Wynette and I have been having a discussion down in the comments for the Slimy Politics post that I think is worth the focus of a new post.  I’ll start by quoting Wynette’s latest comment:

I fully understand the temptation to find the “all-perfect” third-party candidate to vote for, particularly after being disgusted by the recent headlines of political immorality, but the simple botton-line is a vote for anyone other than Doolittle will result in a Democratic win, which would be very damaging to critical life issues.

Father Pavone addresses the quandry of trying to decide between too less-than-desirable candidates and being tempted to vote for a third-party, “Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate out of office.”

I’m not in Congressman Doolittle’s district, but I have read about the business allegations made against him and his wife, which are certainly a moral concern. However, with just a few weeks until November 7th, I encourage you to consider voting for him in order to keep the “worst candidate out of office…”

I have a great deal of respect for Father Pavone and what he has accomplished and continues to fight for, but I think it is important not to take a too politically expedient perspective on how to vote.  While keeping a bad candidate out of office is an important factor, there is also a time to make a more principled stand.  This is not about finding a “perfect” candidate, it’s about sending a message to the Republican party that seems to be drunk on power.  Drunk enough that without a stern repremand will only continue to head down the path of supporting new evils just like the Democratic party did earlier in the century.

So the question remains, how does one decide when one should make that stand?  After trying on my own to come up with some criteria, it occured to me that we have a blue-print to follow: Just War Theory.

See, when faced with the possibility of needing to vote for a 3rd candidate, it generally means we’re accepting that evil will occur in the short term (as neither candidate will prevent it) and we’re willing to accept that to find a long term solution.  This is very similar to the choices one must make when deciding to wage war.

Obviously not all of Just War Theory is relevant to an election, but here are the aspects that I think are:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. 
3. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
4. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
5. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

I’ll re-word these to address an election:

1. Both candidates must be signficantly morally compromised without hope of redemption to consider looking elsewhere.
2. There must be specific ways in which both candidates are morally compromised.  For the encumbant this means a voting record that includes injustices and for the challenger a threat of a voting record (or a previous record in other capacities) that is similarly compromised.
3. Voting for the 3rd party has a resonable chance of making an impact.
4. The goal of voting for the 3rd party must be to effect positive change down the road.
5. The differential in evil that would occur should the worse of the two candidates be elected must be less than the long term evil that the lesser of the two candidates going unchecked.

As I mentioned in the previous post I haven’t done enough research to know whether my current Congressional race has reached this level particularly in regards to criteria #1 and #2, but what I will say is that in areas #3 and #4 it would definitely be justified.

The Republican party is suffering right now from unchecked power.  They know that they are the only alternative to the rabbidly immoral Democratic party and that position of comfort has led to unspeakable immorality on their part.  This inexcusable move towards allowing torture is an example of it.  The growing list of personal moral abuses is another.  The continued exaggerated favoring of business interests even in the face of abusing human beings is a third.  A significant setback in the 2006 elections would force them to re-think their positions and I believe would help to purify the party.

Additionally, I am pretty confident that #5 can be justified.  The reality is that the most aggregious moral abuse in this country (abortion) is only minimally relevant issue for the House of Representatives at this juncture.  95% of all abortions are protected by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.  The partial birth abortion bans and parental notification laws although good, only affect a small percentage of abortions.

What that means is that the only elected official who can have a substantive impact on abortion is the President through his Supreme Court nominations and to a lesser degree the Senators who confirm the nominations.  But that also means that my Congressman has a VERY small impact on the issue and therefore the increased evil that a pro-abortion Congressman could do is minimal.

But what I don’t know is how bad Doolittle’s actions are.  Until I do, I won’t know who I’m going to vote for.

(Editor’s note: I’m going to try something a little different this morning: Live blogging!  Tune-in for updates throughout the game.)

Good morning and thank you for tuning in on this be-U-tiful overcast morning for game 2 of the ALDS series between the Oakland A’s and the Minnesota Twinkies.

I’m your host Ken Crawford here on thecrawfordfamily.net’s presentation of early morning bulldozer baseball.  Bulldozer baseball: all the harsh commentary you should hear but never do.

A reminder that this presentation is brought to you by Yahoo! Sports:

Yahoo! Sports, no flash, just right on time.

And MLB.com:

MLB.com, all the flashly content that keeps us from giving you real information.

And finally HP:

HP, why buy anything that we can’t plausibly deny?

The first inning is straight ahead!

First Inning: 

• It’s great to see that the A’s have come out today ready to swing.  Hopefully they’ll remember that “struck out looking” is not the way we want to go down this season.
• The twins get two hits off of Loaiza early, but fail to score.  I think that Loaiza is one of those pitchers who take a while to find their groove.  The Twinkies will be kicking themselves if they don’t score off their early opportunities.

Second Inning:

• I completely missed the second inning… this second inning blackout is brought to you by HP: we actually want you to work for a living.

Third Inning:

• The thing I love most about the bottom of the A’s order (besides Scutaro in a clutch situation) is how they make the pitcher work for their outs.  Sure they may not have the highest batting order, but they make the pitcher throw at least 5 or 6 pitches.
• YES!  Ellis singles to lead off the 3rd.  If Kendall can avoid his patented “did you even try” double play ball, we might be in business.
• Well, Kendall at least tried hard enough to beat out the double play.  Fielder’s choice. Now it’s Kendall on first with 1 out.
• Maybe I shouldn’t complain about Kendall too much.  Now it’s Kotsay who grounds into the double play… ugh.
• The Twinkies went three and out.  Loaiza’s in his grove now.

Fourth Inning:

• Man, Thomas nearly did it again.  Ground rule double!  Let’s see if we can bring him home from 2nd with 1 out.
• Well, we couldn’t bring him home, but at least we’re lining out, not popping out.
• Loaiza’s has retired 8 in a row now.  SWEET!
• So much for that, two singles in a row.  Got to give credit to Morneau.  He battled to get that first single, 8+ pitches.  Sometimes those long at bats really wear out a pitcher.  Let’s hope Kendall can manage Loaiza enough to get him out of this 2 out jam.
• YES!  End of the inning: White grounded out.

Fifth Inning:

• YES!!! Swisher doubles to lead off the fifth and my main man, Mr. Clutch himself, Scutaro is up.  Bring’em home scoot!
• YES!!! Scutaro doubles, Swisher scores… rolling rolling rolling, keep those doggies rollin’.
• OK, Ellis sacrificed Scoot to third… Kendall, I’m counting on you man.  You can’t sink us with a double play.  NO PRESSURE… Just bring scoot home!
• YESSSSS!!!!! Kendal singles, Scutaro scores. 2 to 0 A’s!
• Onto the bottom of the inning, Loaiza seems to have his groove back with two easy groundouts.
• Loaiza has had the benefit of giving up all his hits with 2 outs.  That takes a lot of pressure off because he knows he only has to get one out to get out of the jam.  Another men on 1st and 2nd 2-out jam stalled!

Sixth Inning

• Of course, just to spite me, Payton singles with two outs.  Hopefully Swisher can make something of it.
• OK, everyone DON’T PANIC.  We gave up a big home run yesterday and still won.  A’s lead is now only 2-1.
• Scratch that… PANIC!  PANIC! PANIC!  Two home runs in a row… NOOOO!
• Phew!  Macha actually got up off his butt and did something about it.  Our best reliever Calero is in there now.
• ALRIGHT.  Calero gets the job done!  Onto the 7th.

We interrupt this broadcast for this important announcement:

LUNCHTIME!!!

Ahhhhh… what a good lunch.  Just as I was leaving I saw the 2-run in the park homerun by Kotsay (there’s one I’ve got to see the highlights of) so I had the knowledge that all the A’s have to do was hold on for 3 innings.  I haven’t even looked yet but let me guess: Kennedy pitched in the 7th, Duchscherer in the 8th and Street in the 9th, now let me check… oh wow, Duchscherer pitched both the 7th and 8th.  An actual bold move by Macha.

Well, in any case, there’s nothing like coming back from lunch to see a 5-2 victory.  Nice to see that the A’s kept the heat on by scoring in the top of the 9th (always a good way to take what little life remains of the opposition).  Onto Oakland!  Go A’s!

Well, I hope you guys enjoyed this.  I’m interested to hear feedback: did anyone see it live? (I doubt it)  Is it enjoyable after the fact?  Let me know.

OK, maybe I shouldn’t be complaining about the early start time.  Apparently it was just enough to throw off the usually unstoppable at home (hasn’t lost since 8/1/2005) Johan Santana.

Way to go A’s!

…on being the STUPIDEST organization in professional sports.  A 10:00 AM Pacific WEEKDAY playoff game!?!  And it’s not even two east coast teams (for a 1 PM local start time), it’s a midwest team vs. a west coast team.  And they wonder why their TV viewership of the early rounds of the playoffs is so low.

Boy, I was looking over the matchups for later this week and was suprised just how many good matchups there are in the Pac-10.  Of course Cal vs. Oregon is top billing in my mind, but the rest are all intriguing:

• Washington at USC: Is UDub for real?  Is USC vulnerable?  If nothing else this means there will only be 2 undefeated in conference Pac-10 teams at the end of the weekend (along with the victor of Cal vs. Oregon).
• Arizona at UCLA:  Just how much does UCLA suck?
• WaZoo at OSU: Another battle to get out of the cellar.
• Stanford at Notre Dame:  OK, all but one game is intriguing.  Although historically Stanford has played ND tougher than expected.

Tune in late this week for my predictions.

The Bears are up to 16th in the AP poll (17th in the coaches).  I’ve noticed that there seems to be a delay factor with Pac-10 teams (outside of USC).  While we didn’t move much after that ASU win, a week later while continuing to win and the bears make a significant jump.  Yes, it helps that 3 teams not far ahead of us lost, but we still leapfrogged the idle Florida State.

Oregon is up to 11, setting up a much more lofty showdown between us next Saturday at 5:00 PM.  I hope you guys have your tickets because from what I understand it’s expected to sellout.

Well, I finally had my first 100% week.  It was a pretty easy week all the way around and my metrics reflect that.  That said, the picture in the Pac-10 is becoming a great deal clearer:

• Stanford, OSU and Arizona are in a class all their own, and that’s not a good thing.
• WaZoo, UCLA and ASU are schools that think they’re good but aren’t (a note about UCLA, their 31-0 win over Stanford was very misleading.  Stanford had UCLA very worried for 3/4’s of the game.  It also turns out that UCLA’s win over Utah wasn’t very impressive as Utah has stunk all year.).
• Washingon is the wildcard who’s seemed to get their act in gear this year but is untested and there is no reason to believe that they’re in the top group.
• Cal and Oregon are the lone challengers to USC and…
• USC although good, and the defacto leader until knocked off, is VERY beatible.

All of this makes next week’s Cal vs. Oregon game extremely important as it sets the clear challenger to USC in November when both teams play USC back to back in LA.

In any case, here are my updated metrics:

• MVD: 14.9 (down from 15.6 with new scores of 17, 12, 17, 3 and 4)
• TPD: 13.4 (down from 14.6 with new scores of 5, 8, 5, 5, 10)
• Winning percentage: 82.4 (up from 79.4 after going 5-0)

Tune in later this week for new predictions.

OK, despite the itch I’ve had all week, I didn’t drive up to Oregon to watch the game.  So my wrapup will be completely based on the radio coverage.

Which is as good as a place to start as any.  I’d heard a few complaints from some Cal Bloggers about Starkey’s radio coverage.  Not having listened to it in a couple years, I wasn’t willing to specifically rebutt those comments.  However, now that I have… what is wrong with you guys?  Starkey is one of the best and he still has it.  He calls a great game with all of the details that one needs.  Sometimes he’s not as good for the novice listener who’s not paying attention because he doesn’t alway say what down it is, but his explanation of the previous play makes it clear what the down and situation is.  And he has to make that sacrifice to give all of the detailed information he gives about the formations and the players involved.  In addition to being very detailed, he does a very good job of projecting emotion.  So I say: Starkey = A+.

On to the game, it went about as I expected, with one caveat: Cal was able to put a bunch of points up early and it got OSU out of it’s running game, turning the game into a blowout.  While I’ll admit my confidence in the Bears putting up points early was low, I knew that if they did it would be a blowout.

The big thing that was confirmed about this game was that the Bears can have a dominating run defense.  We already knew this really having stopped the powerful Minnesota running game.  What was unclear going into this game was whether OSU had the passing game to do what Minnesota couldn’t do: force the Cal defense to cover both dimensions.  The answer to that question is no, no they couldn’t.  Unfortunately that answer means it is still unknown is whether Cal can be dominating at BOTH aspects of the defense at the same time.  We’ll know the answer to that question next week when we face Oregon.

The Cal offense continues to click.  I was glad to hear that there weren’t too many rushing tackles for loses.  The running game had that old dominating feel I’m used to after the last few years.  I think that opposing defenses are realizing that Cal will burn them with the passing game if they over-emphasize stopping the run.  The result is that the running game is going to improve.  I expect to see more of that in the future and the Cal offense will feel more balanced.

So Cal is rolling.  And it’s a good thing because we’re going to need a Cal team that is clicking on all cylinders to beat Oregon.

On to the rest of the Pac-10 and my predictions for them:

Cal 35, OSU 24: See here for details.

UCLA 29, Stanford 10: A week ago, nobody would have questioned whether UCLA was going to win this game.  Now that UCLA lost to Washington, have things changed?… Absolutely not.  WaZoo took Stanford to the woodshack at the red-bird-color-but-not-the-bird-itself-and-definitely-not-a-reference-to-the-leaders-of-the-Catholic-Church-despite-the-fact-that-we-were-founded-as-a-Catholic-University–Cardinal was at home at their brand new and empty stadium, albeit without their “incomparable” band.  No way are they going to win against UCLA in the Rose Bowl.  Speaking of which, I’m starting a new tradition: I’m taking my predicted score for the Stanford opponent and increasing it by 2.  So in this case: 3 touchdowns, 2 field goals… and the automatic inclusion of a safety.  It only seems fair.

ASU 24, Oregon 42: ASU has begun their annual tailspin.  Yes, it’s a little earlier than usual but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.  By the time USC is done with them next week they’ll be so demoralized that Stanford may just have what it takes to completely destroy what’s left the ASU football program.  If they think losing three in a row is demoralizing, THAT may result in a death Jim Jones style. In any case, Oregon is too strong and too determined to lose this one.  Expect more mistakes from Carpenter and a Oregon spread offense that runs up the score.

WSU 21, USC 24: Watch out USC, WaZoo plays well on it’s home field, the frozen potato patch (not to be confused with the frozen Tundra).  USC should be thankful they’re playing an afternoon game not a night game because even in late September it gets awful cold up there at night.  USC is definitel a strong team, but they’re still a wildcard in my book.  Nobody strong has challenged them and their pass defense is completely untested.  That said, I don’t think WSU is the team that will test them.  Athough I think they’ll exceed the 14 points USC’s best opponent put on the board, I don’t think they’ll have what it takes to beat a determined USC team, even if the game is on the frozen potato patch.

UA 17, UW 24: Neither of these teams have offenses that have taken it to their opponents and I don’t expect that to happen this weekend either.  In fact, maybe I’m giving them both too much credit and I should adjust the scores down.  In any case, this game is going to be close and Arizona will be aching for a win after last weeks loss.  Expect to see them aching for another week.  Willinghan has UW back on the right track.

OK, that’s it for this week.  Expect a Bears game wrap-up and updated Pac-10 metrics by Monday.

OK, it’s that time of the week again.  Time for me to share predictions on the Cal game.

Before I get started, forgive me for feeling the need to rant about the TV coverage or lack thereof.  WHAT THE HECK!?! I have no way to check, but I bet Cal is the only team in the Top 25… including Rutgers… that doesn’t have their game on at least some subscription channel.  I though that was the point of Comcast SportsNet, to cover the games that the big boys don’t want.  ARG!?!  I’ve been tempted all week to plan a trip to Corvalis.  I would do it too if I didn’t:

1. love my family
2. not want to drive 20 hours in a weekend
3. not have time to blow the whole weekend on a minor game
4. lack the finances for the ticket
5. lack the finances for the gas
6. lack the finances for a place to stay (noticing a trend here).

As a plus, I’ll get to listen to Starkey call the game.  I don’t wear headphones at the games (it’s a family event, why would I block out my family?) and I don’t listen to the radio coverage when I’m watching the game on TV because of the TiVo.  I’m a big fan of rewinding plays and that just doesn’t work with radio coverage.  If someone can ever figure out how input alternate audio for a TV program into a TiVo (so it syncs with my rewinding), please let me know.  I’ll be your buddy for life.

In any case, listening to Starkey is the upside but it completely blows that a Cal game isn’t on TV.  So much for a return to prominence….

OK, I’m done complaining about the lack of TV coverage… onto the game:

I won’t lie, I’m nervous about this game.  In the end, I think Cal’s going to win, but OSU is the type of team that can really take it to the Bears and has a history of doing so.  Tedford has lost 3 of his 4 games against them.  OSU beats Cal by controlling the football and being physical on defense.  Last year it felt like Cal only had the ball 4 times all game and then OSU took their sweet time to march down the field Big-12 rushing style.  Then when Cal got the ball back, Lynch had no where to run because OSU was putting 27 defenders in the box (at least it felt that way).  They dared Ayoob to throw it.  It was ugly.

This year, OSU won’t be able to get away with that.  Cal’s offense is too balanced and it’ll run up the score like nobody’s business if they try loading the box like they did last year.  However, I’m still worried OSU will control the ball through the running game and will keep this game a lot closer than it should be.  In the end, Cal has too much fire-power, but it still wories me.  Our best hope is to score a few TD’s early to get them out of their ball-control running game.  If that happens, this could be a Cal blowout. 

But I don’t see that as the likely scenario.  Their defense is good enough (although I think they suffer from the same over-praise from a weak non-conference schedule that ASU had) and their game-planing is strong enough that they’re not going to let Cal have a bunch of early quick scores.  They’ll make Cal earn its points.  But earn them Cal will and it’ll be too much for OSU, despite them doing their best to control the ball.

Which brings me to my final topic to discuss: the Cal run defense.  As much as I don’t think they have to play well to win this game, it would make a world of difference if Cal could shut down the OSU run game.  Even if OSU is able to score more frequently because of it, it’ll also mean that the Cal will get the ball more often for its offense to run up the score.  So, in my opinion, this week is the opposite of last week.  Last week Cal was willing to sacrifice the run defense to shutdown the pass-offense of a dangerous ASU team.  This week Cal should be willing to give up a more prolific passing game to shutdown the running game of OSU.  It’ll be interesting to see the game plan Gregory comes up with.

To wrap up all of these thoughts, I’m pretty sure Cal will win this no matter what, but a strong OSU running game will be the determining factor as to whether it remains competitive: Cal 35, OSU 24.