservatives away from those things that used to be their most cherished values - the values that led them to say they faced the world realistically, and that it was the liberals who were living in the world of make believe. Instead, now we get fables. The fable of anarchy. The fable of BLM agitators. The fable of how calling out the National Guard is the best way to deal with this, rather than just a short term means of sweeping it under the rug.

 The fable of Donald Trump.

 The fable that, somehow, Breonna Taylor deserved to die because she just didn’t open her door in time.

Patriots' Morning After Touchdowns (Pats' Mats - Week 2)

 Week 2 of "Pat's Mat's" is below (and you can also check out the first of this year's "Letters to America". Tough loss, but there is, as many are pointing out, some silver linings. Just not silver and black...

A Bit Different Now: This week’s game was away, which matters more than if it were in an NBA type “bubble” but a lot less than it would if there were actual fans present. The relative emptiness of all the various venues over the past couple of weeks has led me to reflect on Gillette Stadium and Patriots’ Place, which I see about once a year, in the off season, and which still blows my mind each time I visit Bass Pro Shop or attend a July mini-camp practice session. The reason for this is simple. I know what was there before.

Now, in going back to the Greater Boston area Foxboro is not, I concede, the single most startling transformation of a location. To me that title is held by a strip of land a bit closer to the city itself. One of the last times we travelled to Massachusetts our plane got in the day before we were scheduled to head to New Hampshire, so we looked for a place to overnight that was close to the city but would allow us to make a break for the Granite State fairly easily. We found a Days Inn that was near the Somerville/Medford line, not your typical tourist destination but we could just jump on 93 and head North the next morning and it was reasonably close to the Orange line. I thought I knew the place.

“Oh, that’s near the Assembly Square Mall – as long as you don’t go anywhere near the Mystic River it’s OK”, says I. The reason for avoiding the Mystic River shoreline was, in my mind, fairly obvious. As far as I could recall there was nothing there except rats, places to dump bodies, abandoned cars and a number of mobile pharmaceutical dealers that could be most generously described as “unlicensed”.

Imagine my surprise when we pulled up to the Inn to discover that the entire area had been transformed into something called “Assembly Row” which included high fashion outlets, cinemas, bars serving drinks with fruit in them and restaurants where the food was green because it included avocado, not because it had been allowed to grow its own flora. There was a marina and boats floating in the river that looked like the one Tony Soprano had in the TV show. From what I remember the only thing floating in the Mystic previously would have been human bodies that looked like the one Tony Soprano had in the TV show. It was mind blowing.

I feel much the same way every time I go past Patriot Place. I remember Schaefer/Sullivan/Foxboro Stadium. Hell, I even remember Schaefer beer, which was the Schaefer Stadium of beer.

The old stadium was the laughing-stock of NFL venues, but, to be completely honest I didn’t really have much to compare it to, so that was not my take on it. All I knew I was that it sat in the middle of nowhere (which, at the time, I considered the area to be), the nearest known landmark was Walpole Correctional Facility, the largest Massachusetts state prison and that the benches in the jail were probably more comfortable than those in the stadium.

I went to college not too far away and it gave me an opportunity to see a few games (including when BC would play there during the Flutie era). Getting in and out of the stadium, even when it wasn’t sold out, was an adventure. But, you know what? When it comes to that it kind of still is. What was completely different back then was the quality of the parking lot. When NASA put the lunar rover on the moon there were fewer craters to negotiate than in the Foxboro parking lot. Less dangerous as well. I had some friends who worked at the harness racing track that was tucked in to the corner of the grounds (a whole other story) and I’d go down to pick them up every once in a while after work. The first time I went in I thought the place had been bombed. It was incredible.

Now when you go there it is like Disneyland, if Disneyland had more interesting stores. There is a freaking nature walk behind the Bass Pro Shop. Seriously. I took the attached picture of a giant snapping turtle accompanied by his little buddy there. If a snapping turtle had wandered in to the old stadium parking lot he probably would have ended up in the BBQ of one of the tailgaters.

Now you can eat, watch a movie, visit the plow that defeated the Dolphins and nearly gave Don Shula a stroke, buy all kinds of clothes and then go down to the Pro Shop and target shoot. I’ll tell you something – the only way you could have picked up designer sportwear in either the Foxboro Stadium or the greater Medford/Somerville Mystic River area when I lived there was either out of the back of someone’s car or off the corpse of someone who had “forgotten” to pay their bookie.

Times change.

Moral Victory? – The general consensus concerning the loss to Seattle on Sunday night was that “there are a lot of positives” to take out of the game. I don’t know – when the opposition QB throws for 5 touchdowns, including two absolute monster plays that really shouldn’t have been allowed, it’s hard to be that positive. Still, people are focused on the fact that Cam Newton can still throw, that the receiving corp looked very dangerous, that Julian Edelman might still make the Hall of Fame and that Stephen Gostkowski isn’t our kicker. (Hey – the guy has made two game winning kicks in two weeks. I know, it’s a bit like going 2-15 from the free throw line but the two you make being Ollie in Hoosiers, but still). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gEt3iNmLyw

The positive I took from the game was this. The Patriots secondary CAN’T be that bad. If teams plan on beating us by having their quarterback throw for five TD’s each week, then we’re gonna be OK. That’s because in order to do that they would need to have the equivalent of Russell Wilson on their squad, and there just ain’t that many Russell Wilsons out there.

Unfortunately, there is another guy just as good who is coming along very soon. There were indeed some positives to take from this game. I just hope that no one is thinking about how those will be applied to Mr. Mahomes before we deal with the little matter of the Raiders first. I think a certain coach with the initials BB will make sure of that.

Next Week – I’m in the middle of “The Dynasty”, Jeff Benedict’s new book and I’ll give a review when I’ve finished. Right now it’s on to Oakland, umm, L.A., ummm… Vegas, baby, Vegas.

PATRIOTS MORNING AFTER TOUCHDOWNS (PATS MATS) - Week 1

 

Cam’s Opening Bow

It was great to see Cam Newton at QB with what has to be considered the best Patriot’s debut at that position since, well, maybe since 1971 when rookie Jim Plunkett beat John Madden and the Raiders.  Newton’s mix of efficient passing combined with planned runs has generated a great deal of comment, with it generally being noted as a departure from Josh McDaniels’ preferred offense. 

I agree it is a new look for these parts – but I’m not so sure about it being a switch from the type of offense McDaniels would “prefer” to run.  If the truth be told, McDaniels did opt for exactly this type of QB in the past when given the opportunity – or at least for someone he thought might be this type of QB. I harbor a sneaking suspicion that the Pats’ offensive coordinator has been itching to run this type of system for a long time.  There is a certain someone in his past who hints at that.

I’m speaking of Tim Tebow, who McDaniels drafted and groomed for this type of system during his short stay in Denver as the Broncos head coach.  Tebow was, according to McDaniels, supposed to be just this sort of weapon when brought into the Denver organization. Unfortunately for both individuals this never worked out – McDaniel’s was fired about three quarters of the way through Tebow’s rookie year, Tebow had very mixed success with John Fox the following season, and the truth is Tim Tebow was never going to operate at the level of even half what Cam Newton can be. 

But that doesn’t mean that McDaniels has ever stopped pining for what he might be able to do with a QB that has the versatility to run the option, scramble out of the pocket and fire quick slants to receivers that will find themselves in one on one man coverages due to the need to pack the line to stuff the run.  These days, getting receivers in these sorts of one on one matchups is the holy grail of offensive planning.  Rule changes make these sorts of situations much more favorable to receivers. McDaniels must be salivating at the possibilities that might open up if he can continue to force defenses to commit to stopping Newton before blanketing Patriots’ pass catchers.

Playing on a Different Field

When assessing, team by team, which player/position you would least like to see injured the first answer for EVERY NFL team is quarterback.  It’s just the nature of the game.  There is no team that wants to see their starting QB go down, no team that feels they are adequately staffed at back up, no team that treats this as anything other than a nightmare situation.  If anyone tries to answer differently they are just kidding both you and themselves.

The more interesting question, team by team, is who the NEXT most critical position player might be. Back about 30-40 years ago the answer would very often be the middle linebacker (or “Mike”) who would be tasked with setting the defense prior to the snap. Think Mike Singletary in the Bears 46 defense.  This could still be the case with some teams – but it is less so now than it used to be.  I think today you would see a number of teams pointing to the leader of their secondary (given the number of passes now thrown per game) or their primary receiver as the player they could least afford to lose (after their QB).  Others might point to the left tackle or maybe, for certain offenses, the primary running back might still be the answer (though I doubt it).

For the Patriots I’m not sure who it would be.  The team is designed to absorb the loss of any one player.  But – in a somewhat offbeat way – I think that the loss of their punter might impact the Patriots more than anyone else.  This is because of one of Bill Belichick’s central tenets and how he structures his philosophy of the game.

One of the primary goals the Patriots have for every game is to play on a shorter field than the other team.  (Look – every team has this belief but it is core to the way the Pats play). To put it very simply – if your average drive starts from the 35 yard line, while the other team gets the ball on the 15 – and assuming you have the ball for about 10 possessions the following good things happen:

·        - Your QB can throw for up to 200 less yards than the opponent and have just as good a game.

·       -  A “big play” for you covers 12.5 yards while an opponent needs 18 for the same impact.

·       -  Your defense can afford to give up more yards, blitz less, run more man coverage and still win.

Every single one of those factors came in to play on Sunday.  Cam Newton threw the ball only 19 times for 155 yards – hardly earth-shattering numbers.  He was easily the most impactful player on the field.  If you eliminate Ryan Izzo’s only catch no Patriots player had a reception longer than the three top Dolphins.  The Pats plays were still more impactful. The Patriot’s defense gave up some big plays (especially via penalty) but essentially held Miami to a single score per half.

So, what stat represents best how this was achieved?  If you go to the ESPN box score and look all the way down to the bottom – under the “Punting” stat you’ll see something called “IN 20”.  That reflects the number of punts that left the opposing team pinned inside their 20-yard line.  For the Patriots that number is “3”.  For Miami it is “0”.

Now – that stat is sometimes important and other times not so much – but the concept it seeks to uncover, the degree of difficulty placed on an opponent to construct a meaningful drive – is always important.  The Patriots continually seek to make the game harder for the opponent in ways that do not involve actual football plays.  They know the rules better (that is why you always hear the cry of “cheaters” from those not as well versed), they understood first how to defer a win on the coin flip, they know when to take an intentional safety, they understand how the score will dictate the percentage of pass v. run and they get how making the field of play longer can benefit your team. 

Because they maximize these advantages Belichick defenses can finish well back in the defensive rankings in yardage surrendered and still near the top of the pack in scoring defense.  This effort is keyed off a strong special teams’ emphasis (while we’re having this discussion, Matthew Slater should be in the Hall of Fame) and high regard for positional play.

Which means that having a strategically sound directional punter is very important to the Patriots’ success.  It also raises a bit of a concern.  The other part of the positional kicking game is kickoffs – and on several occasions the Pats blasted the ball through the end zone on Sunday. Quite possibly this is no big deal – but when Stephen Gostkowski was kicking well one of his specialties was dropping his kickoffs between the 5 and 1 yard line – forcing teams to make a return and leaving them often at about the 15 yard line.  When the Patriots received kickoffs they would usually get the typical touchback, start from the 25 and, right there, gain a ten-yard field position advantage.  Ghost is gone (correctly, if you saw his performance this week with Tennessee) but so is his skill on kick offs.  I don’t believe Belichick wants to spend the year routinely surrendering touchbacks.  I would like to see a return to making teams return.

CLOSING NOTE

After seeing Cam Newton’s banana colored suit I did not believe there could be a more iconic image than that associated with Week 1.  Then Bill Belichick gave his review of fan-free stadiums in post game commentary, and right away we had a new winner.  If you didn’t see either – here they are in all their glory.

https://www.facebook.com/625817250866040/videos/798481897642500