I think what's missing here is the recognition that the NFL is not holding itself to the incontrovertible standard on purpose. I think that's because they're intentionally calling more plays so that they will be reviewable if necessary (not whistling plays dead too soon). Once refs begin adjusting their stance to allow the play to continue, then the imperative is not incontrovertible evidence but getting the play right.

I think that's as it should be. Why not use replay to make sure that you're doing the best you get the play right, rather than adhering to a 100% standard of proof. Make the best guess you can and move on.

I think the bigger problem is the tendency to let plays continue -- calling fumble instead of incomplete pass, etc. -- so that more plays are reviewable. Of course, they say they're not doing that, but that's not the way it looks to me. And I'm not sure I see an easy way to fix it. Maybe you could just stop calling plays dead even on what you think is an incomplete pass, but then you run the risk of injuries and such (and the grey area about whether or not it's close enough to whistle the play dead could become ridiculous).

Glenn,

I'm with you, but I think you're a little glib about the relationship between crimes of the political elite and the criminal justice system as deterrent. In general, I feel like like we often talk about deterrence in a way that's strangely disembodied from any real theory of human behavior, but that goes doubly for political elites. The the kinds of potential consequences for their actions are so different than for the rest of us, and their perceptions of those consequences even moreso.

The thinking you're ridiculing here is worthy of the treatment you're giving it, and I'm all for prosecutions, to help restore domestic and international confidence, to put this period behind us. And I think the comment that spells out that it's our laws that determine the line which an administration should not cross in the name of public safety is excellent in its clarity and self-evidence.

But I think we should be clear about what kinds of risk calculations we feel like potential law-breakers of any stripe are making, and what kinds of consequences figure into them before we place too much faith in the justice system to provide deterrence. I'm not suggesting it should be abandoned, but I do think we need to think clearly about what human beings are really like and how they really think to deter law-breaking of this kind.

I think this point suffers in general from an unfortunate decision to uncritically include politics within an argument that makes more sense with regard to more traditional professional careers. Referring to Obama and Kennedy makes the article sexy, but dilutes its point.

Motherhood has always been politically salient with voters. It hasn't always been rewarded, I'm sure, but the list of women who were elected to public office, sometimes at very high levels, in part because of how the notion of motherhood played with the public is long and global. I imagine that functions just as strongly at very low-level, local politics as well. So, it's not just a question of what an exceptional life Kennedy has lived, but the type of position she's after.

I would think if you wanted to make this kind of argument, it would make sense to stick to more traditional careers, and keep politics as a separate realm. Sadly, I find the idea kind of interesting, and not at all preposterous. But she's focusing on all the wrong examples, giving us evidence that ends being totally meaningless. Too bad...

Can no one perceive a little self-deprication these days? It's light-hearted little piece with some funny moments. That's it. Relax.

And as for everyone who reads this kind of thing and talks about the good old days when Salon was a real journalism site, all I really want say is... wtf? Salon has always had a commitment to culture (and humor) as well as politics. Object to the balance of content, if you want -- I'm not entirely sure I'd disagree with those objections. But don't pretend that this is the only kind of writing they're publishing now -- it's obviously not -- or that it's somehow less substantial that the lighter-hearted pieces that have always been around.

Again, I'm not really saying any of you should have liked this piece, but your criticisms are infinitely more lazy than the article itself. That's to be expected I suppose, but it's still pretty lame.