Oprah's Failure

Oprah, a cultural bastion of wisdom and followers, has once again disappointed me.

She was interviewing the GOP candidate who won't go away (Sarah Palin) and Sarah's daughter Bristol. Here is the video if you'd like to view it: Oprah's Failure

This is the only clip I could find. This clip has been edited, the original has Oprah saying something to the affect of, "I just wanted to give you an opportunity to take a step back from that statement." But Bristol refused to.

So, in this clip Oprah says to Bristol, "I bristled when I read that you said 'I'm not going to have sex before I'm married, I can guarantee it.'" Oprah then goes on to ask, "Why set yourself up for failure like that?" Excuse me?

Here's what I want to know: When did a dedication to abstinence become unreasonable? We expect youth/young adults to remain abstinent from other things! (Marijuana, Tobacco, Steroids, Texting while driving, Etc)

What did Oprah want Bristol to say? "I'm gonna try not to have sex?" "I've been thinking about it and I'm probably not going to have sex again until I'm married."

Which statement sets Bristol up for more failure: "Maybe I'll have sex, maybe I won't but I'll try not to." (Guess what, if she says this, she will!) or "I'm guaranteeing that I will not have sex again until I'm married." By saying this she knows that people will hold her accountable! It makes the decision not to have sex easier because sex now comes with two things: a baby and public ridicule. (Oh, I forgot, in our culture we don't like accountability.)

And, Oprah, even if you want to believe that a generic youth making this guarantee is setting themself up for failure, who is more likely to know that she's not going to have sex: The anonymous 15 year old who has never done it or the mother of a 13 month old who knows what sex leads to and who has been in the public eye for at least 2 years? Hmmm... Tough one...

In the following scenarios, which statement is more likely to set the speaker up for failure:

"I'm gonna try to stop smoking..."
"I'm quiting, I'm never going to smoke again."

"I'm gonna try to stop lying..."
"I'm going to be honest in my relationships. Period."

"I'm gonna try not to drink in college."
"I will not break the law by drinking while underage."

Now let's pretend that Bristol didn't go on Oprah's show and express certainty about something Oprah doesn't agree with. Let's pretend that Bristol went on Oprah's show and was luke warm about something Oprah is passionate about. What would that conversation have sounded like? I submit that it would have gone something like this:

Bristol: "I'm gonna seriously consider lowering my carbon footprint."
Oprah: "What do you mean 'Seriously consider?' This is something that you have to do. We all have to do it! Right, everyone?" (Cheers from the audience) "Now, what do you say? Are you gonna try? or are you gonna do it!?"

I wonder if Oprah's ever guaranteed that she was going to help those girls in Africa who attend her school? Or if she's been certain that she's going to keep her weight from fluctuating. I hope not. If she did, she's only setting herself up for failure.

Payton vs Peyton

Sean Payton, head coach of the New Orleans Saints will face off against Peyton Manning, Quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV.

Of course, there's always some controversy when it comes to the Championship games. I was pleased with the officiating until the overtime session for the NFC Championship game. I'm not sure if the referees just wanted to go home, or wanted to be able to walk safely down Bourbon St. Whichever the case, they gave the game to the wrong team.

On fourth and 1, the Saints went for it. The runner diving over the pile lost control of the football and did not regain control until he was behind the 1st down marker. Somehow this was granted as a first down. Had the correct call been made, Favre and the Vikings would have gotten the ball around mid-field. Only one team had been able to move the ball in the second half and that team was wearing purple.

On 3rd and 7, a phantom pass interference call was made on a ball over thrown by 10 yards. Had the right call been made, likely the Saints would have punted. They might have gone for it, but Belichick only coaches in New England.

On 2nd and 16, a ball that was trapped against the ground was declared a completed catch, allowing the Saints to go for a 40 yard field goal attempt. Had the correct call been made, they'd have been facing 3rd and 16 and looking at a 56 yard field goal attempt that they never would have tried.

As I perused the NFL rule book, it would seem that they've created the "Manning-rule" which is the conspicuous removal of the ruling that a Quarterback who goes under center and takes his hands out without the ball has committed a false start. Well, it's time to take another look at the rulebook.

The NFL rulebook states: "No player on offense may assist a runner except by blocking for him." The NFL needs to decide if they are going to remove this rule or start calling it. I am so tired of seeing three offensive linemen pushing their running back from behind in an effort to gain another three yards. This is illegal but, like the "Manning-rule," it happens every game. Call it or remove it.

Finally, It's time to change the way the NFL handles overtime. There is nothing exciting about a team making it to their opponent's 35 and winning the game with a field goal. I propose the following: Remove the sudden death aspect of overtime. The winner should be the first team to 6 points. Now there is some strategy to kicking a field goal. Do we take three and hope we can keep the other team from scoring a touchdown? Or do we go for the TD and the win now? At least this way to lose without ever touching the ball, you have to give up a touchdown.

For 16 seconds it looked like I was going to have a team to root for in Super Bowl XLIV, and then Favre threw another interception. So, now I have a team to root against: Go Saints!

All Four Super Bowl Previews IV

What has become a perennial subject is one of my favorite posts. This is where I break down all four possible Super Bowls, discuss who will win, which one I'd like to see, and which one the league and the networks are pulling for.

If you'd like to see how I've done in the past, you can read my previous versions here (I'll list them with the year the Super Bowl happened along with the actual teams that faced off): 2007, Colts over Bears; 2008, Giants over Patriots; and 2009, Steelers over Cardinals.

First, I'm officially announcing that I am not going to make a prediction for either Championship game. It never seems to work out for me. I have my analysis and my expectations, but I'm not sharing any actual predictions.

And now, all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most:

Saints vs Jets
There's not a lot for CBS to leverage here. The only real story is that it's a Super Bowl of "firsts". The Saints have never been before and the Jet's have a Rookie QB with an up and coming coach. That's about it. In regards to the actual game: they say it's defense that wins Championships but I think if the Jets make it their defense will be befuddled by the Saints multi-look offense. The Jets may have a very strong secondary but I think the Saints can overcome it. Winner: Saints(Loser: the viewers)

Saints vs Colts
This game could be fairly entertaining: Two gun slinging QBs with high powered offenses facing off. But for as many points as they can score, the Saints faced a much easier schedule than the Colts did. If this is the match-up there would be several lead changes, but Peyton would win his second ring (Then he'd only be 1 ring and 2 Super Bowl appearances behind Brady). Winner: Colts (Loser: Score Board Operator)

Vikings vs Jets
Now here's a storyline: Oldest Super Bowl QB ever in Favre vs an untested Rookie. The MVP worthy performance of Brett vs the shut down defense of the Revis and Jets. This game might resemble the beginning of the Patriots/Panthers Super Bowl where there was no scoring for the majority of the first half. This would likely be the closest of all four possible games. Winner: Vikings (Loser: Jim Caldwell, Colts coach for not going for 16-0)

Vikings vs Colts
This is definitely the game CBS executives pray for every night before bed. No two active Quarterbacks are more loved or followed than Brett Favre and Peyton Manning. Two Generations of greatness on one field. Will it be the passing of the torch? Or will Brett prove yet again why he deserves to be listed as the greatest of all time? Will the Vikings powerful D-Line get to Peyton? Will the Colts secondary make Favre of the Vikings look more like Favre of the Jets? It's just too close to call. Winner: Jersey Retailers (Loser: Joe Montana)

There you have it. What are your thoughts? Do you have a preference? Think I've picked the wrong winners? Now's your chance: be heard!

NBC-ya

This may sound odd, but I used to be an NBC loyalist. If there were two shows on network TV that I wanted to watch, I favored the NBC show. I used to watch NBC's 11 o'clock news when I was in high school. I approved of NBC's choice of Leno over Letterman. I was upset when NBC lost the NFL. Funny, I don't feel quite so loyal anymore.

Not since NBC decided to stick it to the new guy because they made a colossal blunder that they can't admit to. That's what NBC head honcho Jeff Zucker is doing by forcing out Conan O'Brien from The Tonight Show.

I've read conflicting stories about the situation, but in either case Zucker shoulders the lion's share of the blame.

Scenario one: Leno is ready to retire but NBC can't let him go as he is one of only a few shows where NBC beats out the competition so they beg him to stay, offer him an obscenely large contract, and move him to Prime Time. The Jay Leno Show tanks and The Tonight Show under Conan's leadership falters so they try to get Leno back to 11:35.

Scenario two: Leno declares he'll be retiring in five years. NBC announces that Conan is the heir apparent to The Tonight Show throne. The late night scepter is set to be passed and Leno decides he's not ready to be done. NBC sees the possibilities and fears that Leno may sign with another network. So they offer him a Prime Time gig along with an obscene amount of money. The Jay Leno Show tanks and Leno starts to complain that he wants his old job back. Zucker tries to move Conan and The Tonight Show back to 12:05 to make room for a 1/2 hour Leno show.

In either scenario Conan says that the integrity of The Tonight Show is too great to change it's time slot. Zucker agrees and tells Conan to take a hike.

All of this hinges on the fact that the final decision is Zucker's call. In "scenario one" he made a major mess of NBC. The Prime Time show was his idea. Rather than cancel Leno's prime time failure and eat the obscene amount of money they signed him to, he'd rather give Conan the boot and move Leno back to 11:35.

In "scenario two" Zucker was afraid that Leno would sign with another network, so he creates a new show in prime time for Leno. After it tanks and Jay "the bully" Leno says he wants his old job back Zucker acquiesces and sends Conan packing rather than telling Leno that if he wants to take his ball and go home, that's up to him, but Zucker isn't going to move him to another team.

The dirtiest part about all of this is that under Conan's contract, anything that he's developed while with NBC is not his own intellectual property. So when he goes to FOX he can't take "In the Year 3000," "The Celebrity Survey," or "The Sears Tower wearing Sears Clothing" with him. They belong to NBC.

I was once one of Leno's most loyal viewers. Not anymore. I'll wait for Conan to sign with another network. Until then, it will be rare that my rabbit-eared TV will be tuned to 30-1 and I can guarantee that it won't be set to that channel past 11PM on weeknights.

41.

Massachusetts has spoken. The message was loud and clear. Just like the midterm elections under the 41st President were a mandate against the war, this run-off election was a mandate against Obama's plan for nationalized healthcare. Republican Senator Scott Brown is the 41st Republican in the Senate. The Democrats no longer have a filibuster proof majority. The healthcare bill can now be stopped.

In actuality, the Obama Administration should be thankful that they had this opportunity to hear from such a large number of independent voters. Not only independent voters, but independent voters who historically vote liberal. They swung to the right on this issue. And these aren't people who are uninformed about the President's healthcare agenda. As long as this bill has been on the table the Dems have been trying to sell it to America by pointing to Massachusetts and saying, "Look, it's working there." Massachusetts has just pointed back and said, "Nope, we don't want it."

As with all political issues the spin patrol is in high gear. High ranking Democratic officials are saying that this wasn't Massachusetts way of saying "No thank you" to the healthcare bill. The Dems are saying that Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, lost because she ran a lackluster uninspired campaign. She lost because she hinted that Curt Schilling might be a Yankees fan. Former President Clinton and President Obama both flew to Massachusetts to campaign for Ms Coakley. The Democratic Party pulled out all the stops and she lost. John Kerry wore a Yankees hat in Yankee stadium and he still carried Massachusetts.

You know what? That's fine with me. Let the Democrats think the vote isn't a mandate on Washington's politics and policies. Let them think it's about the Candidate and the campaign. The longer they swallow that Kool-Aid, the longer they will be out of touch with the majority of America's independent voters and the more seats they'll lose come November. Feel free to ignore the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Pretend that Senator Brown won Massachusetts with his charisma. Bottom line: The Democrats lost Massachusetts and when the Democrats lose Massachusetts they have a national problem. If they want to stick their collective heads in the sand, that's fine with me.

The Obama Administration does have two final options to get their healthcare bill passed: They can either force a vote before Senator Brown is seated or they can force a delay in his seating so they can get their vote. I say: Go ahead. Force it through before he's seated. Be the party full of bullies that ignores the voters mandate. Either action would only increase the number of seats they are going to lose in November.

Finally, I have a correction to my previous post. I attributed a quote to some political pundit. I was wrong. The quote actually belonged to Senator Scott Brown. He was asked in a debate last week if he was willing to sit in Kennedy's seat and block health care reform. Brown replied, "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

And for the first time in over 40 years, the people made the right decision!

Irony

There are two totally unrelated, wonderfully ironic possibilities in the very near future. One political, the other sports related. Perfect for JMO.

Massachusetts: The people of Massachusetts will soon be voting for a new US Senator. The seat vacated by Teddy Kennedy is up for grabs and it's anybody's guess right now which political party will claim victory. The Democratic candidate (Martha Coakley, MA's Attorney General) displayed an early lead, but the Republican hopeful (Scott Brown, MA State Senator) has made a late push. While Ms. Coakly once held as much as a 15% lead, most polls show a dead heat, and some even have her trailing very late in the game. (On a side note, one unbiased news reporter asked a political pundit who he thought would win Senator Kennedy's seat to which the commentator corrected him: "The seat does not belong to Edward Kennedy. It belongs to the good people of the state of Massachusetts." But there is no such thing as the liberal media.)

Where is the irony? I spoke, live, one on one, with a Congressman from New York. It was at a town fair and he didn't know that I wasn't one of his constituents. I requested that he vote against the healthcare plan. He asked me why I felt the way I did. I briefly listed some of my concerns. He was ready with the party line of, "Well, look at Massachusetts. It's worked there so clearly it can work on the national level." And now, it is Massachusetts that can decide if we will be forced to bear this irresponsible burden or not. This one Senate seat could upset the Democrats "Filibuster-proof" majority. If Scott Brown wins this election, the Republicans would have enough votes to kill the Healthcare Bill. How well is it working in Massachusetts? I guess we'll find out when the people of that blue state decide if we will be forced to have national healthcare or not.

Indianapolis: Week 16 of the NFL's regular season: The Jets are all but eliminated. They must win their last two games to have a shot at the post season. The Colts are looking at being only the second team ever to go 16-0. But they thumb their nose at history and curl up and die for their opponent. Who was that opponent? The New York Jets. If the Colts played like a real NFL team, the Jets would have been eliminated.

Where's the irony? The Jets have shocked football fans everywhere (Except in New York) by defeating both the Bengals and the Chargers. Now, in the AFC Championship game they face none other than the Indianapolis Colts. The very team that could have prevented them from getting to the playoffs. If the Jets are able to eliminate Dallas Clark and the Colts it would be poetic justice for the Colts deciding they didn't want to actually play any football for the final two weeks of the season.

I love irony of all kinds. I will be ecstatic if both of these ironic possibilities come to fruition!

Reflections on the Playoffs thus far

My beginning thoughts are general thoughts about no one specific game.

First, I want to hear the outrage from the "purists" for Favre and the Vikings running up the score on the Cowboys. I don't think that what the Patriots did in 2007 was "unsportsmanlike" but there are those that do. I want to hear from those people the same sentiment towards the Vikings. Or is only unsportsmanlike with it's a team that plays in New England?

Second, can we all agree that we now know why Belichick and the Patriots "Go for it" on fourth down so often? I'm fairly certain that these playoffs have proven that field goals are no longer "easy points." "Just put the points on the board" is no longer a guarantee. I think I've seen more missed field goals in the past 8 games than I've seen in an entire season.

So, for the Divisional playoff round, I decided to give up on analysis and just pick all of the teams that started with a "C": the Cardinals, Colts, Cowboys, and Chargers. Three of them lost. Why is it that the JMO curse doesn't seem to apply to teams that I don't like, but applies in all other cases? The only team that won that I picked was the game that I was hoping I'd picked wrong.

Speaking of the Colts, I have a few questions for the officiating team of that game.

1) Late in the first half a play was run and there were 9 seconds left on the clock. Then, just before the ball was snapped for the next play, the clock read 11 seconds. Where did those 2 seconds come from? Those two seconds allowed the Colts to run an extra play and score a TD, rather than have to settle for a FG.

2) Since when is a receiver who has caught the ball "Defenseless"? Third and goal, Dallas Clark catches a TD pass and the ball is knocked loose by a perfectly timed hit by the DB. But a flag is thrown giving the Colts 4 more chances to score. And they do. So, where is it in the rule book, again, that a receiver who has caught the ball is "defenseless"?

3) Are there special rules for players who wear a horseshoe on their helmet? I could have sworn that if you play the receiver and not the ball and you interfere with the completion of the pass that it's pass interference. Just like what happened when the Ravens faced 3rd and 3 in the 3rd. But, as my question supposes, there must be a separate rule book for the boys from Indy.

In the end, I knew that the Ravens would not win because a team can break down film, they can game plan, and they can execute. A team can pressure the QB, stop the run, disrupt the passing game, but there is one thing that no team can do. No team can defend against the refs.

Stay tuned to JMO. Don't miss my annual breakdown of all four possible Super Bowls. Let's see if I can call the participants and the winner of that game wrong, too!

Imagine

It seems that every time the new year rolls around, someone decides it's a good idea to ring it in with John Lennon's "Imagine."

I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that I don't like the song "Imagine." And not because I want my stuff or even due to my outspoken dedication to one specific religion.

The world that John imagines is one of a purposeless drab useless existence.

Imagine no religion and no heaven and hell. Ok, that means that the life I live is regulated to this world. There is no reward or punishment, so I have to find meaning in this life, as there isn't one that follows.

I'll pour myself into Patriotism and the defense and bettering of my country. Oh, wait, there are no boarders, boundaries, or countries. Ok, well, that's out.

Hmm, I'll find something I'm passionate about. What's that John? There's nothing to kill or die for? Well, while I get the nothing to kill for (with the exception of possibly killing one to save many others) If I have nothing to die for, what kind of life is that? I wouldn't give up my life for my children? My wife? I have no religion be martyred for or country to defend. What's left?

I guess I'll live a life of comfort. Oh no! All of my stuff is gone! I have no possessions.

What am I left with? The brotherhood of man? Based on what? The fact that we live in a world devoid of hope, meaning, purpose, drive, or ambition.

John's utopia is in fact a distopia. If I lived in his imagined world I might just have found something to die for: to get out of it.