Yep, the Constitution is Grand. But There are Amendments for a Reason. Here's a Proposal. Part 1.

So, in analyzing the debacle in Iraq, where does the list of the mistakes begin? Let's try to hash out a rough index:

First of all, General David Petraeus, the oft- anointed savior of the U.S. venture in Iraq, admits that very little progress has been observed, despite the surge of troops being at their maximum capacity.

The sophomoric Iraqi Parliament has hitherto been unable to agree on the color of the carpets in their chamber, much less come to any sort of accord on meaningful issues like oil wealth redistribution and the repeal of de-Baathification measures enacted at the outset of the invasion.

Casualties amongst all demographics, from civilians to the fledgling Iraqi soldiers, are at their apogee.

In Southern Iraq, Shiite militias, having secured their autonomy from the British earlier in the year, run major oil-producing cities like Basra similar to the old style Chicago political machines.

In the North, a burgeoning territorial dispute between the Kurds and their northern neighbors, the Turks, is threatening to devolve into an internecine war that could further destabilize the "nation" of Iraq.

Shockingly though, the aforementioned are yet still a mere pittance of the litany of problems confronting the embattled "nation" at present.

Given these sobering truths about our failure to succeed in Iraq, it's hardly a surprise that public sentiment here in the United States against the occupation, which gradually built to a fierce crescendo, finally culminated in the last few weeks.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 68% percent of the country does not believe in the direction of the country. Couple that fact, with record low approval rankings for both the President and the Congress (29 and 23 percent, respectively). Throw in the symbolic bete noire that was achieved this week when the number of American soldiers dead ascended over 3,500, and one can easily envision the overlying public sentiment as being one of disgust.

However, the institutions that are supposed to be most attuned to the public in a representative democracy, the House of Representatives and Senate, have heard not a mere single utterance from their membership concerning the situation in Iraq for nearly a month. The right and honorable Senators have instead spent their time focusing on inconsequential, non binding endeavors like a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and bills that would offer enormous subsidies to companies who intend to invest in coal as an energy source of the future. (Way to stay true to the party platform vis a vis the environment with that decision, Senator Reid.)

What makes this dereliction of Senatorial duty all the more surprising and reprehensible is that it occurs with the Democratic party in the majority, albeit a minuscule one. The public had, more or less, come to expect the rampant cronyism and lack of oversight when the Republicans were in power. It's no surprise then that the Democrats mounted a successful campaign as the alternative to that lack of accountability on Iraq, supposedly endemic to the GOP, during the 2006 mid-terms. Yet, despite all the promises to offer a diversion from the President's Iraq policy, inertia and entropy have reigned supreme in the higher chamber since the new majority assumed power in January.

The question that thus arises is: who is the foremost culprit responsible for the stagnancy that has pervaded the Senate in recent weeks? As is typical with problems arising in Washington, most principals are denying their culpability through one side of their mouth while pointing an accusatory finger at their colleagues across the aisle. However, in a matter of this importance, it is imperative that appropriate blame be meted out, particularly given the embarrassing inverse relationship between increasing public furor over the war and the decrease in tangible legislation emanating from the Senate.

As for endeavoring to identify the guilty party, the usual suspects predictably come to mind at first thought. Of course, the President himself deserves a considerable amount of ignominy in this matter. His petulant refusal to even negotiate with House leaders on the even the possibility of the inclusion of time lines to withdraw troops within the bill, despite objections from members of his own party, essentially neutered the changes in the bill, and thereby removed its effectiveness. Similarly, the stalling tactics of Senate GOP leaders McConnell and Lott eventually reduced the debate to an argument over procedural, not substantive matters with regards to Iraq. In the same vein, the Democrats are equally responsible, largely because of their total emasculation at the hands of the President during the negotiations prior to ratification of the bill, for the pathetic "compromise" legislation that ultimately materialized from the Senate.

Despite this, though the actions of the aforementioned individuals have served as a microcosm for the lack of a new approach per Iraq on Capitol Hill, they will not be served to history as the most grievous offenders. Even the President, whose complete refusal to acknowledge reality on the ground in Iraq, thereby committing more soldiers to a pointless death day by day, can be solely highlighted as the reason the recent Iraq legislation flamed out so miserably. In actuality, no single individual, no matter how deserving of opprobrium their actions or all-encompassing be their political clout, is responsible for the indolence that has consumed the Senate in recent weeks.

The responsibility for inaction thus lies with an entity that is far more resilient and insidious than any sole individual could ever be. Trust me, you will be surprised. The main enemy of progress are the rules and procedures, as ascribed by the Founding Fathers, of the U.S. Senate. Despite overwhelming sentiment in favor of a concerted detour from President Bush's Iraq policy, the structural parameters of Senate business, as instituted by Madison and his fellow Constitutional architects, stood unscathed against the assault of the America people.

In a sense, in ignoring the will of the people with the paucity of legislation on Iraq, the Senate worked exactly as the framers' originally envisioned. Realizing that chaos may ensue in the House, given the short terms and huge size, the Senate was created as a moderating counter-weight. Emanating from this idea was the extensive six-year term, the mandate demanding a two-thirds majority to override a veto, and most importantly, the staggering of Senatorial elections, which ensured only a third would be up for re-election each cycle. As Robert Caro eloquently theorized in his landmark third volume on Lyndon Johnson's, which centered on his tenure in the Senate, the framers sincerely believed that this body was meant to "serve as a bulwark against both overreaching power of the executive branch and the zeal of the populace as a whole."

As for protecting against the danger synonymous with the former, the Senate has undoubtedly performed meritorious work. At the height of the New Deal's popularity, it single handedly preserved the autonomy and legitimacy of the Judiciary when, after weeks of pensive debate and brilliant oratory, it rejected FDR's plan to reshuffle the Supreme Court at his whim. In the same vein, the Senate likely diffused the establishment of a one-party government when it nullified Andrew Jackson's plan to dismiss legitimate politicians based on their political affiliation a mere 30 years republic.

More often than not though, the Senate has served the second purpose of the framers: to curtail the popular sentiment of the country. Often times, as prescribed by the infrastructure of the Constitution, this institution was the last bastion against reform, social justice and egalitarianism. To every one's surprise, save perhaps Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and their ilk, the Senate nevertheless stood firm against the seemingly unstoppable forces for change, largely because of the aforementioned procedures governing the passage of legislation in this body.

The United States, believed to be the most progressive nation on Earth insofar as embodying universal values of human rights, still employed children in heinous conditions as late as 1915. An entry race, African-Americans, were systematically disenfranchised and harassed until the late 1960's, despite being emancipated nearly a century before. Yet, for nearly 100 years, they had little recourse, given the Senate's ability to dominate the legislative agenda in Washington. Time and time again, the House, buoyed by the will of their constituents passed legislation designed to enhance human rights, fairness and transparency in our society, only to be stymied by the higher chamber.

Furthermore, Senators, in brazenly dismissing innumerable bills, often times attempt to absolve themselves of blame by citing the complicated, onerous parliamentary procedures that govern Senate debate. The worst part: this, while seeming on the surface absurd, is a completely legitimate argument

Case in point: Freshman Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) expressed both the collective frustration over the gridlock on Iraq, and the hegemony of Senate rules and procedures when she offered this assessment, courtesy of the Times, last week:

“I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, ‘Well, we need 60 votes,’ she said. “People are dying over there, so that isn’t always helpful.”

Her candid statement seems to epitomize how nonsensical the Senate has become with respect to Iraq. Instead of making decisions based on body counts, assessments from commanders on the field, or the opinions of our allies, we are held hostage by the anachronistic rules of the Senate. For more than 200 years, the Founders have succeeded, through the Senate's structural design, to thwart the will of the public. Through hell and high water, the institution has held firm, often to the countries distinct detriment.

It's finally time to modify these asinine, counter-productive rules. In an increasing complex, nuanced world, the need for flexibility, responsiveness and alacrity in legislation is paramount to honoring the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Those 3,500 Americans who have perished in Iraq at least deserve an honest debate, based on the issues, not the instructions of the Senate parliamentarian, don't they?

Without amending the Senate rules, they will never get it. And we will be ever the worse as a result.

Coming up next week: Part 2-Fixing the Senate: A Comprehensive Blueprint

2 Opposite Parties, Yet only 1 Ideology on Ethics Reform?

I suppose that, as a progressive, it may be considered somewhat blasphemous to go after the Democrats in my blog, particularly with the litany of transgressions propagated by the GOP (namely the Bush Administration) quotidian. To a degree, that viewpoint has merit. Just last week, the episode of General Hospital featuring John Ashcroft came to light, and boy was that a sordid tale. Season finale worthy, I'd say.

Also, the stalemate on Capitol Hill between an increasingly petulant President and a steadfast Congress over funding the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan persisted, with the piece de resistance arriving on Friday when Mr. Bush flatly declined to negotiate whatsoever with his Congressional counterparts, despite having both overwhelming public opinion and prominent leaders from his own party turning against him, has illustrated starkly the doctrinal futility of this brand of Republican. Mr Bush, just because you are from Texas, doesn't mean you have to imitate former presidents who decided to go into a self-imposed vacation from reality in times of war. (See-Johnson, Lyndon for future reference)

Yet the aforementioned summary is essentially a run of the mill 5 days for the Grand Ole' Party, especially since the Bush cabal (and their coterie of sycophants in both houses of Congress (Boehner, McConnell, Frist, et al.) came to power at the turn of the century. Given this, it is hardly insightful to highlight their buffoonery, and therefore I will leave it to others.
I will admit: It would be disingenuous of me to imply I shall spare the Republicans the point of my literary rod. Rather, I am just saving it for the next instance of their inimitable tendency to malign our country.

Now on to the prudent matters to be analyzed in this blog: As mentioned, Republicans have now established a routine of detrimental conduct in the last seven years. On the other hand, their colleagues from across the aisle, while hardly omniscient, have by in large advocated for policies that are far more conducive to an egalitarian, just and economically viable society.

Recently though, they have confronted their first full fledged crisis since assuming leadership in January with the problem over curtailing corruption within the halls of power in D.C. This was an issue that struck a prominent chord with voters last November, and it has become increasingly complicated for prominent democrats like Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. In essence, failure to pass the legislation, which could be now fait accompli given the developments of last week, is a highly dangerous prospect for a party holding a minuscule lead in the Senate, and hardly a majority in the House.

As a recent Times' article by David Kirkpatrick explicitly detailed, said House Democratic leadership has faced a near revolt from the rank of file over the forthcoming ethics reform package. Essentially, the tumult has arisen specifically over a portion of the legislation that would mandate Lawmakers to double the time they must wait before entering the private, lucrative lobbying sector after their tenure on the Hill is done, from one year to two years. In addition, the bill would greatly inhibit lobbyists from engaging in "informal relations" with lawmakers, from plotting strategy or simply consultancy.

On the surface, this bill seems like an overdue solution to the dearth of accountability and transparency that has pervaded Capitol Hill as an institution for the last decade. Furthermore, in lieu of the specific, audacious scandals that have plagued both parties recently, from Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney with the GOP to Jim Traficant for the Democrats, the expediency needed to pass this particular legislation within Congress itself should have reached its crescendo in 2007. Furthermore, the revisions at hand are hardly the large scale reforms once proposed during the apogee of the fervor over Cunningham's bribery and fraud scandal. In fact, these provisions are largely neutered compared to their predecessors.

For example, let's look at the foremost bone of contention between the pro-approval Leadership of the House, and the revolting rank and file: The increase in entrance to the private sector upon retirement from public service from 1 year to 2. Give me a break. You can't wait one extra year to start raking in the bucks on K Street? Those who protest against the bill on these grounds offer at best, a flimsy defense of their vote. If a former Congressman is so eager to continue "serving his constituents, though in a different, yet equally important way" (yes, I'm lampooning their rhetoric right there), let him go join a non-profit. Wait, what am I thinking? The only thing less likely to happen than that is the Iraq war ending without an internecine civil war. Oh, but I digress.

However, despite the growing storm of criticism emanating from the voters at large, to whom politicians are supposedly accountable to, (Congress has an even lower approval rating than our beleaguered President at present), this bill is ultimately likely to die as part of a weak-ass "compromise" to get other facets of the legislation passed in due time.

This bitter legislative pill is even harder to swallow when it comes from a Democratic led Congress.

First of all, Democrats, though hardly immune to corrupt practices, have traditionally presented themselves as the party of the "middle class", or more broadly, the "party of the people". Therefore, they are held to a higher standard when it comes to ethical conduct, for better or worse. In addition, the GOP has proven in the past that they are beholden to large scale interests, like powerful lobbies (energy, pharmaceutical and auto) and corporations, than to the middle class of society. More over, the recent incarnation of the right in D.C. has proven they are more interested in re-election, no matter through what means, than enforcing the rule of law. Disregarding the principles of separation of powers, accountability and responsibility started at the Executive Branch, and it has now trickled down to the GOP in Congress.

Democrats, since they are the agent of the "people", were supposed to reverse this trend upon election, starting with a comprehensive, enforceable ethics reform package. They were supposed to differentiate themselves, by their willingness to eschew shady, barely legal relations with lobbyists. Rhetorically, they have promised to fulfill that pledge ad nauseum, from the campaign trail in November to myriad news conferences on Capitol Hill in January.

Regrettably though, when it came to taking tangible action on ethics reform, they have failed miserably. With the leadership being stonewalled on Iraq by the President and the passage of the ballyhooed Senate immigration deal looking dire, coupled with few legislative successes since inauguration, save a much needed minimum wage hike (even that was diluted by a ridiculous part of the bill that included unnecessary relief for small businesses), and one would think the Democrats would embrace a maneuver that would afford them a well publicized legislative success. Ethics reform was the epitome of that idea. Yet, they did not embrace it.

Call me an idealist, but I genuinely trusted that the Democrats would break from the recent history of opprobrium that has characterized the interactions between lobbyists and lawmakers. Instead, in revealing their cowardice, they could only mimic the pathetic Republicans. So much for a new vision, eh?

Secondly, idealism about the Democratic party, and the principles embodied there in: altruism, fairness, transparency of government, have long since been anachronistic. As such, Democratic leaders must have weighed that into their decision to renege on critical tenets of the ethics reform package as a mere affront to the small sect of political observers that espouse idealism.

That said, Democratic leadership is forgetting the immense hypocrisy involved with their decision on ethics reform. Throughout the entire 2006 mid-term campaign, the DNC absolutely destroyed the GOP on issues of corruption and accountability within government. Given the prominence of the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals, how could you blame them? Furthermore, aside from Iraq, combating corrupt public officials, was the most pressing issue on the conscience of voters, according to exit surveys. So, it's only expected to see a litany of advertisements attempting to distinguish the Democrats from their debauched Republican counterparts. This tactic was particularly effective in 2006 because of the 24/7 frenetic media climate in which we now live.

Eventually, publicizing their steadfast commitment to fighting unethical GOP conduct became one of the cornerstones of the campaign that allowed the Left to seize control of Congress for the first time since 1993. However, the Democrats, while embracing the benefits of the hyper-capitalized media world to win this election, forgot to abide by it's one general rule: do not bite the hand that feeds you.

With their eminent hypocrisy on evicting corruption and lobbyist influence, as epitomized by their craven stance on this ethics reform, the Democrats are playing a duplicitous game with the voters, one that is likely implausible within a political world where unmitigated negative advertising is the most preferred form of campaign advertising.

Historical precedent has starkly illustrated that brazen hypocrisy will not go un-punished by the voters. Just ask George H.W. Bush. In 1992, he was crippled by the Clinton campaign's decision to run on a continuous loop his his infamous, ultimately fraudulent pledge of "No New Taxes" at the 1988 GOP Convention. Lord knows, if the Democrats are willing to pounce on hypocritical statements made in the past by prominent politicians, what will the GOP do during the 2008 elections? After all, this is the party that chastised John McCain for having an adopted daughter that wasn't pearly white with radiant blonde hair!

Ultimately, Pelosi and her ilk must believe their decision on ethics reform will engender not enmity or outrage but indifference within the electorate. However, this is a highly myopic perception of voters, particularly with the mass of interest groups swarming around like a troop of frenzied bees.

As George W. Bush's re-election in 2004 proved, voters are willing to forgive incompetency, economic stagnancy and a disastrous foreign policy. Fast forward two years, and we find them thoroughly unwilling to tolerate the corruption of his party. In 2006, the Democrats accurately felt the pulse of the voters, and ousted the Republicans with a resounding message of transparency and amenability.

Apparently it only takes 5 months for that message to become obsolete.

"5 Games to Determine the Champion"-Thoughts on the Spurs-Suns series...

I hope my fellow Suns fans can forgive me for being quite antagonistic towards Mike D'Antoni in the last few days, even before the commencement of the monumental Western Conference Semifinal series versus the venerable San Antonio Spurs. After all, my sentiments of anger and confusion towards the former NBA Coach of the Year served the dual purpose of dampening the positive aura shrouding the squad after a resounding quarterfinal victory over the hated Lakers, while also introducing negative feelings, always simmering below the surface within a typical Suns fan when these two squads meet, prior to the first tip of the forthcoming semifinal series. Alas, obviously, I am hardly an important figure within the Suns' fan cabal, but I (in a typical manifestation of the Freudian concept of "Super Ego") nevertheless believe, that my knowledge of basketball allows my feelings on the Suns to be representative of the entire fan constituency. Nevertheless, I have to offer my sincere apologies for prematurely staining the Suns mood.

But, realistically, how can you blame me for being pessimistic about the forthcoming series? In everyday life, I am a cynic, admittedly one of an undue nature at certain times. However, if one deliberates on the recent clashes between Phoenix and San Antonio, from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective, the bleak picture that emerges generally engenders an outlook that is closely aligned with mine.

So, given the fact that the Suns have compiled an ignominious 4-11 record during the Nash era, playoffs sadly included, ( that's the quantitative part) coupled with numerous instances of Suns players admitting in interviews that San Antonio "demoralizes" them because the Spurs are the only squad that impedes, successfully, the Suns' patented style (and there is a qualitative example), I was rightfully incensed after D'Antoni started to shoot off his mouth in the days leading up to Sunday's Game 1.

His comments, for those of you unfamiliar, and I am essentially paraphrasing here, were something to the effect of "We (the Suns) know we have far more talent individually than Popovich's squad, they just happen to play better as a team presently."

Wow. This is the one instance where the Suns coach does not need to serve up, on a silver platter, some bulletin board material for the opponent. Sure, he tries to backtrack slightly by throwing San Antonio the proverbial bone with the "They are a better team presently" comment, but the damage had already been done. Frankly, that attempt to offer San Antonio the olive branch came across as decidedly disingenuous. Furthermore, though the Spurs' poise and unflappable demeanor in pressurized situations is already renowned, they are hardly immune to provocation at the hands of the opposing coach. Therein lies the genius of the Spurs: they are impervious to rattle (except maybe during the waning moments of regulation during Game 7 of the 2006 West Semifinals against Dallas), while simultaneously adroit enough to utilize any provocation from the opponent as positive motivation.

Fast forward to early Tuesday evening, hours before Game 2 is set to tip from US Airways center. Combine D'Antoni's idiotic prognostications about the talent disparity between the two teams before the series begun with his inexplicable schematic errors in judgement in the Game 1 defeat (benching Kurt Thomas for large swaths of the game, placing Steve Nash on the whirling dervish Tony Parker to begin the third quarter), and needless to say, I was quite incensed with the Suns coach.

Then, finally, a mere four hours later after Game 2, not only did the Suns players perhaps finally hurdle that seemingly insurmountable obstacle known as the San Antonio Spurs, but almost as importantly, so did their beleaguered coach.

D'Antoni, particularly in the last three years, has compiled an illustrious resume at the helm of the Suns. He has won a Coach of the Year, been the subject of a bestselling expose penned by a respected writer, and generally attributed to be the architect of a fast-paced, exciting brand of basketball that has reinvigorated both the NBA's diverse fan base, but also the disparate group of companies that sponsor basketball on television.

Despite this, D'Antoni has yet to ascend to the immortal echelon reserved for coaches who have led their teams to a championship. The San Antonio Spurs are largely responsible for this prominent deficiency in Mike's curriculum vitae, if you will, to this point. Yes, the Dallas Mavericks were responsible for eliminating Nash's gang in 2006. But, as team insiders will verify, this squad, through the myriad of injuries to Bell, Thomas, and Amare coupled with exhausting 7 game series versus the Clippers and Lakers, was essentially facing perilously long odds, regardless of their opponent in the 2006 Western Conference finals.

In reality, San Antonio has been the defensive monolith that has impeded the Suns championship aspirations, particularly during the run n' gun era instituted by D'Antoni in his three year tenure in Phoenix. Starting with the 2005 demolition, in a series where the lone Suns win was achieved only after a highly questionable non-goaltending call against Amare with precious seconds remaining, the Spurs' have been the proverbial thorn in the Suns' side. (no really bad pun intended, I promise) The Spurs, though known for their defensive prowess, have countered the Suns offensive onslaught, as evidenced by their 111 point performance in Game 1 of this series, throughout the years, and that has been the main reason for their 12-5 record against Phoenix in the Nash era. Furthermore, D'Antoni had largely been responsible for the Suns ineffectiveness, with his fundamental refusal to alter the Suns' game plan to rebut the litany of adjustments Popovich has made time and time again.

Then came Tuesday night.

By finally quelling his own personal hubris, which manifested itself in a painfully obvious way when he petulantly refused to pull James Jones' from the starting lineup despite his ineffectiveness, D'Antoni may have finally realized that his patented frenetic, awe-inducing style is not above reproach, or at the very least, alteration. In stifling his ego through inserting defensive stalwart Kurt Thomas in to the starting lineup, even at the expense of offensive fluidity, D'Antoni has shown signs that he is finally cognizant of the necessity of adjustments en route to a title chase.

Certainly, the bold move by the Suns boss has yet to atone for his rigidity in past playoff series. However, for at least the 48 minutes of perfect basketball (on both ends of the floor) played by Phoenix on Tuesday night, Mike D'Antoni has proven that he is beholden to the best interests of the team, not those that conform with furthering his quintessential basketball philosophy.

Coming up next, a look at the performance of Suns' players as we head to Game 3 on Saturday night.

The "Blur" overwhelms Kobe Ball

Color me positively giddy at tonight's developments in the world of the NBA. About an hour ago, a rapidly decomposing San Antonio Spurs squad (led by Tim Duncan, who looked so haphazard and befuddled with the ball in his hands that he made Gerald Ford look coordinated) instantly relinquished their home court advantage in a resounding loss to the Denver Nuggets. Though I picked San Antonio (risky prediction, I know) at the outset of the series, tonight's action has convinced me that 'Melo and A.I.'s boys can win this series, yet I am by no means assuring victory at this point.

First of all, the Nuggets have an inside defense presence perhaps, in the Western Conference, only matched by the top seeded Dallas Mavericks. Dark horse defensive player of the year Marcus Camby continually altered or extinguished the myriad shots in the lane that Tony Parker and Manure Ginobili love to throw up. Camby's defensive dominance allows the Nuggets perimeter players to stay home on the 3 shooters of SA, thereby vitiating the effectiveness of Horry, Barry and Bowen. Secondly, Bruce Bowen cannot guard both Carmelo and A.I. Obviously, he cannot literally guard two men on the floor. However, in a larger sense, Bowen's ability to neutralize the star player often allows for double teaming of the other stars on a given team. Unfortunately for San Antonio, Iverson has no equal defensively on the floor. Even if you try to double him, he consistently proved tonight that he will abdicate from his formerly selfish ways and dish the ball to open teammates near the cup. Couple A.I's recent proclivities towards charity on the court with the presence of two monsters of the post in Camby and Nene, and you have a viable offensive strategy for Denver.

That said, Denver fired the proverbial "first shot across the bow" in 2005 against the Spurs, only to be crushed by 28 in the second game. Thereafter, San Antonio won the series in relatively easy fashion. One caveat: the 2007 Spurs are a shell of the 2005 team. Duncan looks totally inept on the offensive end at times, half of their players possess essentially one skill (3-point shooting) and their bench recently has decalcified to the point that it now has qualified for benefits under AARP's physical disability parameters. Needless to say, one game is not an accurate barometer for an entire season, but Denver's win tonight may portend success down the road, especially as the series traverses the country back to Denver for game 3.

Dallas is also being outclassed by the run and gun Warriors at present, 30-23. To no one's surprise except perhaps Mark Cuban, Dirk has come out shooting blanks. He nearly went the entire first quarter scoreless. More interestingly, Nowitski has managed to break the NBA record for "flops in a game" after a mere quarter tonight. Thus far, Dirk's histrionics on the court make Anna Nicole Smith's Quaalude-aided quivering exhibition on the floor of the Hard Rock in the Bahamas look placid. Nevertheless, there is still 3 quarters to go, and we'll see if Golden State can continue to make shots as the game progresses.

To qualify: my present conviviality over the misfortunes of Dallas and San Antonio arises entirely from the Suns victory over the Lakers today. If the Suns had fallen to the fighting Kobe's today, all other series would be moot in my mind. In fact, I'd go as far to admit that if the Suns had been defeated today, I likely would have driven to Phoenix (in diapers, of course, to save time) and self-immolated in front of U.S. Airways Center. Though that is a slight exaggeration, I tell you of my masochistic tendencies vis a vis the Suns to explain the reasons for devoting the balance of this blog to a recap of today's game. Essentially, I cannot speak to an attractive woman without copious quantities of distilled spirits. In the same vein, it is impossible for yours truly to be in a great mood, if the Suns lose. Given this, it's only natural to analyze today's game. Some thoughts:

--I really believed that "Kobe" ball would possibly steal the Lakers a game in this series. But, as today proved, it may only be sufficient for one half of basketball. The 2006-07 version of the Suns, offensively, has the firepower inside that their predecessors lacked. As a result, it's very difficult for the Lakers to relegate the Suns to a jump shooting team for an entire game. The only way the Lakers, as spectacular as Kobe's skills are, would be able to defeat the Suns with the offense unilaterally emanating from Mamba is if they can force the Suns into only shooting from the perimeter. With the dominance of Amare becoming more apparent as each game progresses, it's highly unlikely Phoenix would make the foolish mistake of settling for a glut of 18-20 footers. (Especially, after being down 9 at half largely as a result of that faulty strategy)

--Given the versatility of the Suns offense, the Lakers thus must, even if Kobe protests and pouts (for reference: Game 7 of last year's Western Conference Quarterfinals), offer a multi-faceted attack if they wish to win even a single game in this tete a tete. The problem is, and Kobe would likely explicate this further off the record, most of the Lakers are pathetic offensively. Lamar Odom has yet to recover from debilitating injuries to his shoulder and knee, Luke Walton's jump shot has abandoned him, Jordan Farmar has started 3 games in his professional career, and Kwame Brown makes Pat Burke look skilled with his feeble post moves. But, as the Suns and many other squads have proven during the Lakers' 12-22 stretch to close out the regular season, Kobe simply cannot carry a squad for 48 minutes without assistance. Hell, even His Airness couldn't do it, why should we expect Kobe to do it? Time and time again, the Mamba fades towards the end of the game, as any human being would, and then the Lakers , when they rely on the flotsam that surrounds 24, essentially become a glorified version of the Charlotte Bobcats. In short, the Lakers are damned if they do (let Kobe run roughshod and take 4o shots) but also damned if they don't (let players like Smush Parker, Brian Cook and Andrew Bynum get more than a few touches).

--As for the Suns, let's start with the positives:
1. In an aggregate sense, the team itself really showed a distinct sense of resiliency in this contest. Some might theorize that the Suns knew they would eventually pull it out, and therefore coasted for the first 42 minutes, but I strongly disagree. Quite the contrary actually: On two separate occasions, at the end of the second quarter when Kobe was unconscious with his 3-point range, and later, at the beginning of the third quarter when the Lakers started 5 for 5, with their role players appearing to get into the flow of the game, the Suns were made fully aware of the threat of this team. Given that, it's hard to fathom they simply played lackadaisically until the last 5 minutes. Don't get me wrong, they didn't play a perfect game, or even a serviceable game. But in the past, I am not sure if the team could have played as calculating and focused as they did down the stretch in this contest. For example, they still made the hustle plays to keep themselves afloat, (Amare diving on the floor for loose balls, Marion interpolating himself into the passing lanes time and time again) and eventually the overwhelming talent of MV3, Marion, Stat and the Blur shined through.
2. Speaking of the Blur, he finally declared himself, for all the national TV audience to see, to be of the highest caliber of player the NBA has to offer. If he were to lose the 6th man to Manure, that would be an utter mockery of what the award signifies. Barbosa, as many helpless Lakers found out yet again today, personifies the old platitude in sports that you "can't teach speed." His lethal combination of blinding speed and uncanny coordination with the ball (in any spot on the floor) is a weapon for which even a stalwart defensive squad like San Antonio or Detroit has no answer for. Furthermore, since he is a true sixth man (unlike Manure), and therefore, he enters the game at an optimum time, since reserves are generally his opponents. One particular play stands out from today that epitomizes Barbosa's brilliance: Late in the 4th, the Suns ran a backdoor cut from Nash to Barbosa, a play they have run to success countless times. However, in a bit of flukish bad luck, the Blur fumbled with the ball upon receiving it. Almost any other player would have either turned the ball over, or been forced to reset the offense without converting the easy lay up. Not Barbosa. Instead, the Blur, with his new found poise and presence, quickly regained the ball, instinctively gauged where he was on the court, and finished the play beautifully with a majestic reverse layup.
3. Shawn Marion typified the whirling durbish style of basketball that we have grown to love over the years here in Phoenix. Instead of trying to do an Eddie House impression as he had prone to do lately, Shawn stuck to what he excels at today (not shooting a lot of jump shots a la Mr. House), and it was possibly the catalyst for the Suns attack. Let's hope that he doesn't revert back to his recent form, because it may not adversely effect the Suns in this series, but it will be the silver bullet in later rounds against Dallas and San Antonio.

Back tomorrow with the negatives, and some other general thoughts....

"If You Can't Beat Em, Join 'Em" -Even if you've always been superior??

"When an American says that he loves his country, he means not only that he loves the New England hills, the prairies glistening in the sun, the wide and rising plains, the great mountains, and the sea. He means that he loves an inner air, an inner light in which freedom lives and in which a man can draw the breath of self-respect." ~Adlai Stevenson

Though the former Democratic candidate for president twice over (he lost both times to Eisenhower) offered this glowing panegyric a mere 50 years ago, the Utopian America he describes sadly seems eons away here in 2007. Paradoxically, an observer would probably be inclined to believe that the country now is better off than five decades prior, given the stentorian progress in social justice for minorities, incalculable advances in technology, and a general sense of egalitarianism that pervades society presently. However, despite the aforementioned, the last seven years under the maliciously inept governance of the Bush Administration has systematically, albeit not completely, invalidated and neutralized the burnished view points, offered by Stevenson and his ilk, once espoused freely in this country.

Where do I start? (By the way, I hate rhetorical questions like that in essays, but I am feeling lazy and I'm frankly having a hard time focusing because of the apocalyptic incident of yesterday..... the pizza throwing imbroglio in the stands of Fenway Park) First of all, there are now 47 million people bereft of health care, even as HMO's and the czar's of health care companies receive sickening compensation. (increasingly, middle class professionals comprise this sect of the population). New Orleans, a beacon of the vitality, determination and cooperation of the American spirit destroyed equally by a cataclysmic hurricane and the anemic response that followed. The introduction of "pre-emptive" warfare in Iraq, a doctrine which has served to simultaneously eviscerate American military might (and resulting, influence) in volatile regions across the globe and serve as the greatest recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda to utilize against the United States since Courtney Love.

Be those things as they may, this blog is not a polemic about the litany of problems confronting American as a result of almost comically bad leadership (if only George W. Bush was not a real person, and was only a character played by Will Ferrell) No, on the other hand, this entry is devoted to analyzing the rhetoric the Bush Administration has employed to legitimate their counter-productive policies, language that has also served, occasionally, to mobilize their base and to pacify and ostracize their opponents on the left side of the aisle.

As Paul Krugman recently pointed out in an insightful column in the Times, the electorate generally opposes Republican policies on issues like health care, the war in Iraq and environmental conditions by a margin of nearly 2 to 1. However, as Krugman explicitly details, the GOP has nevertheless done astonishingly well in national elections. The pressing question thus arises: How does the right continue to accrue more love at the ballot box from the very voters who profess to disagree with their agenda?

Obviously, there is no singular reason for this seemingly contradictory phenomenon. Some of it can be attributed to a phlegmatic and leaderless Democratic Party. Undoubtedly, election victories for the GOP have some relation to the country's mood following 9/11. Also, the Rovian "get out the base" voting strategy has undoubtedly assisted in securing key swing states, particularly in presidential elections (Florida in 2000 and Ohio 2004) Ultimately, Krugman believes that the Republicans magnify and exaggerate very minor problems (e.g. Clinton's secretary entering the White House without a badge on the weekend nearly bringing Newt Gingrich to tears of rage on the House floor) as a means to obfuscate the larger scale issues, with the assumption being they would be slaughtered if they stuck to the difficult quandaries befuddling the country at a given moment. To a large extent, this strategy has worked beautifully. After all, how many times has the RNC been able to energize the far right base with preposterous slander about gay marriage along the lines of "what's next, men can marry their collie?" As disturbing as that rhetoric may be, it produces results. Krugman hits this notion right on the head, however he misses out on one key aspect of the Bush rhetorical arsenal, the facet which is, in fact, the most ignominious and disingenuous.

Let's be honest: George W. Bush is a man of few words, or at least, I should say, few intelligible words. He enjoys his policy analyses succinct and punchy. On Iraq: "Cut and Run" On Social Security: "Health Savings Accounts" On the Democrats: " Defeatocrats" On the War on Terror: "We are fighting them there so we don't have them here" On the questionable conduct of his Vice President: " In Texas, shooting your friend multiple times in the face, then subsequently refusing him medical attention for a number of hours, is a sign of friendship." You get the idea. Mostly, these pithy (/Bill O'Reilly) slogans have proven to be mostly fodder for the late night talk shows, especially after their ridiculousness and the essentially trivial nature of the solecisms became apparent.

However, the Bush Administration has recently utilized a rhetorical tactic that cannot be dismissed as non sequitur with the same ease as before. Recently, in defending their unpopular positions on the war in Iraq, and on environmental issues, Bush Administration officials have basically rebuffed their myriad critics by stating that "since (third world/developing nation) doesn't abide by the protocol, well then we (the United States) don't have to either" Taken literally, this line of argument comes across as petulant and simple minded. It's akin to my brother protesting about washing the dishes because I never had to. Additionally, and on a much deeper level, the judgement that the United States is not superior to a developing country is implicit in this comparison. For a party like the GOP, who espouses fervent pro-American "values" rhetoric when discussing immigration policy and trade affairs, to essentially render the United States as tantamount to fledgling nations in the Far East, is emblematic of how desperate these partisan hacks will go to justify their inexplicable actions. In a way, it's the most sobering indication of just how much the United States has descended, both in the view of other nations around the globe, and in the view of its own inhabitants, during the disastrous seven years since Bush defeated Gore in 2000.

For example, as detailed in an April 2nd article in the Times, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA (mind you, this organization has been effectively neutered by the Bush Administration) has the power to regulate harmful greenhouse gases. Aside from the lobbyists in Detroit, the most incredulous reaction to the ruling came from Bush administration officials. Now, rationally, even a layperson like yours truly knows that even the most ardent global warming skeptics are struggling for methods to rationalize their buffoonery. True to form, the skeptics in the Bush Administration, having run out of any rebuttal that could even be tangentially based in peer reviewed science, issues their standard rejoinder that "since China or India do not follow climate change treaties like Kyoto, the United States therefore must continually evaluate it's own position."

Apparently, despite the fact that Republicans blither on ad nauseum about how "we are the greatest country in the world" during heated immigration hearings, we are tantamount to India and China on environmental policy. The former is a nation which, according to The Australian, has a child malnutrition rate of 47 percent. Similarly, China, though it boasts a booming economy (one which is assisted exponentially by exploitation of a cheap labor market), the government of Hu Jintao nevertheless remains as stifling and authoritarian as ever. If you don't believe me, ask those members of Falun Gong who got the Abu Ghraib treatment simply for congregating in public space. Are these two developing, yet still deeply flawed nations, really our contemporaries vis a vis human rights, transparency and governmental accountability?

According to Bush Administration officials, we are at least next of kin, if not in equivalent echelons within the world milieu. Good thing this policy is new, otherwise the U.S. Government might have enslaved African-Americans until the late 1980's, with the justification being that South Africa still was under apartheid rule. Historically, imagine how societal equality would have been mitigated if women were not afforded the right to vote in the early 20th century since universal suffrage had not yet been bestowed to females in the Middle East. Obviously, those examples are somewhat hyperbolic, but they are not as ridiculous as one might think, if you stay in the parameters of the Administrations argument.

Reducing the United States to the same moral and ethical universe as countries that neglect basic rights for their populace, and thereby attempting to shirt responsibility on the impending climate disaster if urgent steps are not taken with celerity, is hypocritical, unfounded and puzzling. However, to the surprise of few, the caterwauls about ignoring Kyoto since "others do" is not the first instance of this line of argument since Bush ascended to the presidency in 2000.

In 2005, the Administration also proffered this excuse to vitiate the protests of critics, from both sides of the aisle, about their heinous treatment of detainees both at the Guantanamo site in Cuba and at Abu Ghraib. Basically, the argument of Mr. Bush, and his coterie of sycophants in the Senate like McConnell, Cornyn, DeMint, et al, was that, among other flimsy reasons, torturing enemy combatants was acceptable because, if U.S. servicemen and women were to be captured by said enemy, they would be subject to similar deplorable treatment at the hands of their captors. While the latter part of their conceit is likely true, since when do we possess equivocal standards of despicable, barbaric and uncivilized regimes and/or ideologies like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Is that really how far this country has plummeted since George W. Bush took office. Call me naive, but I always believed that the United States considered it a bastion of morality, fairness and magnanimity, even when it came to dealing with sworn enemies of the state. Most importantly, this facet of American doctrine always seemed to exist irrespective of the actions of other foreign actors, nation-state or otherwise. George W. Bush, like he has done with many fundamental precepts of the Constitution, has decided to disregard the standards of treatment of prisoners that have been universally ratified since the founding of the Republic more than 230 years ago.

I happened to be interning for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) when the brouhaha completely blew up, and the situation devolved into a standoff between the Administration, who favored torture, and former servicemen who now served in the Senate like McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who were staunchly opposed. I'll never forget the day I observed, from only a few feet away, a press conference McCain held in the hallway adjacent to his office in the Russell Building. As the throng of media continued to haggle the Senator about his brouhaha with the President on the torture issue, I could sense his frustration mounting. Finally, the incessant harangues rose to a crescendo and the Senator simply burst out something to the effect that: "We are the United States. We have never tortured before, and we wouldn't begin now. That is completely against our national identity."

In that moment, McCain, who is known more for his acerbic wit than his poetic eloquence, perfectly summed up the sentiments of those allayed against the President on this matter. Sadly, given that most Americans are patriotic, and therefore hold their country in high esteem, McCain's poignant defense of U.S. policy that stipulates abstaining from the disgusting act of torture needn't be said, especially to the Commander in Chief. It wasn't long ago that, save a few covert operations from CIA, a public endorsement of torture by the highest ranking official in the government would be unthinkable. Please, don't hasten to paint me one that views the past with rose colored glasses. Hardly. But, the change from 2000 to 2007 has been so dramatic and all-encompassing, that the darkened days of the past appear in a lighter hue. As McCain found out, unfortunately, as with most matters of common sense and ethics, this President has to be spoken to in the plainest possible terms, as if he has the intellect and moral quotient of a pre-pubescent boy.

Ultimately, their ridiculous, counter productive line of argument was discredited and maligned when it came down to making decisions on the treatment of detainees, and hopefully, environmental regulation. Despite that victory however, those who disdain the rhetoric still have an up hill battle forthcoming. The idea that American values can be cast aside, in light of the actions of another nation state, could have a pervasive and extremely detrimental effect on the country as whole in the future. George W. Bush and his cohorts, in an attempt to obfuscate the deleterious impact their policies levy upon most Americans, have been relegated to utilizing this demeaning assumption about the American polity. The collective malaise they have instilled into the mindset of the country's inhabitants could take decades to eradicate. By stating, as often as anyone is listening, that America's obligations are not to uphold the Constitution daily, but rather only when it's congruent with the policies of another nation, George W. Bush and those in his administration have been proven dually as ultimate hypocrites and enemies of the American way of life.

Consider if you will, this quote:
"The US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal."

The odd syntax of this rhetoric non withstanding, the charges levied upon the U.S. Government are probably as salient as they could possibly be as we continue through 2007. During the past 7 years, the Bush government truly has committed numerous unjust and illegal acts. From the Draconian practice known as "extraordinary rendition", which led to the false imprisonment of a Canadian national of Syrian descent for more than two years, to the insipid, invasive domestic wire trapping program, the Bush Administration has largely ignored the time honored ideals of justice, privacy and due process entwined in the Constitution. Oh, by the way, the sage who offered this prophetic assessment of America? Osama Bin Laden. Any time a maniacal zealot, in a rhetorical flourish, burnishes charges about a country, one tends to ignore the ramblings. However, given the recent scandals dominating the news, it's difficult to not lend at least some credence to OBL's dictum.

On January 20th, 2009, George W. Bush and his cabal will physically vacate the White House, and not a moment too soon. Thus, the important question remains: will their blatant disregard of the Constitution linger during the new administration? 7 years is not enough to override all of the progress endemic to this country since the founding of the republic. However, if this disease of irresponsibility and deceit persists, will we one day really be similar to China and India?

From Front Runner to First Out?

Finally, after enduring three or four months already of the exhausting lead up to the 2008 Presidential Election (only 19 months to go!!), we have our first seminal moment in the contest to decide who will get to clean up the morass George W. Bush and his administration has placed the United States. With American Presidential elections (and to a lesser extent, Congressional contests) essentially becoming determined by who can store the most in their election coffers (just ask George W. Bush in 2000: Those $2,100 a plate fundraisers certainly did their part in vitiating the advantage Gore possessed amongst registered voters on nearly every issue), the release of the 2007 FY first quarter fundraising totals on the part of each prominent contender is thus the initial barometer of the pulse of the electorate. Though it may seem ridiculous to extrapolate this particular data towards an election that takes place after the next Olympics, historically, the candidates who prevail in the first batch of fundraising tallies generally secure the primary nomination.

Right off the bat, this data portends a bright future for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il) By accumulating $25 million, the junior senator from Illinois has firmly established himself as a contender for the presidency, despite what those who decry his lack of experience and his supposed connection to an Islamic fundamentalist school in Indonesia (keep fishing for those slanderous stories, far right! Lord knows you wouldn't want to talk about the elections. Hey what happened in the last one, by the way?) may state to the contrary. In the same vein, on the right, Mitt Romney took the initial salvo amongst the GOP with his astonishing take of nearly $20 million. Romney has been besieged by a litany of problems, foremost his status as a Mormon, but more practically, how the former Mass. Governor can deal with his name recognition completely paling in comparison to his competitors, namely Guiliani and McCain. However, given his veritable war chest now in his arsenal, Romney will likely mount a comprehensive advertising campaign designed to dispel the fears the electorate may have about his candidacy. Romney's positions, as of late, has made Jerry Falwell look like Gloria Steinem, and if he can effectively publicize them to voters in key GOP primary states, he may well wistfully recollect this particular day as a watershed moment in his campaign.

That said, the admirable gains upon the release of the fundraising totals of Sen. Obama and Mitt are irrelevant when compared to yet another devastating blow incurred by the campaign of Sen. John McCain. McCain, though he has yet to "officially" announce his intentions to run for the Presidency, has seemingly been the prohibitive favorite to secure the Republican nomination since the moment after Bush was inaugurated for his second term in January 2005. Given this, how can the senior Senator from Arizona come in third in fundraising for the first quarter? A number of factors share complicity for this ignominious showing. First of all, McCain inexplicably conducted only 5 fundraisers for wealthy donors during January and February. Scheduling so few fund raisers is such a disastrous decision, especially compared to the piles of money Giuliani and Romney were raking in the cash, that only Michael Brown would be proud of this early campaign management. Secondly, McCain's campaign has thus far resisted the urge to institute a Bushian-hierarchical system for large scale donors, i.e. those who assist in contributing $100k+ are called "Rangers", et al. Never underestimate the power of a cheeky label on donor's minds, especially since we all know the amount of sycophants that generally donate large amounts to candidates is profligate.

Finally, McCain has re-emerged into the political reality, and thus, has hired prominent former fundraisers to run his money operations. However, this long-delayed decision may already be wholly inconsequential. Why? Because, though on the surface the dearth of funding could simply be attributed to early campaign mis-management on an operational level, in actuality the anemic performance portends larger scale truths about the viability (or lack thereof) of McCain's campaign. In fact, the paucity of funds in his war chest may be hardly anomalous, but instead, indicative of the future of the campaign, right until it's bitter end. Since the beginning of the campaign, McCain has endorsed a politically inpalatable position on Iraq, wavered on key social issues (an act that will kill him amongst independents in a general election) and been unable to counter questions about his increasing age and health. Given this litany of problems, in essence, I'm advocating McCain "cut and run" from his presidential aspirations now, and in the following paragraphs, I will enumerate explicitly the insurmountable problems he must overcome to stay in. Key word in that sentence boys and girls: insurmountable.

Phoenix- Home of both the Suns and Sen. John McCain

Normally, criss crossing the country multiple times over a span of weeks would preclude me from watching my necessary dose of Phoenix Suns basketball. Luckily, the kind folks in the NBA scheduling/broadcasting office, have realized what us Phoenicians gleaned long ago: the Phoenix Suns, regardless of your particular fan affiliation, are the best show on the hardwood. Given this, I was able to take in the triumvirate of contests over the last weekend courtesy of TNT and ABC. Now, amidst all the hoopla down in Atlanta over Joakim Noah's propensity for gibberish (just ask Jim Nantz), Greg Oden likely becoming the first 19 year old member of the AARP, and the astoundingly over hyped national semifinal match up between Roy Hibbert and the aforementioned Oden (ultimately, they combined for 32 points in 44 minutes. Don't tell Dick Vitale and Jay Bilas that though, they might swallow their own tongues out of delirium and disappointment.), the Suns chugged along a three game stretch, madly vacillating between ineptitude (at least defensively) and blithe greatness.

However, in the end, after a resounding victory against Dallas, the Suns definitively proved that they should be the team to beat, despite their performances earlier in the week that may lead someone to advocating the contrary. Though the margin was a decisive 22 points, the Mavericks actually could have easily lost by far more. Their herculean three point shooting effort in the first half (7-8) masked a complete paucity of inside play on the part of Dallas.
Therein lies the key to the Suns eventual triumph over Dallas: the paint. Amare continued his Wilt Chamberlain impression en route to another dunking exhibition, at the expense of a totally helpless Diop and a completely over matched coterie of smaller players like Croshere, J. Howard and Devean George (Kevin Willis is on the way Mavs fan, you're problems are over!! /sarcasm) Yes, John Hollinger and other pundits can dismiss the Suns as having played a "perfect game", meaning that it is unlikely to be replicated in the playoffs, which is partially true. Phoenix is as likely to shoot 90% percent in the fourth again as it is that Tim Duncan would not bitch incessantly about ever foul in every game. That said, against the Mavericks, the one weapon in the Suns' formidable arsenal that does not appear to be subject to fluctuation is Amare's dominance. As aforementioned, even with Erick "Homeless Crack Dealer" Dampier in the lineup (he was during the double OT classic, didn't seem to derail Black Jesus too much), the Mavs have essentially no chance of stopping STAT, even if they adjust to the pick n'roll, as they have heretofore failed to do.

Overall, the Suns and Mavs perimeter players will cancel each other out. As potent as Jerry Stackhouse has been thus far, his scoring paroxysms can easily be matched by Leandro Barbosa. In the same vein, all of the defensive presence and intangibles that Josh Howard affords the Mavericks, so to does the oft-maligned Shawn Marion for the Suns. Finally, and most critically, the superstars of the respective squads, essentially match each other when it comes down to it. Obviously, I will be biased towards the two time defending MVP, but Dirk has elevated his game to a new level in the last season. Oddly enough, he also purchased a new, beautifully diaphanous mouth guard, and his play has been stellar since then. Coincidence? I think not. All of the neutralizing being done at these three critical positions in the floor leaves open the obvious question: How does one analyzing the series decipher any sort of advantage for one squad? Simply put: It's Amare.

Unfortunately for the Suns, Amare's utter dominance against the Mavericks may not translate into similar success versus the other Western Conference heavyweight, the San Antonio Spurs. Historically, (ok only one series-The 2005 Western Conference Finals) Amare has encountered little resistance from Tim Duncan and his cohorts. In fact, STAT was essentially the only bright spot in that five game debacle that saw Shawn Marion join the Witness Protection Program, Joe Johnson miss half of the series due to his broken face, and most surprisingly (not) Quentin Richardson shot like Brandy from outside the arc. The seminal moment of Amare's career, at least pre-microfracture surgery, was his emphatic rejection of Tim Duncan, a play that not only sealed the lone Phoenix win in the series, but symbolically highlighted Amare's ascension to the highest echelon of the NBA hierarchy.

That said, Tim Duncan, as evidenced by his rejections of STAT in their last meeting in Phoenix, still offers a formidable defensive presence under the post. On some games, one has to figure Duncan can play Amare to a standstill, or at least get him in foul trouble. Then, undoubtedly, Ginobili will injure one our key players in a cheap play, and sooner rather than later, the squads will be even. The Suns, structurally, have a large problem against San Antonio on the defensive end. Since Duncan will generally be indefensible by a lone defender, the double will thus naturally have to come. Then, one of the litany of single dimesional sharpshooters the Spurs possess (Bonner, Barry, Finley, Horry, Udrih), will have a wide open jump shot. The inability of Phoenix to adapt to San Antonio's penchant for spotting everyone but Duncan and Manu at the three point lane. Another matchup issue the Suns will face is the lack of size on their front life, especially in terms of offensive rebounding.

Back tomorrow with a discussion of John McCain's thus far disappointing run for President.

--Merkin