...Cue the "realists" who are able to parse the "real" meaning of Obama's order to close Gitmo. What a previous poster said is right: he can't shutter the place yesterday and simply release everyone to the four winds. Of course there will still be men in black coats working the "dark side" under an Obama administration. This is no return to Camelot. What this is is a sharp and clear repudiation of the philosophy and practical policy of the Bush years. How it plays out will certainly bear scrutiny and vigilance.

Part of the project of the conservative movement for the past 30 years or so has been to gradually shift the entire argument further and further to the right -- not just on civil liberties but the environment, the economy, taxes, funding for health care and education, etc. etc. Bush of course took advantage of 9/11 to radically fast-forward that project. It will take years -- perhaps generations -- to swing things back again. But to claim that Obama is Bush incognito is simply a lie.

if the first detainees were war criminals such as bush, cheney, rumsfeld et al.

it could also remain a park; guided tours could be used to edify future generations about the results of abusing power.

i've visited alcatraz once -- gets awfully chilly when the wind's whipping off the golden gate...

and fuck you, too.

your post displays a classic gap in logic. no one is asking the government or taxpayers of california to foot the bill for cleaner cars. california is demanding that automakers deliver them -- a message that everyone but the big three have been getting loud and clear for the past decade or so. yes, in the sense that the citizens of california are taxpayers, they will pay a bit more for these vehicles and the emissions testing and engineering that go along with them. but the value in health and air quality will far outweigh those costs. in fact, not doing anything about it is not even an option. you and the big three can learn that, or you can disappear in a giant cloud of carbon monoxide.

i think this game's going to be a lot more defense-oriented than what you're predicting king. pittsburgh has a world-class defense, which as you rightly point out will neutralize the cards' running game and force warner to be other-worldly. if the offense gets reduced to warner-to-fitzgerald, they may break off a few lucky scores, but they're not going to throw up 30-some points.

Meanwhile, the Cards' defense has quietly improved, and the Steelers' offense has been quietly awful. I look for "Ben" to toss a few up for grabs as he scrambles around like a high school quarterback with happy feet, killing drives and keeping the score down.

But the reason I'm taking the Steelers is simple: it's just the way these things have been going lately. In just about every sport we've seen a "cinderella" team reach the finals -- Rockies in 07, Rays in 08, Cavs 07, Penguins 08 -- against a clearly superior team. People rushed to talk themselves into picking the underdog, against all empirical evidence. Usually it boils down to wishful thinking -- not wanting to see the higher payroll, "dynasty"-type team win, or wanting to believe in the horatio alger story of the underdog.

The once exception to this, of course, was the giants last year; but in my mind, that doesn't count. Taking away wins and losses, by the time of the Superbowl, the pats and giants were pretty evenly matched. the pats had stopped dominating teams towards the end of the season, while the giants had begun beating people up on defense, discovered a fearsome running game, and found a way to make eli look more like his brother and less like tim couch. aside from warner-to-fitzgerald, i see nothing the cards are doing that's above league average.

so -- steelers 21-17.

just want to point out that i called the spread, if not the score, in your last column. but i never expected a game like this!

imagine what might've been had the steelers not scored that strange touchdown at the end of the 1st half -- that's a minimum 10-pt, potentially 14-pt swing. the cards actually outplayed the steelers badly on offense.

and warner for the HOF? why not. he's done everything humanly possible in the three superbowls he's played in. all three have been classics. i say let him in.

actually, not. even before they reviewed it, i was telling my mates that he hadn't scored. and as for the holding call in the end zone, they could have called it on one of at least two different players, by my count. very obvious.

the reffing was bad, but bad calls went both ways. and players on both sides were taking bone-headed penalties throughout the game.

what i was half-hoping for, half dreading, was that the game would go into OT, and the NFL's ridiculous overtime rules would take center stage by deciding the super bowl, finally embarrassing the league into changing them.

Were the Rams and Cardinals, two of the most woebegotten franchises in NFL history before he got to them. That counts for something, imo.</>

Totally agree. Nobody talks about this. Put Warner in Belicheck's system for the past 10 years, protect him, and what do his stats look like then? I mean, he took the Rams and the Cards to the Superbowl... The Rams and the Cards! And nearly won all three times!

Do I wish my Lions had grabbed Warner one of the five or six times he's been available during that time? Yes... Not that he could have performed a similar miracle with that sorry franchise, but at least they would have had good quarterback play and given us something to tune in for.