Sarah Palin's horrible basketball analogy

Now since the moment Sarah Palin first graced my television set it has been readily apparent that the woman had little grasp, knowledge or even interest in basic international affairs, domestic issues or the workings of government in general. But who knew that this former high school basketball player was ignorant about basketball as well?

This reality came to me during Palin's most recent speech, wherein she said she would not seek a second term as governor of Alaska (very sad, I know). During this speech she said the following:

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports... basketball. I use it because you're naive if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

Now as someone who eats, drinks and breaths basketball, one of my biggest pet peeves is when the game is somehow desecrated (yeah I know this is subjective but I really like basketball). Whenever I see a movie or TV show with a basketball scene that's not true to the game, with obviously shitty players hitting ugly jumpers and dribbling around nonexistent defenses, I flip. And this awful basketball analogy is no different.

So let me rant on this...

First of all, a good point guard does not "drive through a full court press." Full court presses are not beaten by one player dribbling through them. They're beaten with ball movement, passes from the sides to the middle of the court. A shitty point guard will try to dribble through a press and usually end up getting trapped and turning the ball over (unless the press is really, really badly executed...and I mean bad).

A weak man press can sometimes be beat by the dribble. If a good ball handler gets inbounded the ball, the rest of the team can clear out (bringing their defenders with them) to the other side of the court, essentially taking the press with them. But this rarely happens in good man presses. Good coaches usually keep one more player in the backcourt (who does not follow his man who clears out). This freelance defender then helps trap the ballhandler. Thus, the best way, again, to beat this press is through quick ball movement (passing) down the floor.

And then Palin says a good point guard keeps her eye on the basket during a full court press. Actually, a good point guard keeps her eye on where her teammates are and where the openings are on the press. It's not like you're going to nail a cross court shot during a full court press. Why would you keep your eye on the basket?

But wait, then the female Forrest Gump says "and I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom!" Keeping our eye on the ball? A point guard should never keep their eye on the ball. They should keep their head up and eyes active. Oh god, I'll stop already.

Palin you ruin everything. Now basketball?! Ah!

Thus ends my basketball rant.

Hitchens and the Burka

Christopher Hitchens is at it again--allowing his hatred of religion to cloud his judgment and contradict basic liberal principles. In almost all of his books, columns and media appearances, Hitchens claims to hold dear the liberal principles of the Enlightenment--individual liberty, limited government, etc.

Yet, in a recent column in the New York Daily News, Hitchens comes out in support of France's flirtation with banning the wearing of burkas in public schools:

But that observation - if you will excuse the expression - brings us to another and even more powerful objection to this mode of dress. It is quite plainly designed by men for the subjugation of women. One cannot be absolutely sure that no woman has ever donned it voluntarily, but one can certainly say that, in countries where women can choose not to wear it, then not wearing it is the choice they generally make.

This disposes right away of the phony argument that religious attire is worn as a matter of "right." It is almost exactly the other way around: The imposition of burkas or even head scarfs on women - just like the compulsory growing of beards for men - is the symbol of a denial of rights and the inflicting of a tyrannical code that obliterates personal liberty.

Now I agree that the burka has often been a tool to subjugate women, something that has been forced upon them. And thus I find repulsive governments that make the wearing of the burka mandatory. However, it would be equally wrong to prevent women from choosing to wear the thing. And I don't understand why anyone would choose to do so, but some people do. What right does the government have to invalidate and infringe upon this choice?

Hitchens argues:

Think of the things that we all have to do now, like submitting to humiliating searches at airports, or showing our ID to people who have no "probable cause" for demanding it. Can we turn up at airport security wearing a bag over our heads? Can we produce a photograph that shows only our eyes through a slit? Of course not. Nor can anyone in a Muslim country (though of course in Saudi Arabia an unchaperoned women cannot turn up at the airport anyway).

Yes Hitch, often times security and individual liberty conflict with each other and a choice must be made for security in place of individual liberty. But I fail to see how school girls wearing burkas directly and negatively affects anyone's security.