Flowers for Atkins

Jury selection began today in the trial of Daryl Atkins, a man twice convicted of a 1996 homicide. Atkins’ life has been spared to date because of the conclusion that he is retarded and his execution would therefore be unconstitutional. That conclusion will be revisited during the course of the trial, and if reversed, will result in Atkins’ death.

The BBC has a quick primer here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4716225.stm

What really caught my attention was the following excerpt:

“Virginia requires an inmate to have had an IQ of 70 or less, combined with poor social skills by the age of 18. "

“Atkins, 27, was not tested as a youth but he scored 59 in 1998, and 76 more recently.”

The case, while interesting for its bearing on capital punishment in general and the 8^th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in particular, also raises two questions:

1. Are they running some kind of “Flowers for Algernon” experiment in the Commonwealth of Virginia penal system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_For_Algernon

2. If so, can they introduce the program to the public school system?

17 points of IQ gained in a handful of years is nothing to sneeze at. When Atkins gets out of jail in 2180, he should be able to head up some kind of D.C. think tank. Or at least attend grad school with the woman from Vegas. (see previous item, below)

I certainly don’t have the scientific credentials to weigh in confidently on the whole “IQ – Bogus or not Bogus?” pissing match, but stories like this don’t exactly do a lot for its credibility. They do, however ease the pain of that 68 I scored on my seventh grade IQ exam.

Thank God I took Berlitz

"Umm...well, I couldn't really understand what the announcement said because I'm American and I don't, you know, speak English, but I did pick out the word 'Emergency.'

-Las Vegas graduate student studying in London, in response to a reporter asking her what she thought when she had to evacuate the Underground after Thursday's bomb scare.

The little gem was brought to my attention - inadvertently - by a former confederate from long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Her work can be found here: http://clarified.blogspot.com/ Anyway,
the orignal poster of this quote was moved to ask: "Is it too late to administer IQ tests for passports?"

Sadly, yes. But it's also worth pointing out that the woman in question is not only a student, but a GRADUATE student, as well. I will assume she is not concentrating in Comparative Literature. In any event, perhaps the proper question is not whether IQ tests should accompany the issuance of a passport, but whether they should accompany admission to Master's/ PhD. programs. A small bit of consolation, from a strictly jingoistic standpoint, can be found in the fact that the woman is now studying abroad. That is, unless you consider the public relations angle.

One Man = 56

When I read the accounts of the British police killing the suspected terrorist in the tube this morning, it started me thinking about the differences in national character and how informative they are about the nature of the societies in question.

Specifically, I was reflecting on how ill-equipped the United States is to deal with tragedy on a large scale, because apart from the Civil War, the country has never really known it. So, when an admittedly tragic incident like 9/11 occurs, the reaction - and overreaction - occurs on an almost comic scale. Yet, in contrast, Americans can blithely dismiss or ignore altogether the minor tragedies that populate everyday life. A homicide or two a day in a particular city is barely worth mentioning.

Conversely, the British react to major conflict in a decidely more muted manner. To be sure, part of that is an affectation stemming from the desire to live up to the national reputation for stoicism and reserve, but part of it is genuine as well. That's why it's so interesting to observe the uproar over the shooting of a man in a subway station. In the UK, this incident seems to have generated nearly as much conflict and discussion, on an intellectual and policy level, as the bombing of 50-some odd Britains earlier this month. The opposite would be true in the US. Flags would still be flying at half-mast here on account of the bombing and the shooting of the suspect would be an afterthought - if that.

I've always believed that America is an "event" country, a place where major ocurrences obscure notice of the everyday to an extent not matched by other nations. Perhaps it's because the ethos and image of the country is rooted in advancement and achievement. Progress is viewed in measurable benchmarks - events - that demonstrate your acclimation to and success in the American experiment. As a result, on a social level it is only the headline worthy incidents that are seen as worthy of public concern and attention.

The inability to see how the everyday impacts the big picture seems to be a particularly American trait. Strivers often fail to notice how the accumulation of small things shapes the whole, until, at the end of the road, they look back with chagrin. There is something to be learned from the English obsession over a lone man.

Bill "Big Game" Cowher

On Tuesday, a fellow Steelers fan wrote me seeking analysis ofSunday's game in general and, in particular, the role that Bill Cowher'scoaching played in the defeat. I didn't respond immediately because I was still nursing an emotional hangover from the loss. Now that I have recovered somewhat from the initial trauma, I feel the need to vent to someone outside the welcoming, but sometimes incestuous confines of Steeler Nation.

The first and most relevant point that needs to be made in light of Sunday’s four-turnover fiasco is that the Steelers fell to a superior team. Losing to the team of the, what should we call it - the aughts? – is no disgrace. (Sidenote: when I finished my junior year of college, the Class of 2000 was scheduled to enter in the fall, sparking a debate about how the school would refer to the incoming classes for the next decade. The college, being a hoary, private northeastern institution decided on “The Class of Aught”, as in “Aught One, Aught Two”, “or back in the Aughts low-rise jeans and Maroon 5 were all the rage.” Picture that on the introduction to the Sports Illustrated commemorative video, - “SI presents the New England Patriots, the National Football League’s Team of the Aughts.”)

In any event, while Sunday’s result was not surprising, it continued a disturbing pattern that has tainted the legacy of Bill “Big Game” Cowher. It’s not merely the losses in the AFC Championship Game that have besmirched his reputation; it’s the manner of the losses and the play-not-to-lose ethos that has characterized them. All this goes to underscore my primary gripe about Cowher's playoff philosophy: namely that he has none. He approaches the playoffs exactly the same way he approaches a regular season game, at leastfrom a strategic standpoint. This is despite the fact that everyone recognizes that game planning is more thorough and the intensitylevel higher in the postseason. If you're a conservative team like the Steelers that plays with little margin for error and often ekes out victories over non-playoff teams throughout the season, doesn't it stand to reason that during the playoffs, against better competition,with stronger gameplans and greater intensity, that your margin for error will shrink to nothing unless you do something unexpected?

Cowher has really only diverged from his buttoned-down postseason strategy in one game: the 1995/96 Super Bowl, his best coaching job in my opinion. Recognizing that the Cowboys had a more talented team, Cowher made a number of aggressive calls, including, but not limited to, an onside kick in the first half. That type of inspiration is rarely evident in his playoff performances. Perhaps the only other time he didn't play it safe was when he unleashed Tommy “Gun” Maddox on the Browns and Titans in 2002. That move was made more out of necessity than anything, but it allowed them to rally from about a million points down against Cleveland and half-a-million down before falling just short against a superior Tennessee squad. You would think he would take some cues from that. But no, it's more of the same turtle mentality that produced an AFC championship game loss tothe worst Super Bowl team of all time (the '94 Chargers), a near miss against what was almost the second-worst Super Bowl team of all time ('95 Colts), still another home field conference championship loss tothe Pats in 2001, and innumerable other playoff stumbles.

As for Sunday, I thought Cowher was outcoached, but given the way Roethlisberger was playing, I don't know if it mattered. He admitted yesterday that he hit the wall and lacked arm strength during the latter portion of the season. Good to know. There's no way Cowher would have pulled Roethlisberger (and I might not have either in his position), but once the Steelers dug themselves a deep hole and it was obvious they needed a gunslinger to rally the team with the passing attack, Maddox was the more logical option. He's high risk/high reward, but that's exactly what the situation called for; expecting a rookie quarterback with a dead arm who has thrived on managing the game to suddenly win it by tossing the ball all over the lot is asking a bit much. At the very least, they could have helped the kid by throwing on first down more instead of putting him into obvious pass situations on third down. I know the idea is to rely on the running game to ease the pressure on the rookie. The problem is, when the running game stalls, the pressure is magnified under that philosophy because he's only throwing when the defense is prepared, so he struggles, his confidence wanes and the entire offense bogs down. It's not like we haven't seen this play out before.

I also objected to kicking the field goal on fourth-and-two. Leaving four points on the table and the gap at 11 pretty much guarantees you'll need three scoring drives to tie or win the game. That's unless you think you're going to hold the Patriots scoreless for the remainder of the third and the whole of the fourth quarter, and nothing that occurred previously had suggested that would happen. Besides, even if you make the wrongheaded assumption that you'll shut the Patriots out for the final 17 minutes of the ball game, you'll still need a field goal, touchdown and a two-point conversion to tie. So, if you don't think you can pick up fourth and two or three yards -whatever it was - how can you expect to pick up the two point conversion to tie the game with everything on the line? It makes no sense.

Still, what I objected to more than the decision to kick the field goal was the playcalling that forced the decision. Granted, Burress should have caught the touchdown pass on second down, but I can't believe that play is your best option with the season very likely hanging in the balance. Even if you don't get in the end zone there, you need to run a play that's likely to produce positive yards so running the ball on third and fourth down is an option. Cowher/Whisenhunt may have shied away from the run because Bettis was stuffed on that fourth-and-one early in the game, but it's not against the law to involve Hines or Randle El near the goal line.

I've hated that jump ball play for a long time because it's an all-or-nothing gamble. Near the goal line I prefer calls that give the athlete a couple opportunities to make a play (witness the widereceiver screen the Patriots scored on when Hope fell down. Call a roll out, a shovel pass, anything that presents multiple options. Even if the defense has the play sniffed out, it can be salvaged with one good individual move.

I like Cowher as a coach overall, but someone has to take him aside and address his timid approach to playoff football. There’s a reason the Steelers thrive in years when little is expected of them. It’s because Cowher knows he has to take chances coming off a 6-10 season and he catches teams by surprise. But then, as the Steelers build momentum during the regular season, the stakes rise and Cowher becomes risk averse. By the AFC Championship Game, he is unwilling to take chances and the other franchises have had 17 games to devise a blueprint on how to stop the Steelers. The result is defeat. Since the Steelers won 16 games this year, expect Cowher to play it close to the vest next season even though other teams will have adapted to a degree and the schedule will be more difficult. Maybe I should consider myself lucky to be venting about another AFC Championship Game loss. Next year, I may not be so fortunate.