#there is also the chance that we see a repeat of 2016 in how incompetent trump is that he ends up doing fuck all

[peiskos-and-apricity]

History is going to look back on the people who voted for Trump the same way it looks back on the people who supported Nazis and I'm not even exaggerating. Be joyous in your victory now, but know that when your grandchildren talk about their family tree they're going to erase your name out of pure shame. I hope your heart weighs heavy with the pain you have brought to future generations. I hope it hurts.

[legaleaseus]

Asylum Interview and Application Tips & FAQs from a Former Asylum Corps Officer

On Monday, June 4, 2018, Ethan Taubes, a former asylum officer at the Newark Asylum Office, spoke to RIF Asylum Support community members about the asylum process, the Asylum Corps, preparing the asylum application, and the asylum interview. Mr. Taubes also answered general questions from audience members after his talk. Read our earlier blog post, Former Asylum Officer Ethan Taubes speaks to community members at RIF Asylum Support. Here are some pointers and FAQs we've taken from Mr. Taubes's presentation.

Asylum Interview and Application Tips

Submit a complete asylum application. There are three essential elements that an applicant needs to submit when applying for asylum: (i) application form; (ii) statement; and (iii) supporting documentation for your claim. Submitting all of these together will help an officer verify your story and determine your credibility. The statement must explain your asylum claim and help the officer understand how you qualify for asylum. It is important to provide an explanation of any issues that an officer may wonder about. If possible, explain how and when you got the documents you are submitting and the reasons why you are submitting the documents.

Provide relevant documentation to prove your claim. Asylum officers conduct background research and have access to the most current country conditions reports. Do not include documents that give no value to the application. Provide documents that are personal to you as the applicant. Provide articles mentioning you by name, if those are available and support your claim. Submit targeted news articles that corroborate your story. Include documents that support or corroborate your claim, such as medical records and photos that show your injuries. Submit documents that are accurate and genuine, however, fraudulent documents may be submitted, with an explanation of its purpose, if it supports your claim. 

All documents in a foreign-language must have a certified English translation. It is very important that when submitting documents that are not in English, that it has a corresponding certified English translation by someone who is fluent in English and the foreign language. 

Submit additional documentation or updated information well before the asylum interview. Asylum officers have many responsibilities. They conduct two interviews a day and have two days in advance to review a particular application. It is best to submit additional documents or updated information before the interview date to give the officer time to review the new documents before the interview.

Ask for necessary accommodations before the interview. The asylum applicant should be able to accurately and thoroughly convey their personal story and the reasons why they should be granted asylum. Asylum officers understand that a person's traumatic experience may cause them to have memory lapses, anxiety, and other psychological issues. If this is the case, notify the office before the interview so they can make special accommodations and explain why. For example, if you suffer from PTSD as a result of your experience in your home country, provide information about your condition (such as a psychological evaluation) to explain memory issues or inconsistencies. Another example is if you are a victim of domestic violence and prefer to have a female officer conduct the interview, then you may request this accommodation before the interview.

Do not lie. During the interview, if you do not understand the question, ask the officer to repeat the question. If you do not know the answer to a question, say you don't know. If you do not remember details, say you don't remember. It is important to be truthful all the way as lying will bar you from asylum or other immigration relief. 

Prepare for your interview. The typical interview lasts two hours, so it is important that you conduct a dry-run of your interview. Review the asylum application and supporting documents you submitted beforehand. If you have an interpreter, make sure that you prepare with your interpreter. They are your mouthpiece, so they have to be familiar with the way you speak and be able to translate word-for-word. They must be confident in English and understand your dialect. You want someone to be able to stand up for you and speak on your behalf – fight for you.

FAQs 

What happens to applicants who are deemed not credible by the asylum officer? Two weeks after the interview, the applicant will receive a written decision about their case. If the officer determines that the applicant is not credible or there is not enough evidence to grant asylum, then the applicant's case will be referred to immigration court, for a second chance to prove their asylum eligibility in front of an immigration judge.

What happens to the applications that have been in the backlog (applications filed on 2016-2017)? How is the office handling the last in, first out (LIFO) policy? What is the rationale for the change? Did the asylum law change? According to the new last in, first out policy, applications in the backlog, including those filed before the institution of the new policy, will have to wait longer for their interviews to be scheduled. If there is an emergency, such as if there are family members whose lives are in danger, then the applicant can make an application to expedite directly with the asylum office. To deal with the backlog, refugee officers are helping asylum corps officers and the office has been ramping up the hiring of new officers. The reason for this change in policy is to deter frivolous claims and stem the increase in the backlog. This is merely a change in policy and the bases for applying for asylum remain the same and have not changed despite emerging trends in asylum adjudication.

When should an applicant apply for asylum? Is there a mandatory waiting period before an applicant can file for asylum? No. The decision when to file for asylum is for the applicant and their attorney/representative to make. There is a one-year filing deadline, but there are exceptions to this deadline. In some cases, it is recommended to apply before your status expires, but we do not recommend filing the application before you have all the necessary documentation to prove your claim. Typically, when you file an application, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has a stake in your case, so they would want to see that your case is resolved and you will not become a deportation priority.

Can you amend or modify your application after you submit it? Yes. If you have additional or updated documentation, please submit it before your interview (see tip above). At the beginning of the interview, the officer will ask you if all the information you provided so far is true and accurate. If this is not the case, then this is an opportunity for you to make the necessary corrections.

What happens if the country conditions have changed while your asylum application is pending? It depends. A change in country conditions does not necessarily mean that the person is no longer in danger if he were returned to the country. In certain cases, the applicant has undergone so much persecution in the past that it would be unconscionable to send him back. This is a case-by-case analysis and it is up to the applicant to show reasons why they should not be sent back despite the change in country conditions.

If you have a family member that has submitted an application in the past and you file on your own, is there a connection made because of the relationship? Not generally. Asylum applications are confidential and personal. The officer is not allowed to use other applicants' testimony unless they give a waiver of confidentiality (e.g. "You may use my brother's testimony for my asylum application, and he agrees to waive his right to confidentiality in order for you to do so").

Do family members have to be in the United States to be included in the application? Yes, all applicants included in the application have to be in the U.S. and will have to undergo the interview, including spouses and children. They will be asked questions to determine whether there are issues that may exclude them from getting asylum (called "asylum bar questions"). Family members outside of the country can be added later after the principal applicant is granted asylum in the U.S.

Is it imperative to have an interpreter? Can your lawyer be your interpreter? What happens if the interpreter is incompetent? The asylum office will not provide interpreters so you must provide your own interpreter if you are not confident in the English language. Your lawyer can be your interpreter, but this means that she cannot serve as your lawyer at that time, since she has given up her role as a lawyer to become your interpreter. If the officer or monitor determines that your interpreter is incompetent, they will stop the interview and reschedule for another time, which may further delay the process and the 180-day clock for employment authorization purposes.

What is the role of the monitor? The monitor cannot act as your second interpreter. Their primary role is to intervene when there is an error in the translation and are there to help minimize potential credibility concerns. They are considered a safety net to make sure that the record is accurate and reliable.

What is the role of the lawyer? The lawyer has a very limited but important role in the asylum interview. Their major responsibilities are to serve as a witness and to rehabilitate the applicant if necessary. They make ask the applicant questions to help clarify and make a summation at the end of the interview. Generally, the officer runs the interview and decides on the lines of inquiry. The lawyer is there to make sure that the interview is professionally conducted by the officer and to serve as support for the applicant.

If you have any questions about the asylum application process, please contact us. We are here to help. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or Tumblr for up-to-date immigration news.

RELATED CONTENT:

Major Changes to Asylum Interview Scheduling

Former Asylum Officer Ethan Taubes speaks to community members at RIF Asylum Support

What happens after my asylum interview?

Rasoulpour Torregoza is the law firm for immigrants, by immigrants. We are founded on the motto of LegalEase: we do away with the legal jargon and make law easy to understand, so you can focus on what’s important to you – going for your American Dream. Contact us at (888) 445-7066  or info@legalease.us. We are also on social media and on Skype: @LegalEaseUS. || This website and blog constitute attorney advertising. Do not consider anything on this website or blog legal advice as the law is dynamic, particularly in the immigration field and nothing in this website constitutes an attorney-client relationship being formed. Set up a one-hour consultation with us before acting on anything you read here. Past results are no guarantee of future results and prior results do not imply or predict future results. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits.

[yahoo-shutdown-corner-blog]

2017 NFL Preview: Texans try, try again to solve quarterback problem

Shutdown Corner is previewing all 32 teams as we get ready for the NFL season, counting down the teams one per weekday in reverse order of our initial 2017 power rankings. No. 1 will be revealed on Aug. 2, the day before the Hall of Fame Game kicks off the preseason.

If you ever look at a desperate move a team makes at quarterback and wonder how an otherwise smart organization loses its mind over one position, just remember the Houston Texans.

The Texans have almost everything in place. They have a defense that led the NFL in yards allowed, and that was without the great J.J. Watt for most of the season. DeAndre Hopkins is a fantastic No. 1 receiver. Receiver Will Fuller, a 2016 first-round pick, had some promising moments. Running back Lamar Miller was a solid free-agent addition who posted a 1,000-yard season. I thought the Texans were in for a nice breakthrough last season. And they did have a good season in many areas, with one glaring exception.

You can have a lot of key pieces in place, and if you’re incompetent at quarterback your ceiling will be limited. The Texans can look at a 9-7 record, division title and (incredibly fortunate) playoff win and dream about what might have been had Brock Osweiler been decent. He wasn’t.

The Texans paid $72 million over four years for Osweiler last season. On his first drive, he forced a pass that was intercepted by a Chicago Bears team that would finish with just eight interceptions all season. That set the tone. Osweiler was rattled by pressure, never looked comfortable in the offense, played poorly and got benched. Tom Savage then got hurt so Osweiler had the chance to lead a playoff win (kids, this is why “quarterback wins” isn’t a real stat) but the Texans knew he had to go.

This is how desperate the Texans are at quarterback: They traded the Browns a second-round pick just to take Osweiler off their hands. They still haven’t done anything with the money they saved – presumably, it was earmarked for Tony Romo, who retired – which makes it look like they just wasted a second-round pick. Then they sent the No. 25 pick and next year’s first-round pick to move up to No. 12 and take Clemson’s Deshaun Watson, the third quarterback in this year’s draft class.

Maybe general manager Rick Smith and coach Bill O’Brien are desperately trying to take the next step with a talented roster that just needs a quarterback. Maybe they realize they can’t survive a terrible season and needed to do something dramatic to protect their jobs. Maybe it’s a little bit of both. But the Texans have spent $37 million on Osweiler, turned the No. 25 pick and a 2018 first-rounder into the No. 12 pick and all they have to show for that is Watson, who smart NFL draft analysts have serious questions about. That doesn’t seem efficient. And this entire mess could have been avoided if Derek Carr had a different last name.

Maybe the carousel stops with Watson. Goodness knows Smith and O’Brien need him to be the answer. Watson was an awesome college player, and you have to admire how he carved up Alabama in two straight CFP title games, considering Alabama is as close to an NFL junior-varsity defense as you’ll find. There are worse gambles than putting all your chips on someone like Watson, who has succeeded on a big stage and draws rave reviews for his character.

Even if Watson does a Dak Prescott imitation, the Texans weren’t nearly as good as last season’s record. It’s not often you’ll see a playoff team that was outscored by 49 points, as Houston was. Eight of their nine wins came by seven points or less. They finished 29th in Football Outsiders’ DVOA per-play metric, and it’s impossible to believe a playoff team will ever finish lower. They had a putrid offense and even worse special teams. The offensive line comes in as a question, with right tackle Derek Newton already out for the season after tearing both patella tendons and left tackle Duane Brown’s minicamp holdout due to his contract. There are issues to fix other than just the quarterback position.

But a competent quarterback is the most important piece. If the Texans had a quarterback who was middle of the NFL pack, the rest of the problems wouldn’t seem so bad. And if Watson isn’t the answer, one assumes the Texans will keep investing assets to finally find someone who can be.

The Texans traded up to draft quarterback Deshaun Watson. (AP)

You can certainly argue whether it’s worth it to eat a $16 million salary for a second-round pick, which is what the Browns did in the Brock Osweiler trade. But the Texans didn’t reinvest the money they saved, so there’s no real benefit for them this season. The Texans also lost cornerback A.J. Bouye, and since money talks louder than anything else in the NFL, it’s worth pointing out that Bouye got the largest contract for any unrestricted free agent switching teams this offseason. And the Texans signed … nobody. Literally. The Texans didn’t add one veteran free agent until former Indianapolis Colts linebacker Sio Moore signed in June, and Moore won’t excite anyone. Deshaun Watson better be really, really good. Grade: F

The defense is legit. The oft-repeated stat that the Texans finished No. 1 in total defense is a little misleading – they tied for fifth in yards allowed per play – but it was a strong defense. The Texans smartly added linebacker Zach Cunningham in the second round of the draft. Cunningham can cover better than otherwise stout middle linebacker Benardrick McKinney and he can eventually replace mainstay Brian Cushing. And if we assume J.J. Watt returns at full health from back surgery, and he looks like the Watt who won three NFL defensive player of the year awards, the Texans could be the best defense in the NFL. That has to be their ceiling after playing so well without Watt.

Imagine if Brock Osweiler plays really well with the Cleveland Browns this season. He seemed like just part of a cash-for-pick transaction, but then he got good reviews in OTAs. It’s not out of the question he could start. He had good moments for the Denver Broncos in 2015, and two organizations offered him a fortune (the Broncos offered Osweiler $16 million per season, something all John Elway fans conveniently forget). If Osweiler plays well this season, doesn’t that look terrible on Bill O’Brien? It’s hard to tell if O’Brien is a very good coach who keeps grinding out 9-7 records with a terrible quarterback situation, or he’s part of the reason the Texans keep having a terrible quarterback situation. If Osweiler succeeds in Cleveland to any degree, you’d have to wonder if it’s the latter.

The Texans are the latest team to insist they want someone other than their first-round pick at quarterback to start. Sure. The Texans keep supporting Tom Savage as the No. 1 quarterback, and he’ll enter training camp as the starter. Savage also has no career touchdowns, can’t stay healthy and in the one game he started and finished last season he struggled mightily against the Cincinnati Bengals. As stated in the Chicago Bears preview, from 2006 through last year, 25 of 27 quarterbacks picked in the first round started at least one game as a rookie. Watson will play. It’s just a matter of whether he starts Week 1 or shortly after.

The answer is clearly J.J. Watt, but he’s never starved for media attention so we’ll talk about another key piece: receiver DeAndre Hopkins. Hopkins has 4,487 yards through four seasons, which is a heck of an accomplishment given how bad Houston’s quarterback play has been. He dipped from 1,521 yards and 11 touchdowns in 2015 to 954 yards and four touchdowns last season as the Texans’ quarterback play really cratered, but he’s still supremely talented. Getting Hopkins back near that 1,500-yard mark has to be a top priority for Houston. Hopkins is also in the final year of his contract. The Texans need to get that extension done, and you’d assume some of the money saved in the Brock Osweiler trade will go to that.

From Yahoo’s Liz Loza: “PPR enthusiasts would be well advised to keep an eye on Braxton Miller. A developmental talent in his rookie year, the converted QB is slated to be the Texans’ slot receiver this season. Excelling in the short-to-intermediate passing game, the 6-foot-1 and 200-pound WR could work as a safety valve for first-year QB Deshaun Watson, who has struggled with deep accuracy.

“Taking notes from new assistant wide receivers coach Wes Welker, who played under Bill O’Brien in New England, Miller is in ultra-capable hands. He’s not worth a roster spot at the moment, but given Will Fuller’s inability to stay healthy or hold on to the ball, it’s nearly guaranteed the former Buckeye will make his way into an add/drop conversation before midseason.”

[Fantasy Football is open! Sign up now]

Jadeveon Clowney has become an impact player, but not exactly in the way everyone expected when he was the first overall pick of the 2014 draft. Clowney has become one of the league’s best run defenders. According to Pro Football Focus he was the third-best run defender among all NFL edge defenders, trailing only Seattle Seahawks end Michael Bennett and Denver Broncos outside linebacker Von Miller. Clowney had a huge game in a wild-card playoff win over the Oakland Raiders. Clowney rushed the quarterback well in that game though he didn’t record a sack, and maybe that’s a sign that he can become a double-digit sack player in the future. If he could reach 10 sacks or more, he’d be one of the best defensive players in football.

IS WHITNEY MERCILUS THE NFL’S MOST UNDERRATED PLAYER?

Mercilus rarely gets talked about when the Houston defense is brought up. J.J. Watt gets a majority of the attention, and Jadeveon Clowney gets most of what’s left. Even Brian Cushing and Vince Wilfork during his brief Texans career seemed to get more pub. All Mercilus does is consistently rush the quarterback. He had 12 sacks in 2015 and 7.5 last season. Mercilus, who will be just 27 years old this season, is consistent at an important role. Even his $4.5 million salary is modest for what he produces. He’s a big reason the Texans’ defense is as good as it is.

The Texans keep going 9-7 and the great unanswered question is: How much better could they be with a quarterback? Maybe Deshaun Watson will be an instant star, or Tom Savage will surprise everyone. It seems like once the quarterback is in place, everything might come together. If J.J. Watt is healthy, the defense should be dominant. If the Texans have finally figured out the quarterback position, the offense might be good too. If that happens, they should win the AFC South again and maybe have some hope going into the playoffs.

Hopefully J.J. Watt returns to form. Because if Watt has lost a step after back surgery, the Texans would be devastated. Watt is an all-time great. The Texans also have to be nervous about what happens at quarterback, because they’ve invested too much in Watson to start over anytime soon. And if Watson isn’t good, this regime wouldn’t be around to pick up the pieces anyway. A lot can go wrong for the Texans. They weren’t as good as their record last season, but they’ve set a playoff expectation. If the AFC South finally improves, the postseason might not be as easy to reach.

When you start by viewing the Texans as a flawed team that was pretty fortunate to make the playoffs, it’s hard to see how a rookie quarterback sparks that much improvement. Maybe Deshaun Watson will be good enough to hold off some of the regression that should be coming. But it’s never smart to bet on a rookie quarterback, and who knows how much time the Texans will waste on the Tom Savage charade. The Texans have lived at 9-7 three straight seasons, but it’s hard to see them reaching that mark again.

32. New York Jets 31. Cleveland Browns 30. San Francisco 49ers 29. Chicago Bears 28. Los Angeles Rams 27. Jacksonville Jaguars 26. Detroit Lions

– – – – – – –

Frank Schwab is the editor of Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at shutdown.corner@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter! Follow @YahooSchwab

[junker-town]

How Sidney Crosby's genius defines the Penguins

Crosby has been better before. But in some ways, he's as great as ever.

The goal that delivered the Pittsburgh Penguins to this Stanley Cup Final is the same goal they’ve scored a zillion times since 2005. Sidney Crosby went after the puck in the corner. He came away with it cleanly. A fortunate teammate moved to a prime shooting position. Crosby put the puck on a platter, and soon, it was in the net.

We want the Cup. http://pic.twitter.com/TBmwo3SZ90

— Pittsburgh Penguins (@penguins) May 26, 2017

It was similar to the first point Crosby ever scored in the NHL: an assist on a Mark Recchi goal in the third period of the rookie’s first game in October 2005. “Go get the puck. Find a window. Put the puck through it.” Wash, rinse, and repeat. Crosby is the greatest player of this generation, and he has many gifts, but none has wowed me more often in the last 12 years than his puck retrieval.

Whether he’s corralling bouncing rubber on the half wall on a power play, outmuscling someone for it beneath the goal line, or making a ricochetting reception and then turning on his edge to set up the game-winning goal in double overtime of Game 7 in a conference final, he’s making it look so easy. Here are two great examples, from 2010 and the first round of this year’s playoffs.

The numbers bare out Crosby’s ceaseless brilliance as a possessor of the puck. In his career, the Penguins have gotten 54 percent of the game’s shot attempts when he’s been on the ice at even strength — 4 percent better than the rest of his team. He’s also good at turning possession into goals. His 44 during the regular season won him a second Rocket Richard Trophy as the league’s top goal scorer. He has seven goals in these playoffs, out of 20 points in 18 games. Overall, he’s second in the league scoring race behind teammate Evgeni Malkin.

Crosby turns 30 this summer. He has captained Pittsburgh to two Cups. His quest for a third continues with Game 1 of the Final on Monday against Nashville (8 p.m. ET, NBC). It’ll be his fourth Final appearance in the last 10 years.

Crosby’s been better before, but he’s at the height of his genius right now.

There are people who will tell you that Crosby has never been better than he is right now. That is not true. Crosby’s peak was the first half of the 2010-11 season, when he averaged a preposterous 1.61 points and 0.78 goals per game at 23 years old. (The NHL’s career leader in goals per game, Mike Bossy, averaged 0.76 in an era that was far more high-scoring.) Crosby was filling the net at a historic pace for 41 games before a concussion robbed him of his season and a big chunk of the next one. We’ll never see a more dominant stretch.

Statistically, Crosby hasn’t improved a ton since he was an 18-year-old rookie. He’s settled between 84 and 89 points each of the last three regular seasons. When he was healthy earlier in his career, a Crosby 100-point year was as sure a thing as the sun rising in the east. The average NHL game featured 3.08 goals in Crosby’s rookie year. This year, the number was 2.77, and even that marks the highest total since the 2010-11 season that Crosby had been running away with. His totals have fallen off, too.

But he is still a mainstay at the top of the league scoring race. The next time Crosby plays more than 53 games in a season and doesn’t finish in the top six in points will be the first in his career. (He has done so during three presidential administrations and under four head coaches, with linemates ranging from Phil Kessel to Andy Hilbert.) He was second this year, beaten by the guy who’s going to succeed him as the player of the generation: Edmonton’s Connor McDavid. Other than McDavid, Crosby still trounces every young player in hockey.

He’s achieved longevity through his preternatural talent, but also by endlessly renovating his game. For years, Crosby seemed to take at least one huge leap every season. One year it’d be faceoffs, and another it’d be his shot — his forehand, because Crosby emerged from the womb with the best backhander in history.

Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

But by now, Crosby has nearly run out of things to get way better at. (Faceoffs, where he just had his worst season ever, are about it.) He is now in the business of continual refinement. His shot has gotten markedly better, for one example. Crosby added a thunderous slapper to his repertoire a few years ago, and he had his best shooting percentage since 2010-11. There’s luck in that stat, but Crosby is undoubtedly a sharper goal scorer than he used to be. He’s not quite the same chaos-creating setup man he was when he was in his early 20s, but he’s now the best finisher in the sport.

Crosby played the fewest minutes this year of any healthy season in his career. The Penguins have also worked harder than ever to deploy him in favorable situations. He started 61 percent of his shifts in the opponent’s defensive end, by far the most of his career. If you look hard enough, you can see that Crosby is past his prime. He’s just so good that “past his prime” only means he’s a top-three player on the planet. Crosby has beaten back time’s advance with a longer spell of greatness than almost anyone.

Crosby’s graceful aging raises a point: The Penguins are the luckiest team in the world.

In 2003-04, they were the NHL’s worst team. They totaled a laughable 58 points in the standings, played in front of fans dressed like orange seats at the decaying Mellon Arena, and finished dead last in the league. That netted them the best odds in the 2004 draft lottery, where the prize was a firecracker of a Russian winger named Alexander Ovechkin. He’d be the guy to save us, we had hoped.

That didn’t happen. Washington won the lottery, and the Capitals jumped the Penguins to pick Ovechkin first overall. This 10-year-old was devastated beyond measure. I shouldn’t have been. Missing on Ovechkin helped to save hockey in Pittsburgh altogether.

It’s not that Ovechkin hasn’t had a great career. He has. But the lockout-induced cancellation of the 2004-05 season created a perverse circumstance. The Penguins had been the league’s worst team, but for the 2005 draft, the league didn’t just award them the top lottery odds again. That wouldn’t have been quite fair, letting the same team have the most ping-pong balls in two straight lotteries.

To set its lottery odds, the NHL used a weighted system. There were 48 balls in a machine. The teams that got the best odds were those that missed the playoffs each year from 2002 to 2004 and didn’t pick first overall in any of those years’ drafts. By virtue of missing out on Ovechkin, the Penguins were one of those teams. They got three of those ping-pong balls. And then they got lucky.

While celebrating the Summer of Stanley, let's flash back to 11 years ago when the #Pens won a different prize.https://t.co/xR8gbNOURZ

— Pittsburgh Penguins (@penguins) July 22, 2016

Crosby was as surefire a first overall pick there has ever been. He was hailed as the greatest prospect the sport had seen since Wayne Gretzky. He’s lived up to it. And because the Penguins lost the Ovechkin sweeps, they had a 6.3 percent chance to get Crosby instead of 4.2 percent.

If the Penguins win the Cup this year, that’ll mark three times in three Cups that Crosby has beaten Ovechkin to get there. He’s had tons of help every time from Malkin, the center drafted one pick after Ovechkin in 2004. The Pens got a two-for-one.

The player picked one slot after Crosby in ‘05 by Anaheim, current Senators winger Bobby Ryan, was standing at the side of the net as Chris Kunitz finished Crosby’s feed to end the conference final on Thursday.

The Penguins wouldn’t be here — maybe literally — without Crosby.

Mellon Arena, formerly the Civic Arena, had housed the team since it joined the league in 1967 and was open for a few years before that.

Mario Lemieux, the team’s greatest player ever, bought it in 1999. He exchanged his salary for his stake, saving the franchise from bankruptcy. The Penguins had what they viewed as an unfavorable revenue-sharing deal and tried for years to get out of the dome-shaped Igloo. They didn’t wind up doing so until 2010.

The Penguins demanded a publicly funded new arena and used other cities — especially Kansas City, which was opening a new venue in 2007 — as leverage. They made explicit threats about bolting. There were fits and starts that suggested the Penguins might get what they needed to stick around, including a proposed revenue partnership with a casino and a near sale to the guy who made the Blackberry.

State and local government eventually came around, as politicians who don’t want to be blamed for losing sports teams usually do. Lemieux said after the fact there “wasn’t a possibility” the team would leave, which is almost definitely untrue. The Penguins gave taxpayers a bath to make the new building happen, but they got what they wanted. They got what I wanted, too. Lemieux’s announcement to an Igloo crowd in 2007 that the Penguins wouldn’t leave town was an all-time sports moment for me.

Where Crosby comes in: fan interest. The Penguins were last in the league in attendance in 2003-04, putting less than 12,000 people in the seats per game. That number went up to about 16,000 the year after the lockout, when No. 87 was a rookie. It kept going up steadily from there. The team is now approaching 500 consecutive sellouts and hasn’t missed the playoffs since 2006. Crosby has been the central figure in the team’s renaissance, although it’s not fair to ignore the also stupendous Malkin.

Kids in Pittsburgh in the ‘90s had Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr to look to as sports heroes, the sort of players who’d convince a 5-year-old to play hockey. (Jagr, still my favorite athlete ever, did that for me.). Lemieux’s medically fueled decline, a salary dump of a Jagr trade, and the Penguins’ general incompetence from 2001 to 2004 created an enthusiasm vacuum. Crosby filled it, as a marketable superstar who also happened to create lots of goals. He made hockey boom in Pittsburgh again. The team’s success behind him, Malkin, and goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury has made it a behemoth. Hockeytahn, USA.

Lemieux has said that Crosby saved the franchise, and on that, he is probably right. The Penguins had been so miserable for the previous four seasons, and their future was in such disarray, that Crosby was a needed salve. The Penguins would’ve marched south without him, or they wouldn’t have been this good in Pittsburgh. They would not be four wins from the franchise’s fifth Stanley Cup in 50 years of existence.

There’s no overstating how fortunate the Penguins have been in their timetables for being good and bad in the last 35 years. They iced one of the worst teams in NHL history in 1983-84, and it netted them Lemieux with the first pick in the ensuing draft. Getting Jagr fifth overall in 1990 was a coup of epic proportions. The team’s last dry spell, right after the turn of the millennium, yielded kingmakers: Crosby and Malkin. A win over Nashville will cement theirs as the best era in Penguins history.

Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

Crosby and Lemieux celebrating last spring’s Stanley Cup win against San Jose.

The end will come eventually. It’s not coming right now.

Crosby now occupies a space similar to LeBron James’ in the NBA. He isn’t what he once was, but he’s still better than everyone on the ice. His numbers aren’t what they once were, but they’re still consistently at the top of the game. Someone else can win MVP, but he has limited company in any “best player in the world” conversations.

Father Time is, indeed, undefeated. A day will come when Crosby isn’t Crosby. He had the worst spell of his career at the start of last season, before Mike Sullivan arrived as the Penguins’ coach, and that was worrisome. His history of concussions, the most recent coming in the second round this year, is mortifying. It’s looked at points like Crosby’s steep decline had arrived. Someday, it will.

But it’s not here yet. Crosby is different than he used to be, and he’s been better at points in the past. He’s now an old master and not a young one. But he’s still uniquely great.

[iamsiopaolo]

A Statement by the PAP on the “Death Penalty”

The Philippines is one of 140 countries that have abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice, as part of a global trend away from capital punishment (Amnesty International, 2015, cited in “The Death Penalty Worldwide”). Yet there have been repeated calls for the Philippines to reinstate capital punishment, with current Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte wanting to restore it. (see Andolong, CNN Philippines, 2016). The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP) articulates its position on capital punishment from the point of view of evidence-based social science, psychology in particular, as well as of ethics. We are convinced that the Philippines has made great strides in humanitarian development by abolishing the death penalty. We are not in favor of reinstituting it in our penal system. Capital punishment does not deliver on its hopes for better justice, closure for all parties concerned, and better crime prevention. It does not give full cognizance of the implications of its irreversible effect, the reality of the limits and inevitable class discrimination of the judicial process, and the misconception of closure and justice itself. The PAP advocates for the much better alternative of informed and rehabilitative justice, where both offender and offended get the best chance for a more positive process of closure and redemption. We present the following arguments to support our position: Observations about the practice of capital punishment point to its discriminatory nature. In the Philippines, it is typically the poorer sector who get this ultimate penal sanction. The majority of those sentenced to die have incomes below minimum wage (FLAG, 2000), unable to afford the legal services to defend themselves in a long process (CHR, 2007). Poorer, less educated Filipinos would not have the intellectual preparedness to think through ways of defending themselves (Te, 1996). This places them at a serious disadvantage.

Judicial flaws compromise the validity of the death penalty. These may include incompetent counsel, inadequate investigatory services, or even outright police and prosecutorial violations of judicial procedures. In the Philippines, torture or ill treatment of suspects to coerce confessions or to implicate others is commonplace. Victims often fail to lodge complaints against the police due to intimidation, fear of reprisals, and lack of funds (Amnesty International, 2002).

History also points to gross misapplications of the death penalty law, with vulnerable individuals protected by Philippine law from capital punishment finding themselves on death row. In 2003, there were 7 children in death row along with adult convicts (Amnesty International, 2003). The year 2000 saw 5 persons aged 70 or over in death row (FLAG, 2000, cited in Amnesty International, 2002). These examples show that it is not always certain whether the right person is convicted and, in this light, the death penalty is too high a price to pay when innocent people are convicted.

The death penalty, and the legal proceedings leading up to it, could exact a huge toll on the psychological wellbeing of victims, offenders, and their families. Majority of those on death row in the Philippines have been convicted of rape, with incestuous rape as the most common form. Victims of incestuous rape rarely seek the death of their offender but simply desire cessation of abuse, re-establishment of safety, and rehabilitation of their family member. A possible death penalty sentence for these cases has been noted to keep victims from pursuing charges, and a death sentence for the offender can bring guilt to the victim, further sorrow, and conflict within affected families (Madrid et. al., 2001; People v Agbayani, 348 Phil. 368, 1998; Jamon and Bautista, 2016). In fact, majority of groups representing women and children in the Philippines, who are common victims of death penalty crimes, have taken a stance against capital punishment for rape and incest because they believe it would not solve the problem (Kandelia, 2006).

A common argument for the death penalty is that it brings closure to victims and their loved ones. Indeed, research shows that some families do experience relief or peace upon imposition of the death penalty on their offenders. Yet in significant number of cases, the death penalty did not bring healing or closure to the offended (Vollum and Longmire, 2007). Instead, what seem to be therapeutic for victims’ families are to make sense of what happened to their loved one, to make meanings out of their unpleasant experience, and to construct an empowering and restorative narrative (Armour and Umbreit, 2012).

The judicial system’s primary goals should be the rehabilitation of those who have erred and the restoration of a sense of dignity in those robbed of it. This is more in line with the human right to dignity and the absolute value of all human lives, including the lives of those who commit crimes. The PAP’s position on the death penalty is consistent with its Code of Ethics, particularly the principle of Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples, consonant with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (PAP, 2010). Extending the human rights logic, the right to life prevails over the principle of lex talionis (i.e. an eye for an eye). Even retributive justice, which posits that offenders must be punished and that the degree of punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of crime, does not automatically and necessarily indicate death as the ultimate penal sanction (Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson, 2002), leaving a key question for research about the appropriate maximal penalty for the most serious crimes. Moral proportionality (Carlsmith et al., 2002) need not be deemed opposed to principles of restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence (see King, 2009). It is the task of research to help illumine how multiple perspectives representing both abstract principles and people’s everyday sense and decision-making (Carlsmith et al., 2002) could guide practices of prevention and rehabilitation.Given all these, we oppose the reinstatement of the death penalty. Furthermore, we resolve to support efforts to:

• Disseminate evidence-based information on capital punishment, especially its effects on psychological health

• Protect the rights and promote the welfare of vulnerable individuals especially against police and prosecutorial violations of judicial procedures;• conduct psychological research on alternative maximal sanctions and therapeutic dimensions of judicial processes for victims, offenders, and their loved ones; and

• Develop programs that aid in the redemptive rehabilitation of offenders, that support victims and their loved ones through and in the aftermath of judicial processes, and that foster the psychological wellbeing of these persons.