(NOTE: This is a post that originally was posted on my Cal blog, Excuse Me For My Voice. Because that blog is host to both Jason Snell and myself, I have moved this post to here, to remove any implication that I spoke for the both of us. The first 4 comments are also moved and so reflect having been posted on the other site (particularly #4).)

I want to talk about a matter of significant importance, one that it amazes me just how few people, including the justices of the California Supreme Court, seem to recognize.

This matter has nothing to do with religion, as I suspect most of my readers would guess that my perspective on the subject would guess, but simple logic and the principles on which this country is founded. In this post you will find no references to God.

The principle not only affects the immediate issue I’m going to discuss, gay marriage, but a myriad of other political topics, both conservative and liberal leaning, on which the country has been heading the wrong direction.

The principle is called legal privileges.

The word “rights” is thrown around these days with amazing abandon. Everybody has a “right” to an amazing number of things, if you believe the various pundits out there. We’ve got the right to affordable gas, health care, owning a car, to get various medical procedures, to do business with others whether or not the other party wants to, to own a home, to a free education, the list goes on and on.

The problem is that none of things are rights. Rights are things that all humans deserve. They are not granted by a government. They transcend every location and generation. They are inherent to the fact that we are alive and human. In fact, the declaration of independence makes this very clear:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The point is that rights are not granted by the government, they are upheld by the government.

As such, the list of rights we all have are few but broad in implication. We have the right to live out the course of our natural lives. We have the right to work to obtain the means to continue living (air, water, food and shelter). We have the right to freely associate with others. We have the right to believe what we want. We have the right not to be discriminated against because of who we are, as is separate from our actions. Really that’s about the limit of our fundamental rights. These rights transcend all governments.

Certain governments, including ours, extend additional rights to their people, rights that although not fundamental, make for a better society. Rights that likely make it easier for people to keep their fundamental rights. The right to freely publish and the right to bear arms fall within this set of extended rights. We in the United States are granted a number of these rights.

In any case, whether rights are fundamental, and thus apply to every human being, or extended, and then only apply to those within the government that has established them, rights are things that apply to EVERYONE.

All of this is a very long introduction to the concept of legal privileges. I wish I didn’t have to spell these things out so explicitly because it seems self-evident to me (and apparently to the founders of our country), but it apparently is no longer evident to the general public and much of the judicial system.

Legal privileges are things that either only apply to subsets of the population or if applied universally, can be regulated or limited in their application. All of our laws, that which is not in the Constitution, are legal privileges. Things like all of our social services, tax breaks, public services like fire protection, libraries and emergency relief, inheritance privileges, education, all of these things are legal privileges that the government has granted a wide swath of the public. Similarly all of the regulations that exist, how we must build a house (or stadium), speed limits and drivers licenses, banking rules, incorporation rules and the rest, they can not infringe on our rights and be just or legal regulations. These privileges and their corresponding restrictions are granted by the government for the good of the people. It is the government’s job (and in a democracy the people are responsible for making the government do its job) to decide what legal privileges and what restrictions are wise and for what reason.

All of this finally brings me to the topic of gay marriage.

Marriage, in the legal sense, is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, the government would be forced to find the ugliest, poorest, meanest jerk of a man someone to marry him if he desired marriage. If it were a right, it could be denied to no one, not criminals, not polygamists, not gay people.

But marriage is a legal privilege. It is a set of laws that the government created with the purpose of giving privileges and protections to a man and a woman who come together to live together as one legal entity. These privileges include tax breaks, medical decision making power, inheritance incentives and other legal privileges.

As such, it is also perfectly acceptable for the government to regulate marriage and limit its applicability. There is no basis for a court stating that certain people, who don’t fit the definition of the privilege by their actions or fall outside the regulations created, have a “right” to that privilege. It just doesn’t make any sense to say that. Nobody has a right to a privilege.

Is that clear?

The final thing I’d like to reference is the commonly used argument attempting to equate the issue of gay marriage and inter-racial marriage. If you go way back to the top of this post you’ll see that one of the fundamental rights is not to be “discriminated against because of who we are, as is separate from our actions”. This is the factor that differentiates between inter-racial marriage and gay marriage. In inter-racial marriage the man and woman involved are not different in nature from a same-race marriage. Their actions are also the same and can fit within the same regulation on marriage.

Gay marriage is entirely different. Men and woman are not the same. It is acceptable to make laws regulating men from going into the women’s bathroom. As such, a marital relationship between a man and a woman is by the nature of the fact that men and women are different, a different type of a relationship than two men or two women. The actions in which that couple can engage, are again different. The most obvious example is that two men and two women can not duplicate the sexual activity of a man and a woman. They can simulate, but not duplicate.

As such, that is the inter-racial marriage comparison is a false comparison.

We did not plant these flowers:

We’re not sure how they got there. We don’t have any flowers like this in our yard:

It’s our little Easter Miracle! A reminder from God that He is out there and loves us all!

Today is Good Friday. The day that Christ died for our sins on the cross. For those who visit the site (instead of using an RSS feed) you’ll notice that the colors for today are black. It is the one day of the year where the Church colors are black.

Today the tabernacle is empty. God was killed for our sake today.

May this day, the pinnacle of the season of Lent and of the Triduum, help us to find forgiveness of our sins through God’s love of us. A love so strong that He gave his only Son for us.

I recently found out about CatholicsComeHome.org from Mark Shea’s blog (see blogroll) and I am amazingly impressed. I’ve asked myself for years why the Church is unable to put together well produced videos and the such that drive home the key points of the faith. CatholicsComeHome have figured it out. I’m most impressed by this video:

http://www.catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml

The Church is constantly lambasted for a ton of things that are wholy inaccurate. The Church is responsible for so much good. Hospitals, Orphanages, Universities, Scientific Study, the order of Law, these are all things that found their current form under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church. So often Catholics find themselves on the defensive in these areas. It’s nice to see a video that makes it clear that the Church is a both a pioneir and a steadfast rock that can be counted on. Beyond our history, there is also the immense good that the Catholic Church does every day in this world. While the press likes to criticize the Church for not handing out condoms in Africa, the Church is instead responsible for the feeding and medical care of millions of poor in Africa and around the world every day.

I am incredibly joyed at a 1-minute video can communicate this so emphatically and positively.

They’ve got additional videos that are good too. Also lots of articles and information for those interested in returning to the Church.

As most of my readers know, I’m active in RCIA at my parish. Helping those with interest in the Church is definitely my calling. God has given me many gifts and primary amongst these that he asks me to share is my conviction for the tenets of the faith. However, after seeing surveys showing former Catholics as the largest religious group in the country next to Catholics, I ask myself if perhaps some, if not all, of my effort should be going into helping former Catholics come home.

I ask you to pray for me for guidance.

Since I’ve already taken on one hot-button topic today, might as well keep the ball rolling:

One of the main complaints brought up when a bishop or priest threatens to deny the Eucharist to a politician who supports legislation that is contrary to Church teaching is that it is a violation of the separation of Church and State. This is another one of those ridiculous assertions that has no basis in the truth.

For there to be a violation of the separation, one or the other must have some authority in the other. As an example, if the bishop could say that the politician couldn’t be elected because of his views, THAT would be a violation of the separation. Similarly, if the state could dictate who could have Eucharist in the Catholic Church, that too would be a violation of the separation. But that’s not what is happening in this case.

All the bishop is doing is saying “Look, when you step inside my building, you’re now on the Church’s turf. Here, you play by our rules.”

That’s no different than the government saying to the bishop as he enters the court-house for his speeding ticket saying “God has already forgiven me”, the court can say the same thing to him.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

With the California Supreme Court hearing arguments last week on whether it violates the California Constitution to disallow gay “marriage”, I thought it was wise to remind everyone things that the pro-gay agenda wants everyone to forget:

1. Marriage is a legal privilege, not a right. The goverment is allowed to extend privileges (like say tax breaks) to groups who do things that they desire (and thus limit who has access to those privileges).
2. It is desireable that all children be raised by BOTH their biological parents
3. No gay couple can BOTH be the biological parents of a single child
4. Marriage is an institution that encourages sexual couples to remain together for their life and therefore will raise together whatever children result from that union.

Pretty simple, yes? Government wants children raised by biological parents and gives benefits of marriage to those’s union has the potential to create those children. Gays can’t be biological parents, so gays can’t get married.

A further point:

When the government gives legal protections to a group, that convers certain things. It’s not just being tolerant of something, it’s ENDORSING that thing. It is a completely reasonable thing, speaking governmentally in a free society, that both gay people think their is nothing wrong with their behavior and that other people think their behavior is immoral. If the government says that gay “marriage” is acceptable, it is effectively saying that it is unacceptable for people to think gay “marriage” is immoral. When inter-racial marriage was finally allowed (and obviously good thing) it was a statement that other races are equal to whites. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE in the US to think that being black or hispanic (or pick your race) is a lesser race than whites. The same thing would happen with gay “marriage”.

As can be seen from countries like Canada where preachers are brought before “human rights commissions” for reading from the Bible, it is not acceptable in a society that allows freedom of religion to allow gay “marriage” and all that goes along with it. Gay “marriage” will lead to the outlawing of certain Christian beliefs.

Well, my fast continues apace and I’ve yet to break the rules of the fast: 1 meal a day, only drink is water.

There was one day were I came close, in fact I intended to break it when I started. It was a Sunday morning and I was starving. I wasn’t supposed to eat until dinner time so I sat down to have a snack. About 1/2 way through the snack I changed my mind and made it a full meal. The only catch was that I couldn’t eat dinner now and had to wait until tomorrow to eat. I had planned to each lunch the following day and then dinner the day after that to get back on track for eating dinner, but miraculously was able to last until dinner the next day to get back on track in one day.

I’ve also been surprised this year with my ability to do activities while fasting. Usually in the past I’ve pretty much been a stump on a log while fasting for sustained periods. My attempts at playing racquetball or going sailing clearly indicated that I was fasting and I performed beyond horribly. But this time, I’ve played racquetball a number of times with success and managed to build a bunch of shelves for the study. I haven’t gone sailing, which was partly planned and partly bad weather on the scheduled sailing days.

However, it’s pretty clear by my weight loss that whenever I exert myself I’m dipping into my reserves (so to speak). When I am not active, I find myself dropping a pound every 1/2 week or so. When I am active, I’ll drop up to a pound a day.

The downside of my lenten promises is that I’ve completely abandoned the Rosary and the Liturgy of the Hours. For whatever reason I haven’t been very good at that this time. While I’ve got no intention at this point at picking it back up for the remainder of Lent, I do hope at some point in the future I can get into a good routine.

Well I updated the blogroll by deleting dead-sites, changing links for moved sites and adding a new site.

I wanted to bring your attention to the new site, as it’s really good. It’s called Building Cathedrals and the site best describes it’s title:

“A mother is the most important person on earth. She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not. She has built something more magnificent than any Cathedral — a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby’s body.” — Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty (as quoted by Danielle Bean)

If that doesn’t peak a parent’s curiosity, a summary of the authors may:

Seven young, Catholic mothers who graduated from Princeton University, seeking to build our families just as the architects of the great cathedrals built their detailed masterpieces: day by day, stone by stone, with attention to details that only He will see.

Seven bachelors degrees, four advanced degrees, and nearly 200 combined months of pregnancy have only convinced us of how much we have left to learn in matters of faith, family and vocation. We adhere wholeheartedly to every doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church, but the details beyond that, from co-sleepers and breast pumps to schooling options and professional life, are grounds for robust discussion with like-minded friends. Nothing written on this blog is intended to incite maternal guilt, anger or to advise on medical or legal matters. Virgin most prudent, pray for us!

The content of the site reflects the thoughtfulness of the title and summary. There’s a humility and honesty that is rarely found in their posts as they feel their way through parenting. Go take a look, particularly all you parents out there.

I’ve gotten a few comments (which means a message from just about every single reader of this blog) that things were messed up. Indeed they were. My hosting provider upgraded the servers and in the process changed a number of things that broke my website. What was noticable from here was that the posts were in the wrong order with the oldest posts first and the newest ones hidden in the archive.

I’ve managed to fix that problem and a number of other problems (leaving just one that only affects my other site ExcuseMeForMyVoice.com) and so am know mostly back in business.

What was most frustrating was that this all happened just as I was going to pick up where I left off on this blog. Expect a number of posts in the next few days…

Well, while the fasting is going well, in fact I’m surprisingly not hungry considering my last meal was 27 hours ago (but who’s counting) and it was my only meal since Tuesday evening, the prayers are not going so well.

Last night I forgot to pray my Rosary.  It was my plan to pray it again with Gregory around 7 PM, but I was so exhausted in the evening that it slipped my mind.  To add insult to injury, while I managed to do the Reading of the Office for Ash Wednesday yesterday, I didn’t get to the Thursday set of prayers.  I managed to get the Thurday set in today and I’ll try to “catch up” this afternoon.

The Rosary on the other hand I’ll just have to miss and will plan on praying it tonight one day down.

A prayer for today:

Heavenly Father, forgive me my many failings and help me to grow stronger.  Help me to remember to keep you and my promises to you at the fore-front of my mind at all times and to faithfully follow Your Will at all times.  Help me to see Your Will in my life.  As with all my prayers, I ask this in Christ’s name, who lives and reigns together with you and the Holy Spirit, One God, forever and ever.

Many don’t know what the Litury of the Hours is, so I thought I’d post about them.

The Liturgy of the Hours dates back to St. Benedict.  He desired that those who participated in the monastic life read the entire book of psalms (more accurately, prayed those psalms) every week.  As with most practices in the Church, over time the practice was broadened to include more of the Church and the pacing for reading the entire book was slowed to 4 weeks.  Again as time continued, there were additional prayers and readings that were added to round out the psalms making it more like a service than a private prayer.  Eventually the combined prayers, reading and psalms became the “official” daily prayer of the Church.

The prayers are broke up into a number of sessions throughout the day:

• Morning Prayer
• Reading of the Office (can be before or after Morning Prayer)
• Daytime Prayer (which is further broken into Midmorning, Midday and Midafternoon)
• Evening Prayer
• Night Prayer

As you can see, it’s a nearly hourly set of prayers that are to be a constant presence in the life of those who participate in it.  Generally that means that it is limited to group participation in monastaries and convents or other communal living environments of faithful Catholics.  For the rest of us, including most priests and bishops, it is a private set of prayers that is done on one’s own.

The “Big 3 prayers” of the day are Morning Prayer, Reading of the Office, and Evening Prayer.  These three consist of a Hymm, a set of psalms to pray, a reading or two, and a closing prayer.  The reading is short for the Morning and Evening prayer and is lengthy for the Reading of the Office.  For the office, it generally consists of 1 Sunday Mass sized reading from scripture and 1 Homily/Sermon from a saint of old.

To give an example, the Reading of the office today consisted of reading psalm 103 in three parts (it’s a fairly long one, on other days you’ll read 3 separate psalms), a reading from Isaiah 12 and an excerpt from a letter to the Corinthians by Pope Clement (who was Pope from AD 88-97, or the 4th Pope and said to have been ordained (not as pope, but as either priest or bishop) by St. Peter himself).

The other three prayers are shorter in nature and forcus more exclusively on the psalms.

For me, although I have attempted to do all the prayers throughout the day, the reality is that someone with a growing family, a full-time job and more hobbies than he should, I just can’t find the time in the day to do all of the prayers.  As a result, I have limited my use of these prayers to the Reading of the Office.  While it means I don’t get the full set of psalms over the 4 weeks, I do get a very good sampling of them, as well as some wonderful readings both from scripture and many early fathers.

And as many have said, to read the early fathers shows just how Catholic the early Church was.

No, not on the fasting.  That I did great on, as far as execution goes (although I was VERY grumpy last night).  I also managed to get in my Rosary last night with Gregory at my side… he was fascinated by it and you could tell that he had vague memories from when he was less than a year old when I’d take him to daily Mass while Wendy was at work and then pray the Rosary (he’d play with the beads from inside his car carrier, just like he played with them last night, now as a 4 1/2 year old).

No, what I blew it on was the Litury of the Hours, Reading of the Office (which I called “Litury of the Office” in my original list).  I didn’t do my Ash Wednesday prayers.  I could say that I lost my prayer book, which is true until about 5 minutes ago when I realized it was hidden in a buried corner of my cubicle, but that would effectively be lying as I didn’t go looking for the book until this morning.

So today I’m going to read both yesterday’s and todays.

About the fasting, I weighed in at 276 this morning, 4 pounds less than yesterday’s 280.  That was before I ate my big breakfast (I didn’t weigh myself afterwards).  If I follow the trend of previous years, tomorrow I should be between level and down another pound or two.  After the first 4 or 5 days I’ll have dropped about 7-10 pounds and then lose another 10-20 over the 6 weeks of lent.  The thing about fasting is that you can literally feel your body eating away at itself.

Thankfully today I can drink all the water I want, which will both keep my hydrated (which should help with the headaches) and fill my stomack when I absolutely need something in there.

Join me in another prayer, will you?:

Lord, help me to fast not as the hypocrites but as a man desiring to grow closer to you.  Help me to remember the words of your prophet: “This, rather, is the fasting that I wish: releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke; Setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke; Sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless; Clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own. Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your wound shall quickly be healed; Your vindication shall go before you, and the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.” (Isaiah 58:6-8) to remind me that forgoing food alone is not enough, that I must also be an instrument of your justice in this world. Amen.

I’m dying for something to drink, anything.  I’ve got a headache.  I’m starving.  And the worst part is I know that it’s only going to get worse until tomorrow morning when I have breakfast.  After that, I’ve got to “move” my meal back during the day.  So the plan for the next few days is breakfast Thursday, lunch Friday and dinner Saturday.  That helps so that the next time I’ve got something that will heavily tax me, I can move up the next meal the following day to get by.

But just like anything where one goes cold-turkey, the first day is the worst.  I start with the highest level of fasting on the first day, drop into an overly aggressive fasting to move it back in the day over the next few days before I can settle into a routine of having dinner every night.

So far, my crys for relief from God are still few and far between as my mind is more likely to crave than pray.  Say a prayer with me, will you?:

God, help me to find the strength you have provided me to fast.  Forgive me my sins and help me to remember those in need who are hungry through no fault of their own.  Give me the grace to fast as Christ reminds us: “When you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites. They neglect their appearance, so that they may appear to others to be fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you.” (Matt. 6:16-18). Amen

I doubt there is anyone out there reading this who isn’t coming from my Cal blog (http://ExcuseMeForMyVoice.com), but starting today, this blog is back.  Today is, of course, Ash Wednesday.  I will be commenting daily on my Lenten fasting as well as generally my spiritual progress.  I may also post on current events as they relate to Catholicism.

For Lent, I intend to accomplish the following things:

• Pray the Rosary daily
• Pray the Liturgy of the Office daily
• Participate in Stations of the Cross at least twice
• Go to confession
• Fast for the entire period of Lent

For those who don’t know the guidelines of fasting in the Catholic Church, they are as follows:

• You are allowed one meal a day
• You can have up to two snacks, which combined do not add up to another meal
• There is no explicit guidelines regarding drink, but it is considered “bad form” to be drinking filling items such as a smoothy or shake or even a soda and not be counting that towards the snack
• Meat is allowed in the meal except for days of abstinence (like Fridays during Lent)

I will not be having either of the allowed snacks and will only be drinking water.  On manditory fasting days (of which today, Ash Wednesday is one of the two), I will abstain from all food and water for the entire day.

Fasting is VERY difficult for me.  I’m a big guy.  This morning I weighed in at 280 lbs.  I expect that by Easter day I should weigh in at somewhere between 250 and 260 lbs.  This is not a diet!  I fully expect to gain at least half of that weight back in the following week.  But as the body is denied food, it eats into one’s muscles and fat as well as one’s organs like the Liver to get the calories it isn’t getting from food.  The muscles aspect should not be overlooked as I often feel very phsyically weak during fasting.

So why do I do it?

Well, it’s hard to explain in a paragraph but I think the simplest way to state it is that there is no better way to connect with God than to put oneself entirely in His hands.  There is NO WAY I could fast for that long without prayer and asking Him for the strength and determination it takes to deny oneself food that the body desperately wants.  Since over the course of time and routine it is easy to loose that tight connection I’ve had with God, it is important I find ways to re-connect and for me, fasting is by far the best at helping me to do that.

For all those who pray, I’d be blessed if you could offer up a prayer for my well-being during this fast and that it strengthens my relationship with Our Savior.

Passionate readers of my blog may remember some promises I made over Memorial Day weekend on this blog regarding plans for the summer.  Always being one to make sure I deliver on my promises, let’s take a look:

1. Re-review of each game last season with an emphasis on what it means for this season.
2. Coverage of the “Tree Hugger Trial” (date not yet known).
3. Predictions for every Pac-10 game, including non-conference matchups in 2007.
4. Improved online stat comparison tool (expansion of last years stats I provided).
5. A Pac-10 prediction game (similar to a “pick’em” league but with more ways to compare participants).
6. Re-design of visual layout of blog with a lot more data/info.

And how did I deliver?:

1. Done… and it was pretty good if you don’t mind me saying
2. Well since the trial was push back it was kinda hard… but I did post on the few announcements we had over the summer including the Sept. 19th trial date.
3. Not done yet.  But I’ve still got 3 weeks before the seasons starts.
4. Nope.
5. Nope.
6. Nope.

But WAIT!  Could it be that I’ve been hiding all the work I’ve done on numbers 4 through 6?  Could it be there is a new website out there waiting for all of you to discover!?!

http://excusemeformyvoice.com

Yes!  It’s true.  Not only does it have my new Pick’Em league for you to sign up for, it’s got a podcast section, an in-progress stats section, a Cal archive section, a 25th Anniversary The Play T-Shirt for sale and of course a new blog.  To make it even better, I’ve teamed up with the guys from Sturdy Golden Blogs to form an awesome megablog team.  So check it out and remember that the new home of the best Cal Football blogging is:

http://excusemeformyvoice.com

(For those reading this from the “main” blog section (without the cal. prefix), the new Cal site will free this site up to be about Catholic and family/personal blogging… for those lamenting the infrequency of that content, this is good news for you as well.  Expect to see more focused blogging there in the next couple weeks.)

But for you Cal blogging fans, the new site is the place to be.  Don’t forget to update your bookmarks and blogrolls to point to the new site!

http://excusemeformyvoice.com

(Note to readers: Today we wrap-up our look back at the games in the 2006 season with the Holiday Bowl pretty much on the planned schedule of 2 a week between 6 weeks ago and today, the start of fall practice.  Did these help you last through the dry period?  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington, UCLA, Arizona, USC and the Big Game).

The storyline:
In a game with lots of question marks before it started, Cal quickly answered on the field, routing an overmatched Texas A&M team 45-10.  Texas A&M was unable to move the ball after their first possession as Cal was able to decipher Texas A&M’s complex running scheme.  Cal also re-discovered its prolific offense that had been missing late in the season.

The reality:
The key to victory in this game was Cal’s ability to dominate the line of scrimmage.  On both sides of the ball it was Cal’s line that was able to control the flow.  Interestingly it was exactly the opposite on the first set of possessions.  But once Cal settled down, the game was all Bears.  This was particularly true in the 2nd half when Cal went up 21-10 as Texas A&M was forced to resort to its passing game, failing miserably.  In the end, it was not Cal’s 45 points on offense (really 38 minus garbage TD at end) that was impressive but Cal’s defense that not only held Texas A&M to 10 points, but held them scoreless in the 2nd half (and only 3 points after the first possession).

The forgotten:
Forgotten was how Texas A&M was able to shorten the first half and keep the game close.  Cal was only up 14-10 at the half because despite having multiple ineffectual drives, they were able to chew up lots of clock time.  Also forgotten was that Texas A&M had a horrible punt, netting zero yards, in their attempt to punt away from DeSean Jackson.  The resulting touchdown on the short field put the Bears up 21-10 and sent Texas A&M to desperation strategies.

The 2006 learnings:
With the season over, there was nothing more to learn.  Looking back, having such a dominating victory was a sign of just how good the Cal team was when it was playing at its peak.  Between the stout defenses of both Arizona and USC and the difficult conditions of the Big Game, it was easy to forget just how talented the team was.

The 2007 learnings:
Other than Forsett having another great game in relief of Lynch, most of the play makers in this game were the seniors.  If anything, this game showed just how much talent the Bears will need to replace in 2007.  Desmond Bishop had a monster game and it is going to take a team effort with Follett’s leadership to anchor the team.

The Conclusion:
The 2006 season was one with so much potential that it is easy to look back and think of what might have been.  The expectations at the beginning of the season was predicated on USC having somewhat of a rebuilding year, giving Cal a one-year window to get to the Rose Bowl.  In retrospect, it turned out that USC didn’t rebuild, it just reloaded.  At the same time, Cal was very competitive with USC and could easily have beat USC with some better bounces or if the game had been in Berkeley.  With both teams returning similar percentages of talent, there is no reason to doubt that Cal has a realistic shot at winning the Pac-10 outright in 2007.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with the Big Game.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington, UCLA, Arizona and USC).

The storyline:
In a game that was predicted to be a blowout, an uninspired Cal squeaked out a 26-17 win over the normally hapless Stanford. 

The reality:
While the game was far closer than it should have been, it was not nearly as close as the final score indicated.  Cal never trailed in the game.  Whether Cal played uninspired or they were merely out of their rhythm, perhaps because of the difficult wind conditions, is difficult to say.   What can be said is that, outside of some unlikely Stanford heroics that never came, the outcome of the game was never in doubt.  Additionally, Stanford scored far more points than their play deserved.  Outside of Stanford’s first drive that resulted in a field-goal, Stanford was never able to sustain a drive.  Stanford’s first TD was sparked by a kickoff return late in the 2nd quarter that gave the Cardinal a very short field (25-yards).  Their second TD, and the last of their scoring, was off of a deep pass where an offensive pass interference call should have been thrown for pushing off.  Otherwise, Cal’s defense stifled Stanford’s offense.  On the other side, while Cal was able to sustain a number of long drives, too often they stalled resulting in field-goals (they scored 4 and Schneider shanked a 5th), keeping the score far closer than it should have been.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was the nasty wind that blew throughout, although less so in the 2nd half.  This allowed both teams to emphasize slowing the run game without too much fear of getting beat deep.  Also forgotten was that Stanford’s first drive used fully half of the first quarter and that two additional Stanford possessions, although not very successful in moving the ball down the field, did take significant time off the clock, significantly shortening the 1st half and keeping the ball out of Cal’s hands.

The 2006 learnings:
By this point in the season, there was not much to be learned about the team.  About the only learning was a question: where was Cal’s prolific offense?  Now that we know the results of the Holiday bowl, the question has faded, but at the time, after both the Arizona and USC games, many were starting to ask questions after the Big Game.

The 2007 learnings:
Schneider didn’t have many field-goal attempts in 2006 because of the prolific Cal offense.  This was one of his few games to shine, including a 55 yard field-goal.  With him coming back in 2007, the kicking game continues to look in very good shape.  At this point, it wasn’t much of a learning but Zack Follett and Syd’Quan Thompson both had a great game.

The Conclusion:
In many ways this game was reminiscent of the Arizona game in that all that could go right for Cal’s opponent did.  Despite that fact, Cal was able to not only win, but also to never leave the outcome in doubt.  After 5 consecutive victories, many Cal fans have forgotten that the Big Game always defies expectations.  There have been more Big Game upsets of unbeatable teams than one can count on their fingers and toes.  In the Big Game, a win is a win.  Style points do not matter.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with USC.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington, UCLA and Arizona).

The storyline:
A superior USC team ended Cal’s bid at their first Rose Bowl in nearly 50 years in a dominating performance.  USC’s physical defense prevented Cal from getting their offense rolling while the USC offense continued in their successful ways.

The reality:
This was a VERY close game until the 4th quarter and just about every pundit who thinks that USC won this game convincingly either didn’t see the game or has forgotten the game they watched.  The story of this game was three-fold.  One, turnovers killed a couple of sustained drives early for Cal.  Two, USC showed both patience and aggressiveness in their 4th quarter play calling.  Three, Cal got desperate when USC went ahead 16-9 in the early 4th quarter.  What was most surprising in contrast to the popular opinion of this game was just how effective both Cal’s running game and Cal’s middle depth passing game were in the first 3 quarters of the game.  Unfortunately for Cal, everything turned on them when they were unable to convert on a crucial 2nd/3rd and 1 late in the 3rd quarter that forced them to punt on a 3 and out.  The defense was clearly tired on the ensuing possession, allowing USC their first TD of the game setup by a long run play that should have been stopped far earlier.  On the ensuing Cal possession, it was clear despite the fact that Cal was only down by 7 with 13 minutes left in the game, that panic had set in.  Despite having success running the ball on their proceeding possessions, Cal threw the ball on their next 7 non-punting downs, spanning 3 possessions including 2, 3 and outs.  Showing their effectiveness in the running game, on the 8th play, Lynch ran for 9 yards.  In the end, it was the over-predictability of Cal’s offense in the 4th quarter, both by always running in obvious running situations and passing when trailing, that sunk them.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was that there was that on USC’s 1st possession of the game, Cal ran back a would-be fumble for a touchdown.  The would-be fumble was ruled an incomplete pass that was not over-turned by the replay booth despite some evidence that Dwayne Jarrett had cradled the ball for a full two steps.  While the call was marginal and could have gone either way, it would have proven to be a big boost for Cal and would have completely changed the tempo and momentum of the game.  Also forgotten was the two turnovers by Cal in USC territory on back-to-back possession in the 1st quarter.  These put the brakes on a Cal offense that was moving the ball.  Considering that the USC defense always gets better as the game wears on, these lost early opportunities were similarly crucial.  Finally, although Bear fans will remember this, pundits seem to have forgotten that the Bears led at halftime 9-6 and the game was tied going into the 4th quarter.  Even with all of Cal’s mistakes, the game hinged on a very precise TD pass by Booty and a gutsy 4th and 2 call by USC that went for a TD, both in the 4th quarter.  Otherwise the game was very evenly played.

The 2006 learnings:
This was the first game that Offensive Coordinator Dunbar was put on the hot-seat.  To some degree, the criticism was built up from the shaky Washington game and the Arizona loss and therefore the criticism reflected the frustrations from that game.  In many ways that criticism was misplaced in this game.  Cal was able to effectively run the ball, something lost in the criticism of the hybrid spread.  If anything, it was Cal’s reliance on the run that was problematic.  The lone touchdown was the result of a drive that emphasized getting the ball to the WR’s in the middle passing game.  (As a side note, it seemed the USC safeties played soft and the corners played tight, an unusual combination that made both short and long passes troubling, but opened a number of 15-20 yard passing opportunities.)  The point at which criticism of the game plan was valid was not until the 4th quarter when the Bears trailed, when it did seem that Dunbar’s play-calling relied too heavily on passing the ball.  The learning for this game would be that Cal is vulnerable to panic based play-calling when trailing.

The 2007 learnings:
This was yet another game when Syd’Quan Thompson shined.  In many ways, although Hughes showed a great ability to sniff out interception opportunities, he also was prone to taking unnecessary risks.  It should be noted that the corner who got burned on the 4th and 2 TD play was Hughes, not Thompson.  Watching the play carefully, Hughes was clearly following his instinct to stop a run play and didn’t properly cover his receiver until it was too late to not get caught in traffic by a crossing receiver and covering linebacker.  Syd, on the other hand, had a solid game all the way around.  While he’s not the interception magnet that Hughes is, he is a solid corner.  On the other side, this is a game that should make Forsett fans nervous.  Lynch did a great job making 5-8 yard gains dragging defenders with him.  Had we had the more nimble, yet more easily tackled Forsett in his place, the run game may have been far worse.  Additionally, this game should be the prototype in 2007 for teams looking to punt away from DeSean.  USC was able to both contain DeSean with directional punting and also keep a fairly good punting average.  Finally, looking forward to the USC game in Berkeley this fall, there is no reason to doubt that Cal can win this game, particularly late in the season when the defensive replacements for Hughes, Bishop and Mebane will all have the majority of a season under their belt.

The Conclusion:
In many ways, the 4th quarter of this game was a mini-replay of the Tennessee game.  Cal’s opponent was able to score and the wheels fell off of Cal’s bus for a while.  By the time they had regained their composure, the game was sewn up.  In the end this game should be viewed as both an example of how good the 2006 Bears were (USC was the consensus number 2 team in the country after all) and as a missed opportunity to get to the Rose Bowl.

This is my first non-Cal Bears post in a while.  I’ve been in a rut blogging wise since most of my blog readers are Bear fans.  I’ve got some plans in place to change how things are organized and better split out the two sets of blogging.

But yesterday there was an article in the Chronicle about a man who forgot to take his 11 month old son to daycare and left him in the car while he worked.  He wasn’t discovered until 7 hours later when he was dead.

Obviously this is a tragic situation.  Many have asked how it is possible to forget a child in the car.  In many ways I can understand both sides of that.  On the one hand, I can’t imagine doing it.  On the other hand, I know how life can be and how it is easy to get in auto-pilot.  Along those lines there was an interesting comment in one of the articles about the incident:

But the number of deaths began a steady climb in the mid-1990s as campaigns began encouraging parents to put car seats in the backseat because of airbag-related child deaths — which since have been nearly eliminated.

It always amazes me how often we as a society forget how tightly inter-related things can be.  We move all kids into the back seat for safety reasons, and then more kids die because they’re forgotten in the back seat.  In this case it is safe to assume that more kids were dying from airbag injuries so it was probably still the right decision to put kids in the back seat.  That said, it amazes me how often we forget that new laws have unintended consequences.

The other thing I wanted to note was the large number of individuals who assert some eugenic solution to bad parenting, either in general or in this particular case.  It’s amazing just how prevalent the “people need to take a test to be a parent” ideology comes out.  Occasionally those comments are people exagerating, but I’ve found more and more, as can be seen by the very specific implementation ideas they put forth, the proponent is all too serious.  When one adds in those who think this father’s punishment should be sterilization… it just sickens me how many people have not learned from our past about the dangers of Eugunics.

(Note to readers: Today we continue in our look back at the games in the 2006 season with Arizona.  Here are links to our past look backs: Tennessee, Minnesota, Portland State, Arizona State, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington and UCLA).

The storyline:
8th ranked Cal went to a rising in respect Arizona flat-footed, looking forward to their matchup with USC the following week, and was caught off guard in a 20-24 upset.  The Arizona defense was the story of the day, holding the Cal offense to 20 points, their lowest score since the opening week loss to Tennessee.

The reality:
The only contradiction to the storyline is that Cal overlooked Arizona.  Cal was ready for this game.  The only player who really looked off the mark was Longshore, but he looked similarly weak in the Washington game.  Arizona’s defense deserves a lot of credit for their aggressive play, particularly the goal-line stand in the 4th quarter with Cal trailing by 7.  Although Cal should have scored, Arizona played incredibly well.  The key to this game was that everything that could go wrong for Cal did.  The clock worked against them.  The bounces went against them.  The referees definitely worked against them.  While we’re on the subject, I hate blaming games on the referees and I want to make it clear that Cal could and should have won the game despite the calls, but the referees in this game were atrocious.  Here’s the list I saw:

• Bad block in the back penalty on Marshawn Lynch TD run cost Cal 4 points (TD turned to FG).
• Pass after crossing line of scrimmage was obviously not the case and had to be reviewed to be overturned.
• Didn’t call block in back on Cal player on punt (helped Cal, but not much)
• Out of bounds on AZ WR not called.  Had to be reviewed and review didn’t catch where he stepped out at 19 yard line.  Cost Cal another 4 points.
• Marginal holding penalty cost Cal an interception.
• Bogus pass interference call on Hughes cost Cal another interception on same drive.  Cost Cal another 4 points.
• Missed out of bounds on DeSean that review had to overturn (correctly) Cal TD.

Cal still should have won this game but the officiating cost Cal 12 points and was bad even when it was in Cal’s favor.

The forgotten:
Forgotten in this game was that Cal was up 17-3 at halftime.  This is particularly forgotten by those who say Cal overlooked Arizona.  Additionally forgotten in this game was how well Larson and Schneider kicked.  Just about every kick off was out of the endzone and Schneider nailed both his field-goals, one 46 yarder and one highly angled 20 yarder.  Also forgotten was just how poorly Longshore played.  He overthrew Jackson on a easy TD.  The interception that put Arizona up by 7 was probably Longshore’s worst decision of the year throwing into triple coverage on an out play where the corner had an easy read on the out.  In fact, that was one of many poor throwing decisions he made.  In addition there were many poorly thrown balls, one of which led to a second interception.  That said, the final interception was just bad luck on a lucky tip at the line.  The final forgotten item, at least to some, was that DeSean Jackson was sick.  It’s amazing he played as well as he did but he didn’t return punts for all of the 1st half minus the first one that he ran back for a TD.

The 2006 learnings:
Arizona was the first team to successfully slow Cal’s offense with an aggressive defense.  Washington State, Washington and to a lesser degree UCLA all slowed Cal by playing soft on Cal’s receivers.  While it was somewhat successful, it didn’t give many opportunities for interceptions or stopping Cal in the redzone.  Arizona used its hard-hitting yet fast defense to both slow Cal and force mistakes that would result in Arizona points, something none of the previous opponents had managed.  This was definitely important since interception resulted in 10 of Arizona’s 24 points and the goal-line stand stopped Cal from tying the game.  They would not have won the game without their aggressive play.  Although most focused on Cal’s offensive mistakes and miscues, the successful strategy was definitely a bad omen for the upcoming USC game.  At the same time, the Cal defense also stepped up big in this game.  Had Arizona had any offensive rhythm, Arizona could have blown out Cal starting in the first half but the Cal defense stepped up every time it was asked to.  After a weak performance against UCLA, there was reason to hope that they were back on their game heading into USC.

The 2007 learnings:
SydQuan Thompson had another incredible game.  It was Hughes who struggled.  Syd tackled well and covered well.  He’s going to be great in ‘07.  As for Arizona, so much went wrong for Cal in this game that there is no reason to believe they’ll be able to repeat the performance in ‘07 back in Berkeley particularly considering that despite the fact that Arizona has most of their starters back in ‘07, the key contributors to the upset have graduated.

The Conclusion:
This game is EXTREMELY painful to watch.  The refereeing.  The trip by Hawkins.  The foot barely on the line for DeSean.  The foot clearly on the line for Arizona… but not called.  The poor play by Longshore.  The inability to score with a 1st and goal from the 1 yard-line.  The fake punt that should have easily been sniffed out by Cal.  The tipped ball the ended Cal’s final drive and comeback attempt.  All of it was just a disaster of the worst order.  Amongst all of that it’s easy to overlook the quality of the Arizona’s defensive play, which was the reason that all of those painful plays mattered.