March Madness

It was Albert Einstein who said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Obviously, old Albert was familiar with the annual fiasco that is my entry into the office NCAA Basketball Pool.

Even if you're not a college basketball fan, you're undoubtedly familiar with the tournament, the big dance, March Madness, or whatever other name you give it in your neck of the woods. And, if you're like me, there's an annual office pool that makes the rounds the week before the tournament starts. And, if you're like me, you simply can't resist the temptation of trying, just one more time, to beat Frankie from the mail room in picking the tournament winner.

It's only $10 bucks (or maybe even five in your office). And all you've got to do is pick a few basketball games. So every year, I pull out a ten spot, fill out my bracket, turn it in and, by the end of the first weekend, watch my dreams of becoming a hundred-aire crash and burn along with the dreams of teams like Syracuse and Kansas (this year's victims of astonishing upsets).

Oh, sure, I pick upsets, too. I just never pick the ones that actually occur. I try picking conservative upsets, like Pitt, a number 9 seed, over Pacific, a number 8 seed. Then, I watch Pacific absolutely blow out Pitt. Nice pick, especially since I've got Pitt winning another three games.

I do pick riskier upsets. This year, one of my riskiest picks was Syracuse upsetting Duke in the fourth round. Of course, it would help if Syracuse actually got out of the first round to make this prediction come true. However, a 13 seed (Vermont) upset the 4th seeded Orangemen. I never cease to amaze myself at how terribly bad I am at prognostication. Dick Vitale has nothing to fear from me.

Well, I've still got three of my final four picks alive for this year's tournament. I guess I've still got a reason to watch. However, I just received this year's standings after the first weekend. There are 115 entrants in my office's pool this year. Where am I in the standings? Well, let's just say that I'm in that section of the standings that make the top 90% of the standings possible.

Ah, well. There's always next year.

~~

Eat Dirt, My Friend

For years, people were satisfied with an ordinary vacuum cleaner. You know the kind I mean -- the sturdy upright with beater brush, on-board tools and headlight (and by the way, those manufacturers who refer to anything on a vacuum cleaner as "on-board" are not only pretentious but really kind of silly. It's not a ship, after all. We're not going below decks to change the belt, for goodness sake. But I digress.)

You've got your upright, and then you've got your canister type -- that lying-down vacuum cleaner on wheels that has a long hose, wide head, no beater brush, and is always just a bit too short to reach the top of the curtain rod and the blades on the ceiling fan.

From the time I was old enough to vacuum, these trusty stand-bys operated on a simple principle. You vacuum until your machine doesn't suck so well anymore. (You could always tell when you had to actually pick up the little piece of string and hand-feed it to the vacuum.) This was an indication that the little disposable bag was full. At that point, you turn the vacuum off, change the bag, throw the old bag in the garbage, put a new bag in and -- presto!-- you resume your task.

Somewhere along the line, some genius had the bright idea that our vacuuming lives were far too mundane (and far too convenient). What fun was it to vacuum the old fashioned way? You couldn't see if your vacuum was working and you actually had to open the machine and check the bag to see if it was full. Who wanted to waste the 10 or 15 seconds that would take?

Enter the bagless vacuum. Of course you've seen them. Red Devil. Bissel. Hoover. They all have a version of the bagless vacuum, which has a very large clear plastic cup to catch the dust, through which you can watch the dirt, string, dust-bunnies and occasional Cheerio whirl by in a mini-hurricane in your living room. What entertainment! What convenience! Now, we could see the vacuum actually work! Now we would know that the cup was full simply by looking at the vacuum! No longer would we waste precious seconds agonizing over whether the bag was full. Now, a simple glance would do the trick. Plus, how cool would it be to watch all that dirt swirling around?

Well, let me tell you. It's cool -- until you actually have to empty that stupid cup. Can it be that no one actually thought through the logistics of this manuever? I confess, it didn't occur to me until the first time I actually had to empty the cup on our new dirt-spinning, hurricane-maker. But then it struck me -- I just vacuumed up all this dirt, and now I have to dump it -- where? In the kitchen garbage? I could already see that cloud of dust *POOFING!* throughout the kitchen. In the outside garbage can? Yeah, alright, I guess so. (As long as it's not raining.)

So outside I go, swirly cup in hand. I take the lid off the cup, open the can and dump away. Yeah, there it is -- a cloud of dust. Good thing I'm outside. Well, at least I'm done.

Oh.

Wait.

No I'm not.

What about that big old filter-type thing? Look at all the dirt and gunk stuck in that thing? Well, it pulls out okay. But how do I clean that?

We all know how I've got to clean that, don't we? Pull it out, and tap-tap-tap on the inside of the garbage can. More dust. Lots more dust. And it's still not clean.

Tap-Tap-Tap. Still more dust. And still not clean.

TAP-TAP-TAP. Still more dust. It's almost clean.

The solution, of course, is to pull out my trusty old upright, get the on-board crevice cleaner, attach it to the detachable hose, and suck that dirt right out of the filter on my new-fangled dirt spinner.

That'll work.

I'm thinking that, if you're in the market for a new vacuum, you might want to consider this little cautionary tale.

Meanwhile, I'm going to see if I can find a new car with a crank up front that you use to start it. Who wants to be bothered just climbing in and turning the ignition key?

~~

Jose Canseco's Attorney

This is the kind of attorney that gives lawyers a bad name. To catch you up, Canseco, a former baseball player, has written a tell-all autobiography that includes his claims that he used steroids, that he helped teammates use steroids, and that he actually injected steroids into Mark Mcgwire, the first player to hit 70 homeruns in a season.

Anyway, Canseco's attorney is making the sports talkshow rounds, spouting off about how Canseco is ready and willing to testify before the congressional hearings on steroid use in baseball that are coming up next week. He's been questioned several times about why Canseco supposedly isn't concerned about the statements he made in his book being used against him, either before the congressional committee, or in future litigation. The lawyer says that the statements in the book are hearsay and thus could never be used against Canseco. This explanation, of course, leaves the sports hosts flabbergasted.

Here's the problem. While Canseco's lawyer is technically correct -- that is, the statements are hearsay -- the lawyer conveniently omits the other side of the story, which is that there are at least two very clear and very obvious exceptions to the hearsay rule that would permit the statements to be used against Canseco, if the occasion arose to do so.

First, let's make clear what "hearsay" is. Hearsay is a statement made outside of court that someone in court wants to introduce to prove something. For instance, let's say that I want to prove that my sister was at the diner. I bring in a witness, Tom, to testify that he heard Mike say that my sister was in the diner. Mike's statement about my sister is hearsay. It's an out of court statement that I am trying to introduce to prove that my sister was in the diner. Ordinarily, Tom cannot testify about what Mike said. Tom can only testify about what he saw, or what he knows from his own personal knowledge.

That's why Canseco's book is technically hearsay. Under the general hearsay rule, I couldn't introduce the statements in the book to prove that what Canseco said in the book is try. Ah, but for every rule, there is an exception. Or two. Or thirty. And the hearsay rule is no exception.

First Exception: A statement against interest is admissible. What's that? Well, simply put, it's a statement that could get you in trouble, such as "I shot McGwire in the butt with steroids." Why is it a statement against interest? Because it is against your interest for you to admit that you did something illegal, like help someone use a controlled substance like steroids. Why is it admissible? Because the theory is that you wouldn't admit to doing something wrong unless it was true. Thus, the fact that it's an out of court statement, which was probably not made under oath, is trumped by the fact that you wouldn't make a statement about doing something bad if it wasn't true.

Second Exception: An admission by a party is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. This exception is similar to the statement against interest, except that it's somewhat broader, and is limited to a party to the case. An admission does not necessarily have to be "against interest." But if the defendant says something like "I knew the light was about to turn red but I thought I could make it anyway," that statement, while not exactly against interest, is nevertheless an admission that you saw the light turning before you gunned it through the intersection. That could be important in an automobile case -- as would be a statement from Canseco's book along the lines of "I got my roids from the anyone who'd sell them to me." This would establish, with Canseco's own words, that Canseco was obtaining an illegal substance.

What's the point of this little hearsay primer? Only this -- do not EVER take the statements made by an attorney who is representing a client at face value. EVERY such statement is spin-doctoring, in one form or another. Unfortunately, the law these days has very little to do with a search for the truth. It has everything to do with hiring the best spinners.

~~

The Saddam Capture Story a Fake?

By now, I'm sure you've heard this little nugget making the rounds. If not, here's a little run down. Some supposed ex-Marine (by the way, there are no ex-Marines, and no Marine would ever characterize himself as an "ex-Marine." But that's an issue for another day....)

Anyway, this supposed Marine claims that Saddam was actually captured the day before he was reported to have been captured. (Friday, 12/12/03 instead of Saturday, 12/13/02). The capture also supposedly took place at some "modest home" and not in the spider hole. Saddam supposedly defended himself in a fierce fire-fight that included shooting at the supposed Marine who was trying to capture him.

The supposed Marine, of Lebanese descent and named Nadim Abou Rabeh told his story in the Saudi daily paper, which was subsequently picked up by UPI.

Obviously, there's a lot more supposed "detail" from this supposed Marine, but you get the gist. Rather than credit the story any more, let's undertake a little critical analysi.

First, what took so long for this story to come out? Obviously, the Pentagon is denouncing and denying, but if this story is true, why did Nadim wait to tell his tale?

Second, if this story was true, why the cover up? Does it really matter how Saddam was captured? In fact, wouldn't it have made the US look better that Saddam was captured after an intense fire fight, but we controlled ourselves and didn't kill him when we had the opportunity?

Third, has anybody bothered to research the facts of Saddam's capture? I understand that it was the Army, not the Marines, that captured him. Army soldiers and Marines are far from interchangeable.

Fourth, it is an easy matter these days to confirm the existence of any given Marine. Did anyone search for this guy in the Marine locater, which is available on line? Here's a thought -- let's check the guy's story before we run with it.

Finally, who gains by this story? Certainly the supposed Marine, who's getting a bit of publicity now. And let's consider the original source -- a Saudi paper. What is the audience for that publication? We can bet that Saddam's reputation has to go up in light of this story. Instead of cowering in the dark, hoping the US goes away, his story has an ending closer to that of Butch and Sundance . . . excepting, of course, that he gets to walk away before the credits roll. At least, he gets to walk away for a little while longer....

~~

Beginnings

What say we join the crowd, and start a blog? We'll let this take shape as time goes by, spinning off into whatever areas catch my interest at any given time. Thanks for checking in. We'll keep you posted.