I've been saying for well over six months that

(a) stealing signals isn't illegal

(b) watching tape is not, by itself, illegal

and that the entire ground on which the outrage is founded is the fact that the Pats did (b) to do (a).

Worse, the rules on this issue were poorly written, to the point that up to about 2003 or 2004, the Patriots could plausibly argue that they were allowed to tape the other team's signals, as long as they were not using the information on that particular day. Indeed, the way the rule is written, if the Pats made videotapes of signals during a game between the Jets and Dolphins, said tape would be entirely legal.

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.

Now it is true that the NFL clarified its position more recently in a way that should have made it clear to the Patriots that they were violating the rules. And at the very least, given the pronouncements from the league office, the Patriots would have been well advised to seek a rule clarification. Indeed, it was positively obtuse to flout the league memo while playing a road game against a former assistant coach (Eric Mangini) who was himself fully aware of the practice of videotaping.

It is important to note that the information in question, namely, the various gestures that comprise the coaches' signals, is in the public domain. It is being transmitted over an open channel, so to speak. There is no right to secrecy involved here. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine how to write a rule requiring a team not to try to figure out what the signals are. Is a defensive coach required to not notice what each of Peyton Manning's various chicken dances means?

In Reagan's world, you could cut taxes and deficits would shrink. You could build magical defense systems based on video games. In Reagan's world, America is always right.

These are very comfortable fantasies to have. And yes, they made Reagan fairly popular for people who didn't want to bother with the reality behind the images. Reagan was perfect for TV. But the long-term damage he has done to the US is still with us. The judiciary is peopled with ideologues, Congress is saddled with an obstructionist minority that is completely uninterested in anything non-political, and the Executive Branch continues to be peopled by the same crowd that has been with us since the Nixon years. This crowd just loves flouting the law.

So forgive me if I don't join in with the love fest for Reagan. Reagan's crimes against the Constitution were far greater than Clinton's, and yet the latter was impeached while the former is revered.

Reagan made a good President in the sense that he lived up to the image of what people expected a President to be. Unfortunately, image is not reality, and appearing to be a great President is nowhere near as important as actually being one. The widely reviled LBJ accomplished far more for American than Reagan even tried to do.

I will give him credit for not being anywhere near as bad as W. For all his flaws, Reagan had the ability to know what his limitations were. When he needed a stupid war to increase his military cred, he picked the easy target in Grenada instead of the absurd target in Iraq. But being not as bad as W. is a pathetically low standard.

And anybody who thinks of comparing Reagan to Lincoln or Jefferson needs to seriously have his head examined. It is simply idiotic to equate tax-cutting with the act of writing the Declaration of Independence, or serving as Commander in Chief during the Civil War. It's the kind of nonsensical thesis I expect from the Fukuyama's of the world, not from Salon.

A voter could now drive from New York to California along a contiguous band of states that Hillary has carried.

Well that's a new one. The Democratic nomination determined by a game of Hex!

AnaHadWolves asks:

"How will Barack Obama win the general election if he CAN'T attract the very voters that Hillary Clinton IS winning...from middle-age to older women and men, blue-collar workers to Latinos?"

One could ask exactly the same question of Clinton. And when one does so, one should note that the voters she cannot win, namely the Obama supporters, constitute a larger group of people.

The way the Democratic party works is this: the majority (roughly speaking) decides who the candidate is. You have an opinion that differs from what the majority things.

Personally, I would find it extremely hard to vote with somebody who equates "hard-working Americans" with "white Americans". For years the Clintons have made political hay by playing both sides off against each other. But at some point, some tactics are just beyond the pale.

If it's not obvious by now, King doesn't really care about hockey. He's not required to comment on hockey. If you want hockey commentary, why not go somewhere where the writer actually cares about the sport?

So, anyway, with that out of the way. King, when are you going to start writing about hurling and curling? For good measure, you could cover baton-twirling!