NFL Power Ranking, Week 11

As the season heats up and the playoff picture becomes a little clearer, Just My Opinion: Just the Facts returns with a current NFL power ranking:

10) Arizona (7-3):

The phoenix is on fire thru the air, so is Warner. Wins over Dallas and Buffalo get you on the list.

9) Indianapolis (6-4):

Losing to teams you should beat (Chicago, Green Bay), and beating teams you should lose to (Pittsburgh, New England) is not the way to get to the playoffs. But it does get you on the power rankings.

8) NY Jets (7-3):

Classic Favre is tossing the INTs at a higher rate than in the frozen tundra. But he doesn't have the Defense to allow it. Reign that in and you might see the post season.

7) Dallas (6-4):

Tough stretch without Romo at the helm. Wins against Philadelphia, Green Bay and Washington get you on the list. Losses to Arizona and St. Louis means you're mired in the bottom five.

6) Tampa Bay (7-3):

The silent striker. No one is talking about you. But big wins over Carolina and Green Bay put you on the map.

5) New England (6-4):

Bradyless second place? Something must be going right in Foxboro. Compare what Cassel's done to the Romoless 'Boys. The division is still within reach.

4) NY Giants (9-1):

Perhaps the most inflated record in the league, but 9 and 1 none the less. Only impressive win was against a healthy Philadelphia. Tough stretch coming up after Arizona: Washington, Philadelphia, Dallas, Carolina. Your post season will be decided there.

3) Carolina (8-2):

Like The Bucs, you are quietly beating key teams. With a relatively easy schedule headed into the playoffs 12-4 isn't out of the question.

2) Tennessee (10-0):

Inflated record like the Giants, except that you are winning big against the bad teams. Your first challenge of the year doesn't come until week 16 against Pittsburgh. Then you face of against your nemesis Colts for the last game of the season.

1) Pittsburgh (7-3):

First in overall defense. First in defense against the run. First in defense against the pass. 2nd in points allowed. You'll play the role of spoiler when you face Tennessee.

Apu. It's been a loooong time since you've commented! Tell me what you think! Everyone else is also free to share their opinion!

Change?

"A vote for Obama is a vote for change" was the mantra of the President Elect's campaign. Then, after winning the election, our masterful rhetorician made some comments that made us believe that he might appoint people from different political parties, not just Democrats. I was encouraged. Perhaps real change would come to Washington.

One by one his selections have hit the newspapers and the airwaves. John Podesta, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Ron Klain, perhaps even Hillary Rodham Clinton herself. What do these people all have in common? They all served on the Clinton administration (Hillary unofficially, but basically). So, it turns out that "A vote for Obama was a vote for the Clinton administration."

Hmm. If I wanted the Clinton administration, I think I would have voted for her.

And where are the "other-minded" people? Where is the balance to his cabinet? Where is the change!?

So we have to ask ourselves: When Obama campaigned on "change," what type of change did he mean?

A) Something we've never seen before in the oval office. (I'd argue this is what most people believed.)
B) Something opposite of what we have right now. (As most people believed A, this would have to be a part of that by definition.)
C) Something that we've done before but is different from what we have now. (This appears to be the tact he's taking.)
D) "I'll just say whatever it takes to get elected." (I'm not actually going this far, yet. But time will shed more light on this option.)

A friend of mine was raised in a culture that believes, "It doesn't matter what I say, what matters is what I do." This friend said that he believes Obama was raised in a similar culture. He bases this on certain speech patterns, key words, and actions that he's seen in the President Elect that hearken to the culture that my friend is so intimately familiar with. I hope my friend is wrong.

On a post on Dr. James' blog is September, I posted the following comment:

I looked very hard at the other side. I wanted to like Obama... And up until his convention I was seriously considering him as a potential candidate. I hadn't counted him out simply because there was a D by his name.

Then he gave his speech.

First, let me say that I watched about 90% of the DNC. I wasn't really surprised by what I heard. "No intelligent person would vote for McCain." "It borders on treason to do so.." yada yada yada. I expected Barack to rise above that. I anticipated a unifying speech. I expected something fresh.

What I got was politics as usual. It was his convention speech that convinced me that I was going to vote against Obama. I heard no real change. I heard just change in party. If Washington is broken, as he claims, then going in and doing the exact same thing the other party is doing with a different agenda isn't going to fix anything.

I was heartfully disappointed by his speech.

... [Obama] has completely disappointed me. I firmly believe his is my brother in Christ. I respect him for that. I believe he has the best of intentions. I'm not sure if [the following is due to] his campaign people or if he's just so entrenched in politics, but I do not see him rising above the sludge of misleading statements, out-right lies, and negativity of standard politics.

I had high hopes. Perhaps my hopes were too high. But I feel like his campaign during the primaries gave me that hope.

My turning point is when he said in his convention speech, "When they run out of new ideas, they revert to stale tactics to scare voters. They make their opponent out to be someone people should run from" Something he had just spent the last 20 minutes doing.

When I didn't see the promised change in his political strategy, I hoped that he was simply doing what was necessary to get elected and that the change would come once he was in office ~ A Machiavellian "ends justify the means."

I'm still not seeing the change. I'm seeing the same old politics as usual ~ Where power is more important than the people.

AL MVP

They finally got it right!



Dustin Pedroia wins AL MVP!

I was worried that K Rod would sweep this honor out from under last year's AL Rookie of the Year due to his record setting performance for the Angels.

Thankfully, the voters realized that a gold glove and silver slugger winning day in, day out patient contact hitting second baseman with power is more valuable than a man who comes in for an inning every third game. K Rod finished sixth overall.

Justin Morneau finished second and Dustin's teammate Kevin Youkilis finished third.

For times the voters got it wrong see: 2005, 2006, & 2007

Still Political...

Even though the election is over, there are still many political things happening in this world and I'm here to comment on a few of them.

Economy: I am amazed at how quickly this economic crisis has exploded in regards to the scope of those it is affecting! During late September and all of October, even into early November, this was a "National Crisis." Our country was mired in an economic crisis with now end in sight. Then, suddenly on November 5th, the crisis changed. News stations across the nation started referring to it as a "Global Crisis." Really, there are only two options as to what's happened. Either our economy so rapidly attacked the economies of Asia and Europe that news stations suddenly needed to change the graphic and wording regarding the crisis ... or ... they found that it's really difficult to blame a president (and, by association, a party) for a "Global Economic Crisis." However, a "National Crisis" simply lends itself to being the fault of the executive office. Of course, once the need for the term "National Crisis" is over, they were free to utilize the sensationalized term "Global Crisis." What liberal media?

President: Some of the countries that have been effected by the crisis have met in an attempt to determine what steps they can take to shorten or overcome this economic climate. President Bush attended this meeting. The story should end there, right? But there were people that protested saying that President Elect Obama should have attended. Now, I know people really want their free healthcare to start soon, and they want their tax breaks that Obama voted against when he was a Senator that he's going to institute once he's president. And I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but... Obama is not president yet and therefore he should not be attending international meetings as though he were. Sorry.

Bail out: The senate is debating sending a portion of the $700,000,000,000 bail out to Detroit for the auto makers how have been hit by this recession. On the one hand I wanna know why we're only bailing out certain industries. Mortgages? Banks? Auto makers? The Airlines after 9/11? Why not retail Jacuzzi sellers? They must be struggling. Casinos? I'm sure their business is down. The Detroit Lions? They could sure use it. On the other hand, (and this is the more troubling aspect) if the government decides to extend the money to the auto makers a stipulation is that the government would then have an ownership stake in those companies. Pardon me?! What would the government be doing with an ownership stake in GMC, Ford, and the others? Let's see, what does the government owning big business sound like... Oh yes, I remember now: Socialism. Nothing like having the Dems in power without any checks or balances!

Just a few things that have been bugging me.

Kids Say the Darnedest Things

I so very much enjoy having conversations with our little two and a half year old Full House. The things he comes up with:

I'm often amazed at the sheer vocabulary of words our little man has:

When asking for blueberries
Full House: I want big, huge, MONSTER blueberries!

Driving home
Full House: Look, daddy! Our intersection!

Climbing on his crib
Full House: I'm an acrobat

It is probably no surprise based on who this little man's dad is that he likes sports. He's still learning the details though. He likes to play with his tee-ball which he calls "hit the ball bat." Several times after fantastic hits he's been known to yell:
Full House: Yay! Go Red Sox! Touchdown!

When he gets angry, he tends to want to bite things, particularly that thing which is frustrating him. Nine times out of ten, that's mommy or daddy:
Mommy: Are you biting mommy?!
Full House: No, I'm CHEWING mommy!

And little ones take things so literally. One day, after he tumbled off the couch and bumped his little head on our hard wood floor:
Mommy: (Seeking the injured body part) Oh, little man! What did you hit?
Full House: The floor!
Mommy: (trying desperately not to laugh) and what hurt?
Full House: The wood!

Often, you can get a good sense of how others see you by what your kids say. One day, Full House wanted to listen to his music in daddy's car. Daddy tried to explain why that wouldn't work:
Daddy: Your music is on a CD, mommy's car has a CD player. Daddy's car has a cassette player.
Full House: Oh... I see. (He really says this.) Mommy's car has a CD player.
Daddy: That's right, and Daddy's car has a...?
Full House: (He thinks for a minute) Daddy's car has a BASEBALL player!

I can't even begin to put into words how thankful I am that the Queen of Hearts is my wife and the mother of my children. She is immeasurably amazing. For as wonderful I think my son is, the credit belongs to her. We just celebrated six years together, I hope for sixty more. And I hope that I never make her feel taken for granted. She is my life. And that's a fact, not just my opinion.

President-Elect Obama

Dear President-Elect Obama,
Congratulations. This is an historical moment for our country. I'd like to congratulate you on your tireless, no doubt stressful, campaign. You overcame not only the obvious barrier of being the first African-American to have a real chance at the White House, but other less mentioned barriers: two very popular politicians in Hillary and John. You had further to climb and more circumstances trying to hold you back and yet you were victorious. You should be very proud.

You addressed a group of voters during your acceptance speech: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn..." Well, that's me. "- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices." Sorry Senator Obama but that remains to be seen. I'm going to be honest with you Mr. President-Elect. I wanted to vote for you as you emerged the winner the Democratic primary contest. I wanted to back someone who was promising to, as you put it last night, "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." But you then participated in that very act during your national campaign. Was this a case of "the ends justify the means?" You are now echoing the very words spoken at the RNC by the man you just defeated for the highest office in the land. He said, "Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let's try sharing it." I truly hope that you live up to this hype that you failed to live up to during your campaign. Perhaps, now that you have attained your goal, you can be the statesman, not the politician, that I had originally hoped for. My challenge for you: Win my vote in 2012.

You are a very inspiring speaker. While this definitely helped you win this election, I fear that it could unseat you as well. In all of your charismatic oration, you've convinced people that you can somehow bring about a type of utopia. Free healthcare, peace in Iraq, a better life for the middle class. I urge you, please examine past economic policies before instituting your own. The middle class will not likely support you again should they receive more in their paychecks from the government, but less from their employers only to see more go toward everything they have to purchase.

Having said all of that, you are my President and I will support you, critique you, and pray for you. I will openly support your policies that I agree with, and I will condemn those that I don't. Should the scale ever tip too far to the latter, my support for you may falter, perhaps even fail. But make no mistake. All that you've done before is past. I will view it as the means to this end and let you start anew.

~One whose support you have, but whose vote you have not yet earned,
Just My Opinion.



Ok, before I could write the above letter, I had to get out of my system a letter of a different ilk. Here's what I had to write first:

Dear President-Elect Obama,
Congratulations. You've managed to deceive more than 50% of the people that chose to vote that you were the right man for the job. Truth be told, with the way you ran your campaign, the Democrats could have nominated a lemming and it would have won over the Republican nominee. It was obvious from the get-go that "we can't afford four more years" would be the Left's mantra. And while the GOP managed to nominate the most non-Bush of the bunch, you still managed to pin the Bush III moniker on him. Well done.

You've got a long road ahead of you. I hope you are already planning your rebuttals to the "read my lips" moments that you can expect in 2012. Tax breaks for everyone making under $150K, free healthcare, more jobs, higher wages, out of Iraq, renewable energy, abortions for all, A BCS Playoff, a rebound in the economy (Even as I type the DOW falls), assistance for "main street," and unconditional talks with Iran, North Korea, and Syria, just to name a few. Your tax plan should accomplish the first one, but that means it will make the third and fourth improbable (if not impossible). Those not occurring will likely mean that the ninth will be quite sometime in coming. Which, of course, means that you won't have the money necessary to do numbers two, six, and ten. Even now, you can't carry out the eleventh because when they heard that you would sit without precondition, the leaders of those countries set some preconditions of their own. Now they have the power in the relationship. That leaves the fifth, seventh, and eighth. You don't actually have the power to do the eighth, though it would be nice. The fifth is a non issue because we've already agreed with their government that we'll be out by 2012. Which leaves the seventh. Yup, there's no doubt we'll get that one.

You made a call for unity. I find that ironic. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the party not in power to find a way to unify with the party in power. I'm just wondering why you expect Republicans to unify with you when you, as a Senator, made no effort to unify with them.

In conclusion, part of me looks forward to see if you will really do what you promised: bring actual change to Washington. Or if you will simply continue the partisanship and make it left leaning. Another part of me can't wait to watch your economic plans prove, yet again, that Ronald Reagan was an economic genius and that, like most things in life, to effect the long term you might have to do something that looks like it is sacrificing the short term but if you focus on the short term you are guaranteed to sacrifice the long term. If you take that path, your long term will be short, and will still be looking for the first two term African-American President.

~One whose vote you have not yet earned,
Just My Opinion.


now go read the first letter again.

Voting Booth, Volume XIV

As the election is today, I have a few, short thoughts that I need to get out before we vote. I will arrange them in an order that I feel is descending from most important to least:

If you read nothing else, read this! The election was days away. The economy was in shambles. The working classes were afraid of losing their jobs, they faced pay cuts, strike rumors swirled in the wind. The upper class was afraid that they were going to lose everything they'd worked so hard to save and create.

The election was a close one. The Democrat won the popular vote. It looked as though the Republican had won the Electoral College. But the outcome was unclear. After months of lawsuits, in late December, the Republican was awarded the White House.

Does it sound like I'm describing the 2000 election? I'm not...

During the uncertainty, the blue collar people began major sweeping strikes. Industry shut down. Riots broke out in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Fransisco, and St Louis.

The new President had to make a decision: The upper class was calling for him to send in the national guard to subdue the rioters and break up the strikes. However, the army was spread so thin fighting a far off enemy, there may not have been enough soldiers to do the job. His second option: he could do nothing. Stand by, allow local authorities to take the necessary action against the rioters. Let capitalism decide how the strikes ended.

Had he chose the former, it would have simply aggravated the situation. Wisely, the Republican President chose the latter. He did nothing. He did not send in the National Guard, he did not aid the strikers or the companies, he did not pump money into the economy. He did one thing: He sent troops to keep the peace. He never sent troops to end the riots, only as peacekeepers once the riot was concluded. The economy rebounded.

Economists speculate that had he acted on behalf of either party in the strikes, it would have simply prolonged the situation. They believe that had the President intervened, the economy would have struggled for at least two decades. Instead, it rebounded before the decade ended.

Am I prophesying about the 2008 election? No. All of this happened in 1876-1877. The President? Rutherford B. Hayes.

History repeats itself because we are no longer students of history.

Stock Market: The Media has been declaring this the worst economic downturn since the great depression. We are to believe that the country has never faced this magnitude of crisis since we needed to elect a Democrat to three terms to get us out of it. Guess what... It just isn't true. Many of you know I work for a large financial company. Today, our CEO sent an internal message to the employees to assure them of the companies financial security. He said, rather offhandedly, that October was the 8th worst month for the stock market since 1930. The 8th! Not the first, not even in the top 5. EIGHTH! There have been nearly 80 years since 1930. That's almost one worse month per decade! But, remember, as the economy fell, so did voters to Obama. But the media isn't biased. I'm surprised they didn't try to call this the Greater Depression or Great Depression II: This time it's personal!

Expectations: Obama is already laying the ground work to lower expectations of what he will and will not be able to do as President. Even he recognizes that he can't do what he's promising! A woman at an Obama rally said, "I never thought this day would happen. I won’t have to work on puttin’ gas in my car. I won’t have to work at payin’ my mortgage. You know. If I help him [Obama], he’s gonna help me." Ridiculous. You read it here first. Should Obama win and unless something miraculous occurs, he will be a one term President.

Associations: Obama has repeatedly attempted to disassociate himself with four different people/organizations. ACORN, to which he gave $800,000.00. The felon "Tony” Rezko. Bill Ayers, from whose house he announced his candidacy for Senate. Due to this connection, Obama could not work for the FBI, CIA or NSA. But he can be President. He's distancing himself from the former CEO of Fannie Mae from whom he "didn't take financial advice." Rev Wright, whose church Obama attended for twenty years. To his own admission, he was there approximately twice a month. 2 times per month times 12 months per year is 24 times per year times twenty years is 480 sermons. But he didn't know Rev Wright was controversial. Either he's lying, or he thought the comment "The U.S of K.K.K.A" wasn't controversial. Obama even said, "I will not repudiate the man [Rev Wright]." Another example of his brilliant rhetoric: "Repudiate:" To reject the validity or authority of; To reject as unfounded, untrue, or unjust. Obama chooses a word most people don't actually know to tell the truth in a very veiled way that sounds honest and respectful.

Prediction: Since 1936, With one exception in history, how the Washington Redskins go the weekend before the election, so goes the incumbent party. When the Redskins lose, there is a change in party in the White House. When they win, the incumbent party keeps the Executive Office. (The exception? Their 2004 loss to Green Bay, yet George W Bush remained in office.) As I type this, Washington leads Pittsburgh 6-0. Not a good result for McCain. Pittsburgh rallied to win 23-6.

A few notable quotables:
"for the first time in my, really, adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country" Michelle Obama

"Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world will test Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. We are going to have a crisis, an international crisis to test the mettle of this guy." Joe Biden

So, in conclusion, what does this country really need? A politically inexperienced lawyer who studied under a racist hate monger and partnered with known terrorists while exercising his blind ambition for higher and higher offices. One whose economic plans have been proven by previous administrations not to stimulate the economy, but stifle it, the exact opposite of what history had taught regarding his opponent's policies. Yeah, that's what we need.

Don't forget! Neverfindout.org

Now go vote!