'Argo' Is Great, But 52 American Hostages Are Still Looking for Justice

Army Col. Leland Holland would sometimes talk about his 444-day hostage ordeal in Iran ?like it was a good old fish story,? says his son, John. But other times, recalling how he was beaten with rubber hoses and telephone books, he?d get angry. The memory of picking a lock with a paper clip, making his way to the roof, and breathing fresh air could bring him to tears. Three times after he retired from active duty, his family found him kneeling in the corner of the basement, face to the wall, hands clasped together over his head as if handcuffed, reliving in his nightmares the ordeal of being interrogated.

Ben Affleck?s celebrated film, Argo, has spotlighted a desperate CIA scheme that enabled six U.S. Embassy employees to escape post-revolutionary Iran disguised as a Canadian film crew. Holland was part of a far less fortunate group, the 52 Americans who didn?t make it out of the embassy when militants stormed it on Nov. 4, 1979, and were held hostage for 444 days.

Argo has been showered with honors, topped by a best-picture Oscar at the Academy Awards. There?s no dispute that it is historically inaccurate and ignores a larger tragedy to focus on a tiny sliver of success associated with a humiliating chapter in the nation?s history. But give Argo its due. The film is serving to remind the country of a time, a place, and a debacle at what could be a pivotal moment in the history of the Iranian hostage crisis.

The former hostages and their advocates are mobilizing for a Capitol Hill push that they hope will be the final chapter in a 33-year quest for relief and for justice. In a few weeks, members of Congress will receive a packet of information that includes powerful statements and videos from the former hostages and their survivors. Some will be telling their stories publicly for the first time. One of them is Steven Lauterbach, whose written account opens with this sentence: ?I slashed my wrists while in captivity in Iran.?

The hostages were among the first victims of Islamic terrorism -- yet unlike subsequent victims, they have never received the satisfaction of a court judgment against a state sponsor of terrorism, or financial compensation drawn from its assets. For decades they have tried and failed to navigate a web of conflicting legal opinions, court reversals, and changing terrorism policies. And for decades they have been thwarted by the 1981 Algiers Accords, in which Iran agreed to release the hostages and President Carter agreed to bar lawsuits by them and their families. One Congress after another has been unable or unwilling to surmount presidential administrations and court rulings that have kept the accords in force.The Supreme Court last year ended the possibility of suing under current law, leaving Congress to find a solution.

With its suspected march to nuclear weaponry and broad sponsorship of global terrorism, Iran presents America and the world with problems much deeper than how to tie up the loose ends of a 1980 crisis. Yet the dark details of their captivity and its long-term impact ? ?the depression, the nightmares, flashbacks, divorces, and physical illnesses? are bound to add urgency to the former hostages? cause, as is their advancing age (a dozen of the 52 have since died).?

Nor does it hurt that the cinematic spotlight on Iran has coincided with two related tragedies. Argo opened a few weeks after murderous militants attacked another U.S. mission, this one in Benghazi, Libya, igniting intense concern on Capitol Hill about diplomatic security. The film opened the same month that one of the 52 former hostages, former CIA agent Phillip Ward, killed himself. He had returned home covered with scars from torture, a reclusive, alcoholic ruin who couldn?t hold a normal job -- who couldn?t even hold a cup of coffee, his hands shook so badly. ?He took his life, but in reality his life was taken from him 33 years ago in Tehran, Iran,? attorney Tom Lankford, who has been trying since 2000 to win justice for the former hostages,?wrote in a tribute to Ward in Roll Call last fall.

?Raped Of Our Freedom?

Lankford has lived intimately for years with the disquieting tales of former hostages and their families, and punctuates his conversations with graphic images and details ? the cells fouled with excrement, the diplomat?s wife who still has anxiety attacks, the retired Air Force colonel who in his nightmares hears the hoses being forced down the throats of Iranian political prisoners as they were suffocated outside his cell.

Most of the former hostages functioned well in productive careers after they returned ? including Leland Holland, who died in 1990, and Tom Schaefer, the retired colonel who remains haunted by the suffocations. They and many others became public figures, giving speeches and media interviews about their experience. Yet few if any former hostages escaped life-altering changes wrought by 444 days of terror, boredom, hope, and hopelessness.?

Rodney ?Rocky? Sickmann, a 22-year-old Marine charged with guarding the embassy door, was one of the youngest hostages. For the first month in captivity, he says, he slept with his wrists tied to his ankles and sat during the day with his hands and feet tied to a chair, a shotgun pointed at his head, and was blindfolded whenever he left the room. ?You think of your past. That?s all you had,? he recalls. He heard cars beeping, birds chirping, ?life going on without you,? and wondered if anyone besides his parents cared. ?It was so lonely,? he says.?

And often so terrifying. Sickmann says he and other hostages were shown videos of people being dropped in boiling tar, of people shot in the head after being ordered to strip and face a courtyard wall. He himself was blindfolded and told to undress and turn his back, and he heard three rifles bolted behind his head. ?It was a mock execution, but I didn?t know that,? he says. ?You dreamt, you cried, you prayed for the opportunity of a second chance.?

Sickmann did get that chance. When he came home, he found that his parents had kept their 1979 Christmas tree up and decorated for the whole 444 days. He married his girlfriend and went to work at Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis. He had three children and rose through the company, where he now has what he calls ?a wonderful job? as director of military sales. Through a chance meeting at a family wedding, Sickmann even ended up on the set of Argo, and his son had a bit part.

Despite flashbacks, dreams, and problems with noises and being alone, Sickmann was convinced he was fine. But his wife thought otherwise and after many years persuaded him to get help. ?You never forget it,? he now says of his captivity. He repeatedly says that Iran ?raped us of our freedom? and has never paid for that in any way. He often wonders, even now, if he should have disobeyed orders and shot at the militants and the women who were their human shields.

Lauterbach, a small, slight man who was the assistant general services officer at the embassy, had no experience or training as a soldier or spy when he was taken hostage. ?It was my first time as a Foreign Service officer. I didn?t volunteer for it,? he says. It was a menacing environment; there were crowds on the streets and bodies hanging from construction cranes, just like in Argo, he says. Looking back at when he slashed his wrists, he says ?it?s hard for me to really know what my motive was.? His plan, he says, was to ?hurt myself bad enough that they would panic? and take him out of solitary confinement. He was covered with blood and prepared to die, he says, but his captors rushed him to the hospital for stitches. And they did take him out of solitary.

Now 61, Lauterbach was 28 when he was captured and says he was ?more mentally and emotionally damaged than I wanted to admit? by the experience. He met his wife at his next posting in France, had two children, pursued a successful Foreign Service career, and now consults for the State Department. Yet he still has a recurring nightmare that ?somehow the agreement to release us has been rescinded and we have to go back.? He believes he is a more pessimistic, fatalistic person as a result of the ordeal. ?It?s never completely in the past,? he says. ?You?re always in the shadow of it psychologically.?

Bill Daugherty?s captors quickly identified him as CIA and treated him accordingly. He spent 425 of his 444 days in solitary confinement, and endured interrogation sessions 12 hours long. Unlike some of the embassy hostages, he was used to risk and adversity. At 31, his resume included military school, Marine boot camp, flight school, a stint as an air traffic controller, and a tour flying off an aircraft carrier in Vietnam. ?My whole life up to that time was dealing with stress,? he says. He also had received military training in subjects like how to survive in captivity and how to defeat interrogation.

Like Sickmann and Lauterbach, Daugherty believed he was in good shape after his release. He says he never had nightmares or other symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Yet he was troubled. His cover was blown ? he was known worldwide to be a CIA agent ? and he stumbled about trying to find a new career path. On the personal side, he says he felt lost and ?addled? at times. In 1986 he entered into what he calls an ?unwise marriage? that ended in divorce. He also made some bad career choices before landing in the CIA?s counter-terrorism unit. In 1996 he became a college professor, and a few years later met the nurse practitioner who is now his wife.

?I didn?t start understanding what I wanted and what my life should be until 12 to 15 years? after returning from Iran, says Daugherty, who worked as a consultant on Argo. ?If I came back in better mental shape than a lot of (the other hostages), I can?t imagine how they dealt with it.?

Rough Justice

Terry Reed, another attorney for the former hostages, calls his clients ?the only victims of Iran?s hostage-taking and terrorism that have been left behind.? Others who are not bound by the Algiers Accords have gone to court and won judgments against Iran. They include former journalist Terry Anderson, held for seven years by the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon, who collected some $26 million taken from frozen Iranian assets; victims of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, whose lawyers are trying to seize Iranian assets frozen in U.S. institutions to collect on tens of millions of dollars in court awards; and victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, who last year won what will likely turn out to be a largely symbolic $6 billion award against Iran, al-Qaida, and the Taliban.

The disturbing details of the hostages? lives during and after captivity have been no match for successive administrations determined to uphold an international deal, even though it was necessitated by a host government that failed to protect an embassy and allowed militants to hold hostages for month after month. And even though it was signed almost literally at the point of a gun, with Iran threatening ?serious consequences? for the hostages if billions in frozen Iranian assets weren?t released.

Brokered between Iran and the United States by the government of Algeria, the Algiers Accords were hailed as the catalyst for ending the protracted crisis. The executive agreement allowed for commercial claims against Iran to be paid out of Iranian assets frozen when the hostages were taken, but it barred any attempt by the hostages to bring suit against Iran in a U.S. court. Since Iran already enjoyed sovereign immunity against such claims, the State Department did not see that as a concession at the time. In addition, the Justice Department?s Office of Legal Counsel concluded in a Nov. 13, 1980 memo that Congress had the power to ?constitutionally override? the Algiers Accords and reinstate the former hostages? right to sue Iran for damages.

In January 1984, Iran was added to the State Department?s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Twelve years later, Congress passed the Antiterrorism Act, removing the sovereign immunity of countries on the list, and eventually made it retroactive so the former hostages could sue Iran. The former hostages and their families did just that in 2000, and won a default liability ruling the next year in federal court after Iran failed to mount a defense.

The State Department, worried about the implications of violating an international deal signed by a president, argued the case should be dismissed. Congress tried again to help in 2002, writing into a conference report that the former hostages had a valid claim against Iran under the 1996 act. But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, in a decision later upheld by an appeals court, dismissed the claim in 2002. Congress did not specifically invalidate the Algiers Accords, he said, so he had no choice.?

??Were this Court empowered to judge by its sense of justice, the heart-breaking accounts of the emotional and physical toll of those 444 days on plaintiffs would be more than sufficient justification for granting all the relief that they request,? Sullivan wrote. ?However, this Court is bound to apply the law that Congress has created, according to the rules of interpretation that the Supreme Court has determined. There are two branches of government that are empowered to abrogate and rescind the Algiers Accords, and the judiciary is not one of them.?

Congress tried yet again in 2008, inserting a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act allowing Americans to sue countries that sponsor terrorism. It specifically mentioned the Iranian hostages, so the former hostages filed a new lawsuit citing that section of the new law. But the Obama administration Justice Department urged that the case be dismissed. In September 2010, Sullivan again cited the hostages? ?tremendous suffering? but again ruled against them. Congress had failed to ?expressly? nullify the Algiers Accords or create an unambiguous cause of action against Iran for the 1979 hostage-taking, he said. Last year, the Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Rather than ask Congress at this point to repeal the Algiers Accords, which would trigger years of legal activity with no guaranteed outcome, the former hostages, their advocates, and their Capitol Hill allies have settled on different course: a surcharge on fines and penalties paid by companies that do business with Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions. The money would be put into a compensation fund for the hostages. Mike Smith, the hostages? lobbyist, says such a plan will pass overwhelmingly if it comes to a vote, as he expects it will this year. If the State Department has an alternate plan, he adds, ?we?re flexible as long as it brings relatively speedy relief to the former hostages.??

Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, whose constituents include former hostage Kathryn Koob, was the lead sponsor last year on a sanctions surcharge bill that attracted 69 cosponsors. He disagrees with the State Department view that the Algiers Accords are binding; he says agreements negotiated under duress are revocable and further, he says, it?s a violation of the Geneva Conventions to make agreements that don?t allow people to seek compensation from their captors. But Braley plans to reintroduce the sanctions bill this year with as many cosponsors as he can find, ?to try to provide some measure of justice to people who?ve been denied justice all these years.? He says more than $400 million could be available, and hostages held the full 444 days would receive a ?significant settlement.?

Daugherty estimates that he and the other former hostages are due quite a lot. Based on compensatory and punitive damages to other victims of terrorism, he puts the total at nearly $18 million per hostage. ?I don?t expect to get anywhere near that,? he says, but suggests it would be rough justice for a country that has paid very little for the hundreds of U.S. dead and wounded in attacks linked to Iran over the years.

As time runs out for many of the former hostages, and even some of their children, they have become less intent on holding Iran accountable and more interested in compensation and some measure of closure. ?At this point in time, that?s about 89 percent of justice right there,? says John Holland. ?The other 11, I?d still like to see somebody do some physical time themselves for what they did.?

Under Siege

Iranian militants supportive of the new revolutionary government first overran the embassy in Tehran on Feb. 14, 1979, and staff there ? led by Leland Holland ? were told to give them some ground and then talk them into leaving. Miraculously, it worked. But what followed was a cascade of missteps and misjudgments that still evoke anger and frustration among the hostages seized in the subsequent Nov. 4 attack.

After the Valentine?s Day breach, some officials in Washington believed that the militants would move on to other targets or activities, says Daugherty, who was stationed in Washington at the time. He and others, including embassy personnel in Tehran, assumed the opposite: that the militants would be back with more force. The message from the embassy to Foggy Bottom for months after that first breach, says John Holland, Leland?s son, was ?get us out of here,? that Iran was in such disarray that the government could not ensure physical security.?

But the embassy continued to operate. Nine months later, Carter let the deposed shah of Iran into the United States for medical treatment, setting off unrest in Tehran that culminated in the hostage crisis. Daugherty said in a 2003 article in the journal American Diplomacy that the State Department had information at the time that the shah was not at death?s door and could have been treated where he was, in Mexico, rather than in the United States. ?I don?t know how that story changed,? he says now about the factors that led to Carter?s decision.

The shah was about to arrive in the United States when U.S. charge d?affaires Bruce Laingen went to the Iranian foreign ministry to notify his counterpart and ask for protection. Though Carter and others later asserted that assurances had been given, Daugherty wrote in his 2003 article that Laingen did not report any response at all to his request for protection. Daugherty still is incredulous that Carter did not evacuate the embassy the minute he decided to let the shah into America, about two weeks before the militants attacked. The way it played out, he says, ?We never had a chance.??

The grim history that began to unfold at the moment of capture was nothing like Argo, with its focus on can-do American (and Canadian) nerve and creativity. The hostages were taken just a few years after the hasty, ignominious U.S. exit from Vietnam, and overnight, it seemed that Iran had brought America to its knees.

That perception was fueled, perhaps even created, by a nightly ABC News program that later became Nightline. Initially called America Held Hostage, it launched four days after the embassy takeover and included a countdown that underscored the country?s helplessness: Day 11, Day 49, Day 266, Day 365, and on and on. The national feeling of impotence intensified after a tragic April 1980 rescue attempt resulted in the deaths of eight U.S. troops and the loss of U.S. helicopters and classified material to Iran.

That sense of American powerlessness pervaded the household of every hostage. Weeks after the failed rescue, just before Father?s Day, Bruce German?s teenage daughter wrote a 7-page letter to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, pleading for German?s release. ?Dear Ayatollah,? it began, in round, girlish script. ?I wish you could convince your people to let my dad come home to his family ? It is very difficult for me not having my dad around.?

German, a State Department budget officer, had arrived in Tehran five weeks before the embassy takeover. His family learned of his abduction from a church member who saw news of it on TV.

In censored letters every couple of weeks, he urged his daughter and two sons to keep sending him mail, keep praying, and keep doing their schoolwork. Once he wrote that he was ?staying at the lovely resort of Lorton,? recalls the daughter, Deborah Firestone. ?So we knew he was in a prison.? When he did come home, he didn?t talk to his children about what he?d been through, but ?I heard things,? Firestone says, including that his Iranian captors had played Russian roulette with him.?

German, now 76, describes ?constant threat? from the day he was taken captive. ?We didn?t know from day to day if it was our last day because they kept threatening us with guns,? he says. He recalls the hostages being forced awake at 3 a.m., blindfolded, and ?paraded in our underwear into a cold hallway,? where they would hear the ?unmistakable? sound of guns being cocked, and wonder if they were about to be executed. Outside his cell at the notorious Evin prison, German heard ?moaning and screaming and carrying on? as Iranians were tortured. Prayer and mental toughness got him through, German says.

While Firestone says German had flashbacks and nightmares after his release, German says he chose not to the see ?the shrinks? offered by the government. ?I didn?t need that,? he says. He did make what he calls changes ?for the better? after conversations with friends. ?I just took their advice and decided to get on with my life, move ahead, and that I?d try not to look back. So I don?t dwell on that at all anymore,? he says. ?I just put the hostage crisis behind me.?

German?s life is divided into distinct pre-Iran and post-Iran chapters. Within a year of his return, he moved away from his family. Within a few years, he had divorced his wife and left the State Department. He moved to rural northeastern Pennsylvania and reconnected with a woman he knew in high school. He has little contact with his children and grandchildren, a subject he declines to discuss.

Before the Iran crisis, says Firestone, an elementary school teacher, her parents? marriage was ?rock-solid? and she was a ?daddy?s girl.? But since a few months of family closeness right after he returned, she says, contact with her father has increasingly ebbed. He missed her college graduation, her 1993 wedding, and her brother?s wedding last summer. At this point, she hasn?t seen him for eight years. He last saw her youngest child, almost 12, when she was 3.

While it?s impossible to gauge the role of German?s captivity on his choices, Firestone has no doubts. ?He?s pretty much fallen off the face of the earth as far as his family is concerned,? she says. ?Our lives have been irreparably damaged because of what happened.?

Hero and Victim

Fresh off 444 days as victims, the hostages returned to a nation that was more than ready to move on from nightly doses of America Held Hostage. They were celebrated as heroes with a full-blown ticker tape parade in New York ? the kind usually reserved for astronauts, military veterans, and champion sports teams. Ronald Reagan had just taken the oath of office. People desperately wanted it to be a new morning in America, as Reagan?s reelection campaign would put it in a TV ad four years later.

?We had been so embarrassed by the Iranians holding power over us,? says Lankford. ?We didn?t want to hear about how the hostages were kept in freezers with no clothes on, kept in cells with their own excrement. America in 1981 needed heroes, and these folks as a group were presented as heroes. It was really in many respects to wash away the bad feeling of Vietnam. Heroes you give medals to. You don?t compensate them.?

In truth, each hostage was both a hero and a victim, a dual identity epitomized by Leland Holland. He was an Army intelligence officer in Berlin during the Cold War, served two tours in Vietnam, and became a parachutist at the ripe age of 46 before going to Tehran as the Army attach? for the embassy. He returned to active duty and a top Pentagon job when he was released, gave talks about his ordeal at various military bases, and made Army training films based on his experience ? films his son says are still in use. In a measure of his reputation, shortly after he died, the Army bestowed his name on an 11-building complex at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. And yet in retirement, when he was no longer too busy to keep memories at bay, he relived his interrogations in nightmares.

The ordeal that left an indelible mark on so many lives has not only receded in time, it has been overwhelmed and overshadowed by the many terrible terrorist acts that followed, most notably the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Still, Firestone says she was shocked to find the Iran hostage crisis distilled to one paragraph in her son?s history book. In Lankford?s conference room one recent day, she gazed at hostage photos on a 2001 trial exhibit headlined ?52 Faces We Won?t Forget,? and remarked, ?It seems like everybody has forgotten.?

In the view of many former hostages, that forgetfulness extends to the failure of the U.S. government to learn from what what they endured amid the anarchic tumult of a country that had just been through a revolution. They shook their heads last Sept. 11 when terrorist attacks killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the consulate in Benghazi. It was happening again ? a host government unable to protect diplomatic personnel, and pleas for help that went unheeded. ?Nothing?s changed over all these years,? German says.

But change may be coming at last. In the wake of the Benghazi tragedy, the Obama administration and Congress appear determined to improve protection of U.S. personnel overseas. And the former hostages, who have long been able to count on bipartisan goodwill in Congress, now have a new strategy and new prominence. Thanks to a popular film, Americans have been given a fresh reminder that Islamic terror has plagued the country beyond this generation, and 52 of its earliest victims may finally get their due. It?s no Hollywood ending, but it could be a last act.

Multimedia produced by Cory Bennett

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/argo-great-52-american-hostages-still-looking-justice-211834586--politics.html

susan powell megamillions winners university of louisville louisville ky final four lotto winners mega ball winning numbers

South Korea's new president demands North drop nuclear ambitions

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea's new president Park Geun-hye urged North Korea on Monday to abandon its nuclear ambitions, and to stop wasting its scarce resources on arms, less than two weeks after the country carried out its third nuclear test.

In her inauguration speech, the country's first female president, also called on South Koreans to help revive the nation's export-dependent economy whose trade is threatened by neighbouring Japan's weak yen policy.

Park, the 61-year-old daughter of South Korea's former military ruler Park Chung-hee, met with the father of North Korea's current ruler in 2002 and offered the impoverished and isolated neighbour aid and trade if it abandoned its nuclear programme.

"I urge North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions without delay and embark on the path to peace and shared development," Park said after being inaugurated on Monday.

Park, usually an austere and demure figure in her public appearances, wore an olive-drab military style jacket and lavender scarf on Monday and smiled broadly and waved enthusiastically as a 70,000 strong crowd cheered her.

Rap sensation Psy was one of the warm up acts on an early spring day outside the country's parliament and performed his "Gagnam Style" hit, but without some of the raunchier actions.

Park's tough stance was supported by the partisan and largely older crowd at her inauguration.

"I have trust in her as the first female president ... She has to be more aggressive on North Korea," said Jeong Byung-ok, 44, who was at the ceremony with her four-year-old daughter.

PARK FACES CHOICE: PAY OFF PYONGYANG OR ISOLATE NORTH

North Korea is ruled by 30-year-old Kim Jong-un, the third of his line to hold power in Pyongyang and the grandson of a man who tried to assassinate Park's father.

The North, which is facing further U.N. sanctions for its latest nuclear test, which was its biggest and most powerful to date, is unlikely to heed Park's call and there is little Seoul can do to influence its bellicose neighbour.

Park's choices boil down to paying off Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons plan, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and failed in 2006 when the North exploded its first nuclear bomb. Alternatively, Seoul could try to further isolate the North, a move that resulted in the 2010 sinking of a South Korean ship and the shelling of a South Korean island.

Referring to the fast economic growth under her father's rule, which drove war-torn South Korea from poverty to the ranks of the world's richest nations, Park urged Koreans to re-create the spirit of the "Miracle on the Han".

Park wants to create new jobs, in a country where young people often complain of a lack of opportunities, and boost welfare, although she hasn't spelled out how she will do either.

Growth in South Korea has fallen sharply since the days of Park's father who oversaw periods of 10 percent plus economic expansion. The Bank of Korea expects the economy to grow just 2.8 percent this year and 2.8 percent in 2014.

Park also faces a challenge from a resurgent Japan whose exports have risen sharply after new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe embarked on a policy to weaken the yen currency.

The won has jumped five percent in 2013 against the yen after a 23 percent gain in 2012, boosting the competitiveness of Japanese exports of cars and electronics against the same goods that South Korean firms produce.

Park last week said she would take "pre-emptive" action on the weak yen, but has yet to specify what action she will take.

(Additional reporting by Jack Kim; Editing by David Chance and Michael Perry)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/south-koreas-president-demands-north-drop-nuclear-ambitions-021646206.html

eva longoria Michael Clarke Duncan Nazanin Boniadi Deval Patrick Dedication 4 labor day college football scores

Feds seize over $17 million in fake NFL merchandise, Super Bowl tickets

Maximum daily hit per IP!

To see news on this page you need to be logged in.

If you already have an account simply login to your account

Login to your account for
for advanced settings:

If you don't have an account we welcome you to signup to our news service at this page

Source: http://www.insideworld.com/r/?rid=6704755

crystal renn matilda cab calloway melissa gilbert deadliest catch dwts sean hannity

John Lackey on his spring debut: ?I missed playing baseball?

A relaxed and happy John Lackey after Saturday's spring debut. (Mike Petraglia/WEEI.com)

FORT MYERS, Fla. ? John Lackey is a changed man.

After allowing one run on one hit, one strikeout, one walk and one hit batter in his spring debut Saturday, the 34-year-old right-hander admitted to being his age, laughed about his 20-pitch outing and expressed appreciation for feeling no pain in his elbow for the first time since signing with the Red Sox before the 2010 season.

?I?ve lied, for sure, about that,? Lackey said when asked if he hid arm pain from the Red Sox in the first three seasons with the team. ?There?s definitely some pain. There were a few times when I said there wasn?t but it?s been a few years, for sure.?

Despite loading the bases with none out on the first 10 pitches he threw, he was enjoying the experience all the while on the JetBlue mound.

?I did,? he said. ?I kind of took a second before I went out on the mound and reflected on the bench on the past year and a half. It?s been a lot of work and have to thank a lot of trainers, a lot of people that helped me get back to this point. I was excited to be back out there.

?[I was] excited. It was fun. I missed playing baseball for sure. It was good to be back out there. The arm felt fine. I didn?t feel any pain in the elbow. Just keep moving forward.?

Lackey allowed one run, one hit, one walk, struck out a batter and hit a batter in a 20-pitch first inning of work, his only inning of the day.

?Results stuff I really wasn?t real concerned about today,? he said. ?Just glad to be back out there and get things going in that direction. Next time out we?ll get to working on a few other things.?

What did his manager think?

?The ball got out of his hand as we expected today,? John Farrell said. ?It?s a big step, and it?s one over the last 16 months, he was on his program, and at times, he probably felt like he was the only one going through it. And today was the first step for his building block for spring training and getting back to being a regular member of this rotation.

?I think there was a lot of anticipation on a number of people?s part, and mostly John?s. But now, he?s able to get into his five-day rotation, normal sides, normal turns through the schedule. But a good first step for him.?

Farrell said the plan is to increase to two innings for his next outing, likely in five days against the Pirates in Bradenton, and increase by one inning in each subsequent start.

?That?s the plan,? Farrell said. ?He?ll build with each consecutive outing, an inning at a time.?

Lackey admitted he had some nerves taking the mound.

?There?s definitely some for sure,? Lackey said. ?It got better as I got a little bit more tired. The ball started coming down a little bit but first couple of hitters, I was up in the zone. I was just going to throw all fastballs today just trying to build arm strength. I think I tried one changeup, that?s it. The rest of them were all fastballs. It?s a little different than throwing on the side for sure.?

Lackey said he wasn?t worried about velocity in the first game of the spring, a game in which he threw no breaking balls.

?The first game after Tommy John? No. I was just trying to hit the glove in the air today. The plan was one inning all along. I look forward to the next time for sure,? Lackey said.

Source: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/02/23/john-lackey-on-his-spring-debut-i-missed-playing-baseball/

obama on jimmy fallon google drive pilar sanders andrew young real life barbie zipper armenian genocide

Kerry Washington, Craig Robinson, David Alan Grier, S. Epatha Merkerson In 1st Trailer For 'Peeples'

Synopsis:

Wade Walker is eager to propose to his girlfriend, Grace Peeples. But after a year of living together, the beautiful, successful Grace is still cagey about introducing average guy Wade to her ambitious, upper crust family. So when Grace leaves for an annual reunion at her parents? swanky Sag Harbor compound, Wade decides to crash the gathering, charm his soon-to-be in-laws and slip a ring on Grace?s finger. However Wade's plans go hilariously awry when he meets the high-powered, seemingly picture-perfect family who?ll do whatever it takes to keep up appearances. Wade soon finds himself caught in a web of white lies and comic dysfunction, and realizes that his only hope of ever marrying Grace means a take-no-prisoners face-off with Judge Peeples, Grace?s disapproving dad who won?t accept anything less than the very best for his favorite daughter.

source, 2

this doesn't look good even by romcom standards.

Source: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/75699779.html

daniel tosh Jason Kidd All Star Game 2012 directv rashard lewis curacao curacao

Texting Manual 4 Every1: The role of SMS in the law

From LOL?s to WTF?s, the world of texting has become "The New Language" and a lot of people have taken this wave to a whole new level. But do you have what it takes to keep it up with this new way of communication? Help is here: Texting Manual 4 Every1, now including an uncensored section ONLY for adults. Want to down load the Android App instead to ur cellphone?

Source: http://tm4e1.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-role-of-sms-in-law.html

Meteor Shower August 2012 jessie j jessie j David Boudia David Rakoff Bourne Legacy Chad Johnson

Simmons & Lowe: The Trade Deadline Exchange, Part 1 Grantland Staff: NBA Trade Deadline Day Shootaround : The Trade Deadline Exchange, Part 2

Going out with a whimper while hoping for a bang

By Zach Lowe and Bill Simmons on February 21, 2013

If you missed Part 1 of the Simmons-Lowe Trade Deadline E-mail Exchange Fiesta (we're still working on the title), CLICK HERE. For Part 2, we picked things up in real time with time stamps and everything.

Simmons (2:07 p.m. EST): Hey Zach ? less than an hour before the deadline and our three biggest Thursday trades have been headlined by Dexter Pittman, Jordan Crawford and Bassy Telfair. Right now, I'm refreshing Twitter every 20 seconds while trying to decipher from Sekou Smith's NBA TV interview with Josh Smith whether Josh wants to get traded or not. (My final verdict: Sort of.) Oh, and I'm trying to figure out how Boston landed Crawford for Leandro Barbosa when Barbosa's left knee currently doesn't have an attached ACL. I feel like my eyeballs are going to come flying out of my head. Too much going on, only nothing's going on. Is this why people start taking Adderall?

Lowe (2:13 p.m.): Well, Atlanta and Milwaukee might take us to the deadline on Smith, and we'll probably get at least a couple of little deals that trickle in before the deadline ? right? The Pittman and Telfair deals are essentially irrelevant ? insurance policies for teams that don't really need them. The Heat cut some money from their tax bill, and the Grizz ? out a first-rounder to Cleveland, and another to Minnesota ? get a second-round pick for their troubles. I'm sure the Grizz had higher hopes for their trade exceptions, especially the $7 million-plus one they got via the Rudy Gay deal, but here we are.

Simmons (2:15 p.m.): Can't say I love what Memphis did (assuming they're done). They spent a future first-rounder to give away two decent bench guys (Ellington and Speights, both of whom play for Cleveland) to save money, then they traded Rudy Gay to save money ? um ? why did they have to make BOTH trades? Confusing. (Note: I also would have kept Jose Calderon over dealing for Prince's contract; I just think he's a better player and would have made them more interesting. They could have always found a stopgap swingman closer to the deadline. That's what Prince is at this point ? at least the Prince I've been watching these last two to three years. Maybe it's just my TV.) But wait ? you don't think Bassy Telfair is a good backup?

Lowe (2:20 p.m.): Before getting to Bassy, you're right that the scrutiny of the Rudy Gay deal should start with the pick Memphis gave the Cavaliers, and not really the Rudy trade itself. But I've covered that at length here, and the finances aren't so simple.

Back to Bassy: I don't really get the rush to give up anything of value, even just a second-rounder and player you'll never use (Hamed Haddadi), for a third point guard. John Lucas III is a shoot-first, shoot-second, shoot-third backup point guard, which can drive coaches crazy ? especially a staff that wanted Jose Calderon over the more aggressive Kyle Lowry. But third point guards are like bullpen catchers: Why give up anything to get one, since you're screwed either way if your team reaches a point at which it actually has to use that player?

Simmons (2:22 p.m.): I'm biased toward Bassy; I may have seen the three best games he's played over the past two years in person (all against the Clippers). He loves going against Chris Paul. Plays him as well as anyone. I wish I could delete the part of my brain that knows things like this.

Lowe (2:23 p.m.): What do you make of the Jordan Crawford deal? Will KG murder him this week or next week? Do you care at all?

Simmons (2:25 p.m.): I didn't mind it ? they gave up someone who currently can't walk for him. My rule with these things is that, if the contracts are equal, you always want the guy who can walk over the guy who can't walk. Crawford belongs in that Nick Young/John Lucas/Nate Robinson group of Irrationally Irrational Confidence Guys, which is a level below the true Irrational Confidence Guys (Jamal Crawford, J.R. Smith, etc.). When he's hot, you ride him. When he's not, you sit him. Of course, Doc couldn't stand coaching Robinson. So this will be interesting. I've always had a soft spot for Crawford dating back to his Xavier days ? there's always room in a 10-man rotation for someone who can catch fire NBA Jam?style, and he's one of the ultimate "no-no-no-YES!" shooters. Did you like the deal for Boston?

Lowe (2:29 p.m.): Funny you mention Young ? one league exec made this exact comparison to me just a couple of hours ago. Young was a crucial player in one pivotal playoff game last season ? Game 1 in Memphis, the Clippers' massive comeback ? and Crawford, for all his warts, may do something similar for Boston this season. His shot selection is egregious, he'll struggle to guard wing players, and the Wizards' offense has basically died when he's played the point this season. Point guard in Boston is a shared duty now, so hopefully the Celtics will never lean too heavily on Crawford in this way.

Simmons (2:33 p.m.): According to ESPN.com's Jeremy Lundblad, Jordan Crawford is one of seven players averaging an 18-5-4 per 36 minutes, joining LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Harden, Westbrook, and Manu. You know what's the most amazing thing about that stat? Jordan Crawford is averaging five assists per 36 minutes????? I don't think I've ever seen him pass. By the way, David Aldridge's ability to do a live studio show while tweeting and gathering info at the exact same time is amazing. I'm so impressed.

Lowe (2:36 p.m.): In Crawford's defense ?

1. He played limited minutes with John Wall and Nene, meaning Crawford has gotten little opportunity this season to play alongside Washington's best offensive players ? a trend that makes his on-court/off-court splits look terrible. But they are terrible, and they were last year, too.

2. He's nearly a league-average 3-point shooter this season, a big step up, and he can create a 40 percent shot off the bounce against anyone. That's valuable when the shot clock is running down. He really only takes 40 percent shots, but that's a different story. Boston could use his creativity and long-range shooting, but they have a ton of weird combo-style guards now in Crawford, Jason Terry, Avery Bradley, and Courtney Lee. At least one should be elsewhere by next year's tipoff.

3. He did make a real effort to pass more this season when the Wiz used him as a de facto point guard, but those lineups failed so miserably they almost broke the NBA.com stats database. He's putting up a career-high assist rate, as you mention. He might win a playoff game ? or, more accurately, a playoff quarter ? but he's not a player I'd really want on my team for the long haul. Washington just gave him away for nothing after benching him almost upon Wall's return, which feels a bit spiteful on the Wizards' part. Very little harm, very little foul for Boston. But don't expect much.

Simmons (2:40 p.m.): Good work, Zach. Between you and Jeremy Lundblad, I've totally talked myself into this trade and now believe it's the steal of the century. I won't even dwell on the part that Washington was soooooo desperate to get rid of him, they traded him for an expiring contract who cannot walk and won't be able to run at full speed until after his contract ends. Bring on the Crawford era! Meanwhile, we're suddenly 20 minutes away from the deadline! Where are the moves? What is happening to Josh Smith???

Lowe (2:42 p.m.): It looks like Milwaukee or nowhere. I have to admit, Milwaukee's emergence here caught me off guard.

Simmons (2:44 p.m.): And you've always been overprotective of Milwaukee because of your unabashed love for LARRY SANDERS! Serious question ? if SANDERS! got engaged to Swin Cash and they didn't invite you to the wedding, would you try to crash it anyway and risk a trespassing fine and possible jail time?

Lowe (2:45 p.m.): That would be difficult for me. I think Swin already has a restraining order after All-Star weekend.

Simmons (2:46 p.m.): If Milwaukee can land Josh Smith without giving up Jennings or SANDERS!, that would be pretty intriguing. I might not be the biggest Josh Smith fan on the planet (he's one of those guys who scares you when he's on the other team but scares you even more when he's on your own team), but I'm still one of the few who agrees with Smith that he's a max player. I had him as a second-team All-NBA forward last year. He stumbled a little this season, mainly because they didn't take care of him and he's a mild headache (and you have to take care of mild headaches before they become pounding migraines). But if you're looking at this from his point of view, the following guys are "max" players right now (or damned close): Deron Williams, Rudy Gay, Pau Gasol, Eric Gordon, Roy Hibbert, Joe Johnson, Amar'e Stoudemire, David Lee, Paul Pierce, Andrew Bynum, Carlos Boozer, Andre Iguodala.

Look at that list again. He's not a max player? JaVale McGee got $11 million a year to be someone's backup center last summer. Gerald Wallace gets $10 million a year to imitate Marvin Williams in Brooklyn. (Not a compliment.) Josh Smith can't get $16-$18 million a year? I mean ? I wouldn't pay him max money, but somebody will. That's a fact. Nobody should make fun of Josh Smith for thinking he's a max player ? in a goofy, twisted way, he TOTALLY is. Just about every good-to-great NBA starter is overpaid by 25 to 30 percent except for LeBron, who's underpaid by 400 percent.

Lowe (2:50 p.m.): Somebody is going to pay Smith the max, or very close to it, but you have to remember not all "maxes" are created equal. Harden's "max" starts about $4 million per year below Smith's potential max, though Harden's would go up if he wins the MVP this year. That obviously won't happen, but it would be hilarious, since it would trigger a cap rule upping Harden's value significantly.

Simmons (2:52 p.m.): He needs to play 20 more straight games like the one he played last night against Oklahoma City and the MVP is within reach. Just 20 straight 46-point games in which he misses six shots per game total and makes every big play down the stretch, that's all.

Lowe (2:54 p.m.): I'm a Smith optimist, though I recognize his flaws ? very bad shot selection at times, lazy boxing out, moodiness, etc. He's not an "A" player, but he might be a "B-plus" player in nearly every phase of the game ? passing, defense, rebounding, scoring from the block, etc. ? and that's rare. He's only 27. If you're never going to get a star free agent to sign outright ? and the Bucks aren't ? this is the kind of gamble you have to make sometimes. The Raptors just made the same gamble with Rudy Gay, and Smith is a better player than Gay.

Simmons (2:56 p.m.): I wholeheartedly agree. And also, Smith was excellent last season. Gay hasn't been excellent for a couple of seasons, and maybe ever. Coincidentally, both of them have been first-teamers on the Tantalizing Potential All-Stars since, like, 2007.

Lowe (2:57 p.m.): Two Josh quibbles, though ?

1. I'm surprised the Bucks were so interested in this move with both SANDERS! and Ersan Ilyasova onboard. I heard from multiple people they sniffed around a Thad Young/Monta Ellis swap, but might have gotten cold feet ? presumably because of positional overcrowding issues.

2. I'm worried Smith will age poorly. He's a "do your work late" kind of player on defense, and especially on the glass. By that I mean: His fundamentals are sometimes poor, in terms of sliding or boxing out, because he thinks he can use his speed/leaping at the end of a play to make up for any lost ground. That ability vanishes as a player ages. But he's actually a very smart player, and he might learn to adjust.

In any case, Atlanta has about three minutes to make up its mind between the Bucks, Nets, and whoever else is out there. Also: Eric Maynor just got dealt to Portland, apparently. Woohoo!!!

Simmons (3 p.m.): Things are heating up! We're on a run of third-string point guards getting dealt ? look out, Willie Green, you might be next. Uh-oh, I just checked my Twitter feed and about 20 NBA guys reported at the same time that (a) the Bucks were out of the Josh Smith Sweepstakes, and (b) J.J. Redick was probably headed to Milwaukee. But for what??? My best guess ? Monta Ellis and a conditional pick to Orlando, Redick and Josh McRoberts's Expiring Contract to Milwaukee. I'm just worried that two white guys might not go over well in Milwaukee.

In other news ? THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED. We made it.

Lowe (3:07 p.m.): It's over. Whew. Sifting through all these last-minute deals ? Anthony Morrow to Dallas, Eric Maynor to Portland, where he'll actually be a major upgrade to the league's worst bench ? the headliner of the day is J.J. Redick to Milwaukee in what appears to be an eight-player, three-team deal, with the Bobcats also involved.

Simmons (3:09 p.m.): In other words, we won't be bouncing our grandkids on our laps someday and telling them about Trade Deadline 2013. I'm glad Presti finally dealt Maynor ? that means our long national nightmare of Presti trying to pull a Jedi Mind Trick on the media and pretend Maynor was good at basketball and had genuine trade value is finally over. That totally would have worked if writers and other GMs didn't have League Pass and NBA Broadband.

Lowe (3:13 p.m.): I liked the Thunder snagging Ronnie Brewer from the Knicks for a second-round pick. I'm not sure what happened to Brewer in New York. He started off defending well in killer small lineups, getting baskets on cuts, and even making corner 3s. The 3s weren't going to last, and he did suffer a couple of bumps and bruises, but he could still do that other stuff for a team that could use some healthy, stout wing guys. The Knicks are now counting very heavily on Iman Shumpert and a slumping Jason Kidd ? on both ends ? and need all the wing depth they can get to play heavy minutes with Melo at power forward. So that bears watching.

Simmons (3:16 p.m.): Jason Kidd isn't slumping ? he's old. He's like four years younger than me, and I have to rub elk semen on my knees just to play pickup hoops once a week. Remind me to buy deer antler spray; I keep forgetting. Anyway, keep going.

Lowe (3:17 p.m.): The Thunder have never really had a full-time backup small forward for Kevin Durant. Thabo Sefolosha has basically assumed that role in the playoffs, and he wasn't big enough to guard LeBron James in the Finals. DeAndre Liggins and Perry Jones aren't going to be ready in June. Brewer may not impact the Thunder at all, but he's worth a shot as a backup defense-first wing and potential extra ingredient in small lineups with Durant at power forward.

Simmons (3:19 p.m.): And the Zombies certainly could have used Brewer last night against Harden. Hey, it's just dawning on me that the Celtics kept Rondo/Garnett/Pierce together at least through next June. What a strange run it's been ? for three of the last four Februarys, we were thinking to ourselves, They're gonna blow it up, they're gonna blow it up, and it never happened. But during the fourth February, we weren't thinking anything because they had the best record, and THAT was the month they blew it up (Perkins for Green).

Anyway, I'm OK with standing pat this month. Garnett didn't want a trade. That Clippers deal (KG for Bledsoe and Jordan) was sitting there; he didn't want it. (Deny it all you want, Clippers. Your general manager Chris Paul wanted to make that deal.) But Garnett wants to retire as a Celtic. My question is ? when? This summer? Next summer? Or is the plan, "As soon as we're positive that Rondo is healthy, we're dealing him for whatever we can get?"

You never want to be in NBA No-Man's-Land, and right now, the Celtics are in NBA No-Man's-Land. That's why I would have considered a Rondo/Bass for Smith/Pachulia/no. 1 pick deal, as mentioned in this SportsCenter clip ?

? when I successfully (and improbably) used ESPN's touchscreen Trade Machine. Could the Celtics have made the Eastern Finals with Smith? Would it have been worth dealing Rondo? Can they do better with a Rondo trade next summer? Should they deal him at all? Can you write about the Celtics without including eight question marks per paragraph?

Lowe (3:24 p.m.): Something is going to change in Boston soon. The Celtics as of now wouldn't have significant cap flexibility until the summer of 2015, though they could get there a year earlier if KG retires before his deal expires. Rondo only has two more years on his (probably below-market) contract, and he'll miss a chunk of one of them. Smith was an enticing target in theory, and he's close with Rondo, but even an injured Rondo was clearly way above the market price for Smith on an expiring deal. The front office has tried to move on, and they'll keep trying. You can bet they're watching the rest of this season for what it might tell them about Rondo's value; his free agency isn't all that far off, and he may demand something like a max deal.

Simmons (3:27 p.m.): Let's talk about the trades that did happen. What did you think of the Redick deal? I liked it for Milwaukee obviously. But I like all deals for Team X when Team X gets J.J. Redick. I'm a Redickite. Redickphile? Redickan?

Lowe (3:28 p.m.): Milwaukee paid a price for what might end up being a short-term rental, though one that will help them clinch a playoff berth they are 100 percent committed to cinching. They gave up Doron Lamb and Tobias Harris, along with Beno Udrih's expiring deal. Harris's departure is a particularly sad marker. The Bucks need a two-way wing player going forward, and there was great optimism around the league ? both within the Bucks and elsewhere ? that Harris, a bruiser with limited range and unproven defensive ability, might be that player. Guess not ? or at least not in Milwaukee. Lamb is interesting, but he's shooting 35 percent in limited minutes. The Bucks get back Ish Smith, a deep reserve, and Gustavo Ayon, whom the Magic and Hornets both liked before dealing him. Ayon is a useful player who may struggle to get minutes in Milwaukee's crowded frontcourt. He's a smart passer and cutter on offense, and he's a decent defender.

Simmons (3:32 p.m.): Translation: This Redick trade was for NBA nerds only, a.k.a. the people who watch four games at once on a Monday night and know who any of these guys are. And for the record, I am a HUGE Gustavo Ayon fan. I may or may not have been involved in an "I think Orlando has been misusing Gustavo Ayon" conversation within the last few weeks. So I don't love this trade for Orlando because I like the two guys they gave up. Redick is a proven playoff guy. And a good teammate. The Bucks are better, I think.

Lowe (3:36 p.m.): Redick is obviously the highlight of the deal. He's a very, very good player, and Orlando is now officially in full Tank Mode. He'll have to play some small forward, but anytime he takes from Ellis is a plus for Milwaukee. Milwaukee's offense features a lot of fast-paced cutting for pick-and-rolls around the elbows, and Redick has been thriving in that kind of action for years in Orlando.

And he can shoot. Milwaukee needs that, badly. The Bucks are shooting 34.8 percent from deep, 21st in the league, and Ellis is shooting 22.8 percent on a totally irresponsible 3.5 attempts per game. That is borderline sabotage. Here is the total list of players in league history to attempt more than three 3-pointers per game in a season while hitting fewer than 25 percent of them.

Simmons (3:39 p.m.): There's a good chance that he decided to spend the season trolling the advanced-metrics community with his shot selection. Don't rule this out. Maybe he's trying to drive Kirk Goldsberry to hardcore drug use.

Lowe (3:40 p.m.): It may be that Ellis, as good as he can look on majestic highlight layups, is just a poisonous player. He does some things well ? driving, slashing, and finding teammates for productive looks at the rim. But he does more Bad Monta things ? taking long jumpers, basically ? than Good Monta things on offense, and on defense, there is only Bad Monta. He gambles for steals, stands upright so that even "blah" opponents can blow by him off the dribble, he's undersized, and he's an inattentive help defender.

Basically: I'm beginning to believe a team would be better off just not playing Monta, unless he's going to shoot 50-plus percent, which last happened in 2007-08. Shifting some of his minutes to Redick will help by itself, and Jim Boylan should be able to fit Redick in the small forward rotation, alongside Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (all defense, no spacing) and Mike Dunleavy Jr. (all spacing/passing, no defense).

Simmons (3:44 p.m.): I'm suddenly terrified of Bad Monta sharing Boston's backcourt next season with Basic Cable Rondo. You're looking at Monta's career the wrong way, though ? the way I see it, we're just inching closer and closer to Monta reaching his ultimate destiny as an Irrational Confidence Bench Scorer on a contender, like a cross between Vernon Maxwell Circa 1994, Jason Terry Circa 2011 and even Eddie House Circa 2008. Maybe that's what he was always meant to be.

Lowe: (3:46 p.m.): Last point on the Redick deal: It's basically a wash financially for the Bucks in terms of cap room this summer, and it gives them the option of just letting Ellis go ? assuming he opts out ? and re-signing Redick to replace him. But Redick wants to win. Is this the right place for him to do that?

Simmons (3:47 p.m.): If "win" means "winning slightly more games than you're losing," then yes, it's the right place for him to do that. If you're talking about winning multiple playoff series, then no. I'd say that he's more focused on the second point. I was hoping he'd land in Indiana; he could have made a nice splash for the Pacers (they needed another shooter, as you know). If the Bucks land the no. 7 seed, could they bother Indiana or New York in the first round with Jennings, Redick, Ilyasova, SANDERS! and Mbah a Moute or Dunleavy at crunch time? I mean ? maybe? But I think that's where it ends.

Lowe (3:50 p.m.): As for Orlando: It seems they couldn't get a first-round pick, so this return is fine. That's the story of the trade deadline: Only one first-round pick changed hands after January 1 ? the pick Memphis sent to Cleveland in their pre-Rudy trade. About four or five future first-rounders changed hands on average in the last few trade deadlines.

Simmons (3:52 p.m.): So either the new tax rules (and the shrinking cap) changed the trade landscape going forward, or it's a massive aberration that means nothing. Hmmmmmm. Last Bucks thought: Why not deal Monta Ellis as the second part of that Redick move?

Lowe (3:53 p.m.): Perhaps they couldn't find a taker for Monta, though it's unclear if he was in the offer to Atlanta for Smith
(apparently not). The Bucks have the talent to bother anyone, but they're still a step below the East's second-tier teams. "Why didn't Indiana trade a late first-round pick for Redick?" will be a popular question in the wake of this deadline. Ditto for "Where the heck was Utah?" Teams were very cautious with first-rounders, even late ones that typically produce very little. This is a question for tomorrow, though. But a bunch of teams choose "do nothing" over all other options, and that includes the Hawks with Smith. They had offers on the table and chose none of them.

Simmons (3:56 p.m.): For the record, I fully support the Hawks keeping Smith over dealing him for 40 cents on the dollar. Nobody made them a decent offer. Sorry, I'm not dealing someone who was the fourth-best forward in the NBA last season for a crappy Nets first-rounder, MarShon "I'm 24 + Can't Even Play On My Current Team" Brooks and the right to pay Kris Humphries $12 million next season; I'm not dealing him for Brandon Bass, Fab Melo and Jared Sullinger; and I'm not doing it for Jared Dudley and Michael Beasley's Semi-Albatross Contract.

Also, they're 29-23 and have no chance of dropping into the lottery because the East has been so dreadful. Why not keep Smith, then hope you go on a spring run and he plays up his value for sign-and-trade purposes this summer? Don't you owe it to your fans to (a) make an attempt at a playoff run or (b) give them the Illusion of Hope that he might stay and play with Dwight (or get sign and traded)?

Don't ever forget about the Illusion of Hope, Zach Lowe. You're always better off misleading your fans for as long as possible over just doing something dumb immediately. Why not prolong the agony?

Lowe (4:02 p.m.): They could also use Smith as a lure to chase Dwight Howard in the offseason, assuming the Lakers haven't yet erected a statue of Howard outside Staples Center. (Side note: Atlanta would have to free up some cap room to offer Howard his true max, which starts at about $20 million in Year 1, since both Smith and Jeff Teague will carry pricey cap holds.) They may also just view losing Smith for nothing, and remaining lean, as a viable alternative. Taking that course with Joe Johnson might have ultimately been healthier for the franchise.

I've heard from two sources in the know that the Nets final offer was: Brooks, Humphries, an unprotected first-round pick and the rights to Bojan Bogdanovic, though Brooklyn officials would not confirm. That's not a terrible offer, and it comes with little locked-in long-term cost. But Atlanta is fully within its rights to hold its nose and say "no." The Nets will continue the Humphries drama over the summer, and potentially into next season; flipping an expensive contract for another expensive contract is really the only means they have of improving the roster, beyond nailing a late first-round draft pick.

Simmons (4:08 p.m.): That's a horrible offer. Even Geoff Petrie turns down that offer. (Thinking.) You're right, he probably grabs it. Hold on, I asked Rembert Browne (die-hard Atlanta fan, die-hard Beyonc? fan, die-hard Joe Johnson hater) for his take on the Hawks keeping Josh ? partly because he's our Grantland buddy, and partly because he might be the only living Atlanta Hawks fan. The Hawks' fan base is the United States in I, Robot and he's Will Smith. Anyway, here's what Rem e-mailed back.

Rembert (4:09 p.m.): The Hawks did the right thing for the 2012-13 Atlanta Hawks. Who knows if that's a great thing for the future, but I happen to believe they still have a lot to prove, this season, as a team that dealt a premier talent just a year ago. All season, they've seemed to pride themselves as a superstar-less team that works hard enough and believes in one another enough to find ways to win. While I've loved that approach to the game (the exact opposite of the Lakers' "too many cooks in the kitchen" debacle), you can't just deal the one thing on this slightly scrubby team that, at times, shows glimmers of superstardom. (I love you, Al, but no.)

Not this season, at least.

I LOVE YOU, JOSH, EVEN IF YOUR THREES ARE LIKE BLINDFOLDED DRONE STRIKES.

Simmons (4:10 p.m.): So there you go. Somebody should make a coffee table book of e-mails/tweets that Hawks fans share with each other after an atrocious Josh Smith 3. I would totally buy that. Hey, Zach, let's quickly hit the teams that disappointed us because they didn't do anything. I have five.

Let's start with Utah. You mentioned them already, but I'm now operating under the premise that Kevin O'Connor was kidnapped and replaced by one of Sam Presti's spies. First of all, the Kevin O'Connor I knew never would have given up Devin Harris's expiring deal last summer for two years of Marvin Williams, a.k.a. The Worst Starting Small Forward Alive. And second, they have $26 million in expirings with Jefferson, Millsap and Raja Bell, as well as a logjam at forward ? I mean ? what's the long-term plan here? Re-sign everyone? Start over with the young dudes? I'm just confused.

Lowe (4:15 p.m.): Stay tuned. They have a ton of flexibility over the summer. The "doing nothing" course will anger fans who dreamed of Eric Bledsoe, but it's unclear if Bledsoe was ever really available to them, and they can always sign-and-trade Paul Millsap this summer. Keeping Al Jefferson over Millsap would be a shaky decision, but let's give them some time. Maybe they couldn't find an offer that brought in long-term money attached to a player they actually wanted to pay.

Simmons (4:18 p.m.): My second team ? Phoenix. We covered this in Part 1, but their trade-deadline strategy was to grab a bullhorn and scream, "TWINS! NOW WE HAVE TWINS!!!!!!!"

Batting third for me ? Toronto. They dragged Andrea Bargnani through the mud for four weeks ? then they kept him? Huh?

Lowe (4:21 p.m.): They'll continue to look at Bargnani deals later, and see if he can do anything for them in the meantime. He has been really bad, even by his standards, in the last week or so. Again: Teams were very stingy with first-round picks. Had Toronto been able to snag one without taking on a poison deal that runs longer than Bargnani's, I bet they'd have moved.

Simmons (4:25 p.m.): My fourth team ? the Lakers. If you're keeping Howard and D'Antoni, you can't NOT deal Gasol. Inane. Nonsensical. I don't get it.

And last but not least ? Chicago. They punted on competing for a title this season ? la Cuban punting on last season. They have some trade assets, too. What if Rose is operating at 100 percent capacity in four or five weeks? Couldn't they have at least made a run at Redick with Rip Hamilton and that Charlotte pick? Could they have given Miami a real run with Redick and a healthy Rose? I say yes. That makes me wonder if they're sitting out Rose until next season.

Lowe (4:30 p.m.): On the Lakers and Bulls, that struck me as semi-wishful thinking. Gasol might miss most of the regular season, he's still a good player, and he's an expiring next season. Deng is emblematic of Chicago's identity, and though he's the most movable (from the perspectives of both the Bulls and the other 29 teams) of Chicago's big-money players, I'm not really sure how movable he is right now. He's got a big-money contract that would make teams pause, and the Bulls view him as a core piece of a title contender next season. Also: The Bulls didn't dump Rip Hamilton! They are actually set to pay the luxury tax for the first time in franchise history!

Simmons (4:40 p.m.): As we were swapping this last batch of e-mails, Derrick Rose's brother came out and ripped the Bulls for not improving before the deadline, then made it clear that Derrick shouldn't have rushed back if the Bulls weren't committed to contending this season anyway. Now, the history of Loose Cannon Siblings coming out in defense of their famous athlete brothers is basically a disaster, and he DEFINITELY shouldn't have said anything ? there's just no upside. But I agree with Derrick Rose's Loose Cannon Bro in this respect: Why should Rose rush back if the Bulls aren't in any rush to contend for the title? They have legitimate trade assets like the rights to Charlotte's future no. 1 pick, Jimmy Butler, Nikola Mirotic, and even Luol Deng (whom Butler made semi-expendable recently). They could have moved on Redick pretty easily, or maybe even Pau Gasol (using Deng as the bait). They didn't do anything, which reinforces the fact that ?

A. They were never serious about winning the title this season, which is why they built the team they did.

B. Everything that happened (a.k.a. the winning) was an unexpected surprise.

C. They didn't let their success steer them from building a long-term contender around Rose and allowing him enough time to get healthy, even if it meant punting on the title this season.

I agree with the strategy. I think. Just know that, if Rose comes back in April and he's flying around by May, and they're trading body blows with Miami in the Eastern Finals, they're going to wish they had J.J. Redick on their team. (And he's going to wish he was a Bull.) Alas.

Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) is the editor-in-chief of Grantland and the author of the New York Times no. 1 best-seller The Book of Basketball. For every Simmons column and podcast, log on to Grantland. To send him an e-mail, click here.

Previously from Bill Simmons:

Source: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8972027/the-trade-deadline-exchange-part-2

halloween chipotle lsu football lsu football Jessie Andrews bloomberg bloomberg