Welcome to your Future Lakers Fans...

Now, I know you, as a collective, have recently suffered tragedy with the passing of Dr. Buss and I apologize in advance if I am being overly harsh or insensitive. But, with that being said, please look at the image above and gaze into your future. Speaking from vast and horrifying experience, there is nothing worse than having someone who was born on third thinking they hit as triple as your owner. Especially when they think they are qualified to make basketball decisions. Especially when they also have too big of an ego to learn from previous mistake and take criticism from the press as personal challenges. The bad news for you, Lakers faithful, is that Jim Buss bears much more than a passing resemblance to Jimmy Dolan. In fact, they are bi coastal brothers from different mothers. Both were handed the reins to seminal sports franchises from their fathers and will do what they want with their toys. I am sad to report, however, that your situation may even be more dire. See, all I have ever really known is the horrors of Dolan and, therefore, things can only look up. I feel particularly bad for you, Jack Q. LakerFan, because you have been to the promised land. Dr. Buss was one of the best owners in the league and, thus and much to my chagrin, LA has consistently put on of the best products out on the hardwood year in and year out. Not very surprisingly, as Dr. Buss got sick and, I assume as I can claim no direct knowledge, more of the team operations fell to Jim (on the team side) and Jeanie (on the business side), the on the court product began to deteriorate. I respect the fact that Jim has, at the request of his father, been trying to train on the job under the wings of Jerry West, Mitch Kupchak, et al., for about 15 years but the fact is his previous sports related endeavor was as trainer of thoroughbred horses. Hopefully (for you, not me... I wouldn't mind the Lakers tasting some of my pain for awhile), Jim gets his act together, stops feuding with his sister (reportedly), and not make decisions on coaches for selfish reasons (as suggested by talking heads) but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

A word to the wise from a man who's been there, if he starts a band as a side gig... get out. Just get the hell outta there right away. I hear there is another nice team in LA and you wouldn't even have to move stadiums. Trust me on this.


IMAGE: BusinessInsider.com via Google Images

Preventing the Grand Old Party Name from Becoming TOO Literal: A Guide to Winning Coastal Millennials

Andrew Sullivan (who we congratulate on his new business model, btw) recently posted his take on House of Commons approving gay marriage, by a very wide margin, opening the door for legalization once it passes the House of Lords. He quoted a Tory MP (equivalent of a House Republican... sorry Brits not meant as an insult) taking a slight dig at the GOP:

“I believe my party should never flinch from the requirement that we must continue this progression, otherwise we may end up like the Republican party who lost an election last year that they could have won were it not for their socially conservative agenda.”

This warning rings true and should act as a red flag for the Republican party over here. As pointed out by John Stewart last night (I'm too busy/lazy to get the link right now, so just check it out), the GOP's growing demographic problem, despite GOP operator's protestations, is not really due to a problem with "messaging." The issue is that for most people under the age of, say, 40, the policy views and prescriptions behind the messages are terrible. The ill advised concentration on social issues and the general refusal to get on the right side of history, which is partially illustrated by the above quote, is a large part of the problem.

Many coastal millennials mentioned in the title would be amenable to the GOP's economic messaging (I personally think that Reagonomics/supply side economics is demonstrably bullshit but perhaps the government could use a bit of shrinking), especially since those from NYC, San Fran, Boston, Portland, Seattle, DC, etc., are more likely to have a higher income and thus higher taxes. The problem is that most also do not give a rat's ass about or are vehemently against preventing gay marriage, limiting access to birth control, outlawing abortions, the necessity of prayer in the public square or making sure religious associated institutions do not have to pay for health care that gives out the pill for free, preventing immigration, the sacrosanct nature of the right to bear any and all guns, no matter what, praise be the Christian god, and the prohibition of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes. Retaining negative positions on many of these social issues will ensure that the GOP is not considered by younger generations of voters. 

This, of course, can be discounted as unimportant by many in the GOP as making changes on social issues will alienate current, older voters, thus harming the party brand in the short term for an unsure outcome in the long term. Although undoubtedly true, it is hard to see what other options they have. The older guard are and will continue to die out and, unless they can replenish the ranks from younger generations, so will the party itself. Further, the millennials in the Republican thought incubators today will be the future intellectual leaders going forward. At the very least, Republicans should be hoping for a small schism in the party so that there is a group that they can discount in the near term while quietly encouraging them for the long term. Y'know... like the Tea Party but the exact opposite (more akin to CMB and YM as YMCMB with Young Money now not so slowly taking over).

A legit multi-party system is more interesting and is what the founders intended for this country; here's to hoping the GOP can re-establish more of the Grandeur by losing some of the Old.

IMAGE: James O'Keefe, Republican operative, from politicsafter50.blogspot.com via Google Images (he's clearly not a millennial I am talking about).

Legal Jargon on the Targeted Killing of US Citizens Abroad

Not the most eye catching or inventive of post titles, but what are you going to do? NBC news published a Department of Justice memo on the killing of US citizens who are in leadership roles in Al Qa'ida (sic) and associated groups. The memo does contain some limitations on when such an act can take place; the most limiting of which is the fact that seemingly only high ranking members of Al Qa'ida actively engaged in the planning of imminent terrorist attacks against the United States of America. The memo, however, uses a rather tortured (definitely no pun intended) explanation on the definition of imminent. Essentially, because Al Qa'ida can attack at any moment, if you qualify as an operation leader engaged in the planning of attacks then it is assumed that the attacks you are planning are imminent. Further, if you have renounced your ways as an operational leader actively planning terrorist attacks against the United States which will automatically assumed to be imminent, you better do so publicly or the U.S. government will continue to consider you as a threat that can be Constitutionally eliminated without evidence to the contrary.

The memo disposed of the 4th and 5th Amendment concerns with balancing the 4th Amendment intrusion v. the reasonableness of the government action and a Matthews v. Eldridge balancing, where the required due process is determined by weighing the importance of the interest at stake and the benefits of additional safeguards through due process against the government's interest, respectively. The memo quickly argues for the government's side of the scale on the balance because of the interest in preventing an "imminent" terrorist attack that could lead to the loss of many American lives. The ole take out one to save many logic. I have no problems with such drone attacks against citizens who decide to join Al Qa'ida and are involved in the planning of attacks, but the legal reasoning seems to be a bit iffy. The definition of imminent certainly seems overly broad and although the government interest in both the 4th and 5th Amendment balances is incredibly strong, so is the concern in the intrusion brought by the loss of life and the interest in staying alive that is at stake. The Due Process argument seems particularly weak as one could easily see a situation where additional due process considerations, such as a private hearing with a military judge in a FISA Court type setting, could be beneficial in making sure everything is kosher.

Lastly, because it is only addressed in passing, determinations on the acceptable amount of collateral damage (i.e., deaths of civilians near the target) are still opaque and this is, of course, also worrisome. While few have too many issues with how the targeted drone strikes have been used so far when it comes to American citizens, the general opacity with how these decisions will be made in the future (since the DoJ deems such actions legal) is disconcerting in general. Considering the last administration's refusal to re-evaluate any of it's actions, including the disastrous war in Iraq and the culture of torture that stained this country, there is no telling how a future administration would use the green light this memo presents. The decisions of who is a proper target for a strike, what an acceptable amount of collateral damage is (Homeland anyone?) and what is considered imminent will all be concentrated amongst a limited amount of people set in an insular group with little threat of second guessing by any other authorities. Recent history suggests that such a setting can lead to disaster. I understand the DoJ's memo and hope for the best, but I will hardly be surprised by the worst if and when it occurs in the future.

IMAGE: scrapetv.com via Google Images