Just another (usually unsuccessful) attempt at some brief thoughts on several subjects: I'll do the sports last so you can read until your interest wains.
President Obama: I'm realizing more and more just how much like Lincoln Barack is trying to be. This fully came to light when I looked at who Lincoln had in his cabinet. Lincoln was opposed by two other candidates during the general election and he was the underdog when it came to his own party's nomination. What did he do once he won? He appointed the man who opposed him in the primaries and the two men who ran against him in the general election to his cabinet. Now where have I seen that recently?
One major difference between Lincoln and Obama is that Lincoln seemed to realize that he was a steward of the country and its finances. It was his duty to properly manage the sacred trust bestowed upon him by the American people. He wrestled day and night when the war appeared imminent and continued to do so even during the conflict. The current president seems to believe he is the owner, rather than the steward of America and her fruits. He appears almost flippant about handing out billions of dollars that we don't have that don't belong to him. He is not being a conscientious steward of America's finances. History has proven that simply dumping money into the economy does not rescue it from a recession. For as much of a student of history as he is, it disappoints me that he doesn't seem to be aware of this. Perhaps he is acting simply to act because he would take much more criticism if he did nothing, even though Rutherford B Hayes and other statesmen have shown that sometimes doing nothing is best.
The Stimulus: The Stimulus package will not create jobs in the way we are meant to think it will. The jobs it is going to "create" are temporary and will be filled by people already working. There will not be 200 job interviews because they are extending highway 20 to intersect with I-25 in Colorado Springs. That work will be done by people already doing that work. The people out of work will remain out of work, the people working will work more.
Wells Fargo: It came to light recently that months after accepting a $25,000,000,000 bailout (I think the zeros help us understand just how much money this is) Wells Fargo cancelled a week long luxury trip to Las Vegas for some of its employees. This is the right thing to do, right? Well, it would have been had they not been pressured into cancelling when the trip came hit the media. And it would have been the right thing to do had they not then spent a ton of money taking out a full page New York Times ad whining about the fact that they felt forced to cancel their trip and oh their poor employees who deserved to be rewarded and now won't be. Yeah, because the only way to reward employees is with a week long luxury trip to Vegas. I guess with all the years I've been employed I've never been rewarded.
Newsflash to mortgage companies: It will never be like it was before. The sooner you learn this the better. You can't be so close to bankruptcy that you take $25 billion from tax payers and then decide that you have enough funds to have a lavish party. If you can have the party I want my money back.
Favre retires again:
Brett Favre announced recently that he is retiring for the fourth time. He didn't really mean it the first 3 times. During his interview a reporter apologized for her scepticism and he replied, "You don't need to apologize, you have no reason not to be sceptical." So, is it for good this time? He's injured which helps the yes side. But it's not career ending. Smart money has him announcing that he's playing for Tampa Bay by August.
A Rod tests positive for steroids:
There's some controversy surrounding this issue. In 2003, Major League Baseball did "anonymous" tests to see what percentage of players were using illegal performance enhancing drugs to see if there was a need for a comprehensive player testing program. The number was over 30% and due to some pressure from Congress because of MLBs special anti-Monopoly exemption they implemented the test.
A-Rod has not tested positive (as far as we know) since the official testing began. However, he was one of the players tested in 2003 when he was with the Texas Rangers and information has been leaked that he was one of those that tested positive. In a well scripted interview he admitted that he knew he was taking an illegal substance but did not know fully what it was.
People are saying that he shouldn't really be held responsible because the test was supposed to be anonymous. I heard Mike Golic of Mike and Mike in the morning on ESPN radio say, "What if you were taking what you thought was an anonymous test about how you felt about your boss? The information of what you said gets out and they fire you! What happened to the anonymous part?! This never should have come to light and A-Rod should not be punished for taking illegal steroids." Ok, here's the problem with that: A-Rod wasn't putting tacks on his Manager's chair, he was taking illegal steroids. The appropriate analogy would be "What if you were taking what you thought was an anonymous test about whether or not you were embezzling money from the company?" A-Rod wasn't just displaying poor sportsmanship, he was breaking the law.
Kudos to Commissioner Selig for considering altering the record books to no longer reflect those players that have tested positive for steroids. A co-worker said to me, "Consider this: You know that you can drive 90 on the freeway and there's no punishment. Not only that, but you'll get a huge chunk of cash if you do it. Are you gonna do it? Of course you do it. It's human nature." A punishment needs to be in place. So many baseball players are "stats guys" that this just might deter most of them from sticking a needle in their butt. "If I'm caught, it's as though I never played the game... No thanks."
There seems to be a pattern: a few days away from posting equals a multi subject post.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
The Stimulus (Spending) Package
I just love it when my government lies to me.
Oh, wait, no I don't.
What is a "Stimulus Package" to me? Well, I see it like this: If you've given money to the government, we want to give some back so you can flood it back into the economy, thus stimulating it. Seems logical then, that the best way to do that is to provide funds to people and organizations that paid taxes and will put that money back into the economy. It might be smart to send it to people or places that will create jobs, or maybe even to begin programs that will generate more revenue in the future.
Looking at this list I am astonished that this is being called a "Stimulus" package. That would be like Congress ordering 20 new Stealth Bombers, 18 new nuclear subs, countless bombs and munitions and heralding it as the "Peace Bill!" This piece of... legislation is stuffed with the very thing that McCain wanted to remove to keep the budget balanced: Pork! (I don't know who in certain cities has pictures of Obama in compromising positions Maybe toking on a bong? [Right Phelpsie?...] but some cities are slated to receive crazy amounts of money! Los Angeles $4,301,000,000, St. Louis $1,131,500,000, Fort Worth $1,063,600, Cincinnati $333,548,000.)
In an effort to assist the Obama Administration in keeping their promise of transparency, here is a breakdown of only the heavy hitters in regards to what is included in the Stimulus Package that the house Democrats passed the other day. In the interest of discussion, I've withheld my personal feelings about which of these projects might actually be worth while and which ones should probably be tossed. In reading the list, I couldn't help but feel like there were certain politicians thinking "Well, the moneys there, let's try to get some!"
I was going to list all of the line items when I saw this web page. Florida alone has 1752 projects. So, here are the heavy hitters (I'll list them by state, most money to least in the heavy hitter categories) Have fun!:
Puerto Rico ($18,510,000,000)
• $17.5 billion for 100 new acres of energy efficient industrial zones in Cidra Puerto Rico.
• $500 million for solar water heaters for families in rural areas of Cidra Puerto Rico.
• $350 million for a rail system in Cagus Puerto Rico.
• $150 million for improving the track and getting land for little league parking in Cidra Puerto Rico.
• $10 million to construct a sports arena in Camuy Puerto Rico.
California ($7,258,000,000)
• $2.16 billion for the LA Solar Program in Los Angeles California.
• $750 million for a railyards tunnel in Sacramento California.
• $500 million for Los Angeles Port "Green" jobs.
• $500 million for the Green Jacobs port in Los Angeles California.
• $500 million for major street repair in Los Angeles California.
• $500 million for SHRA in Sacramento California.
• $450 million for a new police administration building in Oakland California.
• $350 million to rebuild the rail system in Los Angeles California.
• $300 million to build an airport parking garage in Oakland California.
• $291 million to replace buses in Los Angeles California.
• $275 million for transit upgrades in San Francisco California.
• $270 million to expand, upgrade or relocate 17 libraries in Oakland California.
• $246 million in tax breaks for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $55 million for water treatment plant in San Jose California.
• $50 million 280/880 interchange upgrade in San Jose California.
• $40 million to promote use of alternative fuels in Long Beach California.
• $20 million for the Oakland family land trust in Oakland California
• $1.5 million for state of the art traffic controllers in Hayward California.
• $500,000 to build a dog park in Chula Vista California.
Florida ($4,488,893,000)
• $2.463 billion for a 10.5 mile Orange line project in Miami-Dade Florida.
• $426.5 million for 2.4 mile Orange Line improvement in Miami-Dade Florida.
• $400 million for a seaport tunnel in Miami-Dade Florida.
• $352 million to construct a jail in Miami-Dade Florida.
• $300 million for SFECC extension in Miami-Dade Florida.
• $280 million for Miami Streetcar in Miami-Dade Florida.
• $267 million for a water/sewer plant in Miami-Dade Florida.
• $393,000 to buy patrol rifles in Pembroke Pines Florida.
Texas ($3,811,896,000)
• $600 million to improve Loop 820 within the North Richand Hills city limit in North Richand Hills Texas.
• $471 million to improve the T Rail in Fort Worth Texas.
• $386 million to construct a convention center hotel in Dallas Texas.
• $383.5 million for flood control in Fort Worth Texas.
• $350 million to build a convention center in Irving Texas.
• $350 million to build an office tower in Irving Texas.
• $350 million to build a new strip mall in Irving Texas.
• $246.54 million to build a bridge in Dallas Texas
• $200 million for the IH-35/IH-820 interchange in Fort Worth Texas.
• $190 million to expand the MetroRail Red line in Austin Texas.
• $127.5 million for the Waller Creek Tunnel project in Austin Texas.
• $40 million to upgrade the public safety radio system in Dallas Texas.
• $20 million to build a pedestrian bridge over a railroad in Dallas Texas.
• $18 million for a pipeline in Dallas Texas.
• $18 million to build a boardwalk around Lady Bird Lake in Austin Texas.
• $18 million for phase II of a Latino Cultural Center (design and construction) in Dallas Texas.
• $9 million to improve the Spinks Airport and Fire Station #42 in Fort Worth Texas.
• $6 million for vehicle detection stations in Austin Texas.
• $6 million for CW Ditto Golf Course Renovations in Austin Texas.
• $5 million for a water tower replacement in Allen Texas.
• $5 million to capture landfill gases and turn them into hydrogen and compressed natural gas (CNG) in Beaumont Texas.
• $3.5 million for fire station #5 in Allen Texas. ($500 million nationwide for fire stations)
• $2.5 million for bike and pedestrian paths in Austin Texas.
• $2.278 million to build a two and a half mile trail in Dallas Texas.
• $2.278 million to build a two mile trail in Dallas Texas.
• $1.5 million to hire 20 new police officers in Dallas Texas.
• $180,000 for a full time Director for the Drug Task Force in Winnsboro Texas.
• $100,000 for the continuation of the bus program from Arlington Texas to Fort Worth Texas.
• $20,000 to purchase tasers in Winnsboro Texas.
Illinois ($2,974,500,000)
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• $950 million to replace the I-74 bridge in Moline Illinois.
• $22.7 million for upgrades between Chicago and Moline in Illinois.
• $1.8 million for runway repair in Schaumburg Illinois.
New Mexico ($1,500,300,000)
• $532 million for a solar plant in Albuquerque New Mexico.
• $418.3 million for a New Mexico Events Center in Albuquerque.
• $300 million to reduce congestion on I-25 interchange in Albuquerque New Mexico.
• $250 million for a Neighborhood Energy Generation Pilot in Albuquerque New Mexico.
Alabama ($1,318,800,000)
• $600 million for a solar plant in Anniston Alabama.
• $360 million for school renovations/construction in Mobile Alabama.
• $358.8 million for citywide infrastructure expansion in Prichard Alabama.
Missouri ($1,131,625,000)
• $900 million for the North/South Metro Link connection in St. Louis Missouri.
• $50 million to cover the transit system operating deficit in St. Louis Missouri.
• $45 million for maintenance/prevention on light rail in St. Louis Missouri.
• $35 million for fixed lane trolley development in St. Louis Missouri.
• $35 million for a bridge replacement in St. Louis Missouri.
• $33 million for streetscape in St. Louis Missouri.
• $16.5 million for Grand Avenue station and bridge in St. Louis Missouri.
• $15 million for I-70 bridges in St. Louis Missouri.
• $2 million for preparation for business park site in St. Louis Missouri.
• $125,000 to hire 5 police officers and buy 3 police cars for Wellston Missouri.
Ohio ($818,048,000)
• $250 million for a water waste treatment plant in Lorain Ohio.
• $200 million for a Light Rail system in Columbus Ohio.
• $132 million to create a streetcar network in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $67.18 million for water works infrastructure replacement in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $60 million for a City Street Network Rehabilitation program in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $25 million for Children's Hospital improvements in Columbus Ohio.
• $20.5 million for water works enhancement in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $10 million for flood control bank stabilization in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $8 million for Central Riverfront Street Grid in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $8 million for water works back up power and storage in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $7 million for White Pond Drive in Akron Ohio.
• $6.8 million to build an industrial building in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $4.5 million to build the Corryville Parking Structure in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $4.267 million to renovate the Crosley Building in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $3.5 million for interconnected traffic control system in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $2.46 million to plant trees in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $1.5 million to reduce prostitution in Dayton Ohio.
• $1.5 million for roadway improvements in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $1.2 million for the upgrades to roofs (including green roofs) in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $1.145 million for the 12th & Vine Streetscape in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $1 million for traffic and pedestrian improvements at Liberty Street in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $1 million for power generators on landfills in Lorain Ohio.
• $796,500 for "green" storm water management for public schools in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $600,000 for a streetscape in Cincinnati Ohio.
• $100,000 for LED traffic lights in Cincinnati Ohio.
Mississippi ($601,099,600)
• $600 million to create an African American Heritage trail in Natchez Mississippi.
• $1 million to construct 25 houses for first time home buyers (including land acquisition) in Friars Point Mississippi.
• $99,600 for doorbells in Laurel Mississippi.
Georgia ($581,000,000)
• $500 million for a new terminal at the Atlanta airport in Georgia.
• $81 million a midtown to downtown streetcar line in Atlanta Georgia.
Maryland ($502,650,000)
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $2.65 million for a program to train residents on how to reduce their carbon footprint in Annapolis Maryland.
Louisiana ($419,000,000)
• $288 million for I-49 North in Shreveport Louisiana.
• $76 million to expand Baton Rouge River Center in Louisiana.
• $55 million for park development in Baton Rouge Louisiana.
Indiana ($351,500,000)
• $301 million to renovate schools in Fort Wayne Indiana.
• $50.5 million for bike paths and pedestrian ways in Indianapolis Indiana.
Alaska ($75,621,000)
• $75 million for the Port of Anchorage Expansion in Anchorage Alaska.
• $621,000 for intercom upgrades in Anchorage Alaska.
Wisconsin ($4,550,000)
• $1.05 million to create a bike trail in Madison Wisconsin.
• $3.5 million to replace 100 police cars in Milwaukee Wisconsin.
Virginia ($3,483,000)
• $3.45 million to repair sidewalks in Alexandria Virginia.
• $33,000 for T3 motion electric vehicles in Alexandria Virginia.
New York ($3,250,000)
• $1.5 million for streetscape and mill in Buffalo New York.
• $1 million to build an indoor soccer field in Hempstead New York.
• $750,000 for emergency bridge repairs in Buffalo New York.
Arkansas ($465,180,000)
• $465 million to renovate a terminal in Little Rock Arkansas.
• $180,000 for a flight information display system in Little Rock Arkansas.
Oregon ($61,000,000)
• $86 million for the construction of trails in Portland Oregon.
• $75 million for Streetcar extension in Portland Oregon.
Various other states ($1,504,235,000)
• $375 million to create a performing arts center in Las Vegas Nevada.
• $335 million for North Corridor Rail Line in Charlotte North Carolina.
• $290 million to construct 3.5 miles of railway in Mesa Arizona.
• $270.6 million to upgrade a tunnel in Detroit Michigan.
• $100 million to construct 4 lane divided highway in Sioux Falls South Dakota
• $16 million to subsidize upgrading the flood control system in Hartford Connecticut.
• $6 million to convert hybrid vehicles to plug in hybrids in Boulder Colorado.
• $4.3 million to build a veterans nursing home in Cleveland Tennessee.
• $4 million for renovation of historic train station in Seattle Washington.
• $1.3 million for Tunnel rehabilitation in Minneapolis Minnesota.
• $700,000 to construct a LEED certified town hall in Athens West Virginia.
• $700,000 for baseball viewing stands and concession upgrades in Salt Lake City Utah.
• $200,000 for a bathroom in Hopkinsville Kentucky.
• $150,000 for major home repairs in Lakewood Washington.
• $134,000 to purchase vehicles for Homeland Security.
• $100,000 for a traffic monitoring system in Lincoln Nebraska.
• $50,000 to build two dog parks in Lewiston Maine.
And here are some of my favorite nationwide/non state specific features ($20,234,500,000)
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $4.19 billion for neighborhood stabilization activities supporting low-income advocacy groups (such as ACORN).
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $1.2 billion for Amtrak.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
Remember, these are just the big ones! Illinois has over 1000 projects totalling well over $3 billion. Most of them are under $1 million. Wanna keep your own eye on the stimulus bill? You can do so here. Have fun!
Monday, February 02, 2009
Disappointing
(wanna skip the sports? Just read the "***"ed paragraph near the end)
The Super Bowl is never without controversy. Compared to this year's game, the last three were like a group of granny's discussing pearling at a knitting convention. This year's was a fur coat at a Peta rally.
When I don't have a horse in the race I want the fairest Super Bowl possible. I want people standing around the water cooler talking about "that play" and "that player" rather than "that call" and "that penalty." I'm afraid, even more than past years, I'm sadly disappointed.
For the most part, last years game was well officiated. The previous Super Bowl that featured the team from the Steel City (vs Seattle) was, let us say, questionable. This year's game was atrocious.
As usual, I'll list the officiating offenses from least to most egregious:
***On a weird note: I always set up whatever gaming system I happen to have to play out the game to see who might win according to the most recent Madden version I own. After assuring that the rosters were corrected and the game set in Tampa I let my PS2 loose on autopilot. The end prediction: Cardinals victory 20-17. That's not the weird part. In the Madden game, with 17 seconds left in the second quarter the Steelers had the ball 1st and goal from Arizona's one yard line. Big Ben fumbled and Arizona recovered and returned the fumble 99 yards for a touchdown. In the real game, with 19 seconds left in the second quarter, Warner threw an interception that was returned 100 yards for a touchdown. Just a little too strange!
And so the "year without Brady" comes to an end. All in all, this Super Bowl was an emotional roller coaster of a game. An "instant classic" I'm sure. Very exciting and kudos to Arizona for overcoming all that you did to make it as close as you could. The players and back and forth certainly made for a great game but the officiating was far from super!
I can't wait for next year!
The Super Bowl is never without controversy. Compared to this year's game, the last three were like a group of granny's discussing pearling at a knitting convention. This year's was a fur coat at a Peta rally.
When I don't have a horse in the race I want the fairest Super Bowl possible. I want people standing around the water cooler talking about "that play" and "that player" rather than "that call" and "that penalty." I'm afraid, even more than past years, I'm sadly disappointed.
For the most part, last years game was well officiated. The previous Super Bowl that featured the team from the Steel City (vs Seattle) was, let us say, questionable. This year's game was atrocious.
As usual, I'll list the officiating offenses from least to most egregious:
- We are able to overlook the non call on the Safety when Parker was not able to get the ball fully out of the end zone due to the holding call on the next play..
- At one point in the second half there were over 90 yards of penalties against the Cardinals and zero against the Steelers. Maybe the refs forgot there were two teams on the field. It got so bad that even the neutral fans were shouting out things like, "Evading a tackle, Arizona, ten yard penalty." "Unsportsmanlike conduct, Sacking the Quarterback, Arizona, fifteen yard penalty, automatic first down." "Game misconduct, general success, Arizona, half the distance to the goal." It was pretty ridiculous.
It was 1st down. Big Ben had been evading the rush all game. He does it again and, while still in the pocket, hurls the ball to nobody. Not even a defender or an official in the vicinity. Arizona is flagged for roughing the passer. Look how close this defender is when Ben lets go! He is supposed to be able to stop this hit? And when the pass falls incomplete out of bounds, the closest Steeler is 12 yards away.
So, Rather than second and 20 (ten yard penalty for Intentional Grounding and loss of down), it was first and ten fifteen yards down the field. This is the man that had been pump faking and scrambling all game and the defender was expected to let up because he saw the arm moving? No guarantee that the Steelers wouldn't have converted, or tied the game. But they should not have had an opportunity to continue the drive and have the next terrible call happen.
The ruling on the field was that he got both feet down. They even reviewed this play and still got it wrong! I was concerned as the overhead shots they kept showing were inconclusive. Look at the back foot. This shot shows that it is clearly hung up on the front cleat and never touches the ground in the end zone. This was not a touchdown. This does not mean that the Steelers wouldn't have scored on the next play nor does it mean that they wouldn't have been able to hit a FG to tie the game, but this play should not have given them the lead.
Rule: Using the ball as a prop during a touchdown celebration is a penalty. This may seem like a petty, ticky-tack complaint. I mean, after all, they did just take the lead in the closing seconds of the Super Bowl. But not only have these refs been calling the tightest Super Bowl (against the Cardinals) in recent memory, but consider this: the penalty is 15 yards assessed on the kickoff. Instead of starting on the 30 yard line, the Cardinals would have started on the 45. Instead of them being on the 50 with 12 seconds left, they'd have been on the 35. Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald, 35 yards? Much more likely than that same equation with 50 yards to the end zone. This was a huge, blatant no call that no one is talking about!
Earlier in the half the officials had already forced the Cardinals to use their second challenge on another obvious incomplete pass that was called a fumble on the field. Here, 9 seconds remain and the Cardinals are within Hail Mary range and this play isn't even reviewed?! Ruling is made on the field. Replay is shown to the national audience showing some question as to whether or not Kurt had control of the ball when his arm was going forward. Ben takes the knee game over. What? While I don't expect this would have necessarily been overturned, or that it would have altered the outcome, it did add a final stamp of unprofessionalism and incompleteness on the part of the officiating. It provided a fizzle of an ending that, in hind sight, seems fitting considering all of the other blunders made by the men in black and white.
The call on the field: Interception on the goal line, 100 yard return for a touchdown. First blown call: Neutral zone infraction. The blitzer at the top of the image was moving toward the ball and found himself in the neutral zone when the ball was snapped. Correct call: "free play" as it's known. Arizona can accept the outcome or replay the down. Result: no interception. Time had expired. Arizona gets one more offensive play. (likely outcome, FG, tie game.) Ok, let's assume this picture is inconclusive. 
Second blown call: Holding. Notice how the defender clearly has a grasp of Kurt Warner's jersey over his shoulder pad. This is illegal. (Please note: the ball carrier is between Warner and the holding defender. Warner would have made this play) Correct call: Interception. Holding during the return. Ten yard penalty from the spot of the foul. Time had expired, end of the half. Alright, we ignore this image. 
Third blown call: Block in the back. This was definitely the most egregious of the egregious calls. You need to be in front of or next to the defender that you are blocking. You cannot be behind them. Look at this image. Two extended hands on the back of the Cardinal's jersey. Correct call: Ten yard penalty from the spot of the foul. Time had expired, end of the half. Alright, let's pretend this didn't happen right in front of the referee. 
Fourth blown call: Down by contact prior to entering the end zone. When the
player's helmet hits the turf he is down. When his helmet hits the turf on the goal line, there is no possible way the ball has crossed the line. Correct call: Down by contact at the one yard line. Time had expired, end of the half. If any one of these had been called correctly the final score would have been 24-20 Cardinals (Possibly 27-20 Cardinals had the actual right call been made.) This is the most egregious missed call, not only for the number of blown calls, but the magnitude and momentum sway that it caused.***On a weird note: I always set up whatever gaming system I happen to have to play out the game to see who might win according to the most recent Madden version I own. After assuring that the rosters were corrected and the game set in Tampa I let my PS2 loose on autopilot. The end prediction: Cardinals victory 20-17. That's not the weird part. In the Madden game, with 17 seconds left in the second quarter the Steelers had the ball 1st and goal from Arizona's one yard line. Big Ben fumbled and Arizona recovered and returned the fumble 99 yards for a touchdown. In the real game, with 19 seconds left in the second quarter, Warner threw an interception that was returned 100 yards for a touchdown. Just a little too strange!
And so the "year without Brady" comes to an end. All in all, this Super Bowl was an emotional roller coaster of a game. An "instant classic" I'm sure. Very exciting and kudos to Arizona for overcoming all that you did to make it as close as you could. The players and back and forth certainly made for a great game but the officiating was far from super!
I can't wait for next year!
Friday, January 30, 2009
The First Weeks: The Good and the Bad
So our new President has been in office for only a few weeks and now we have some actions to base our opinions on! Here's a quick rundown of some of the things he's done and how I feel about them. (This is in no way a comprehensive or complete list of the Presidents actions)
Investigating the detainees at Gitmo: Good. They deserve someone looking into whether or not they should still be detained, convicted, deported, or released with our apologies. I'm not so thrilled that this order is going to declare a halt to all trials currently under way. I thought that getting these people trials was the point.
Closing Gitmo within one year: Bad. It's gonna take more time than that to investigate and give due process to everyone there. Especially if you are putting a stop to current trials. What do we do with the ones that we are holding for trial, or haven't gotten to yet? Put them in our already over crowded prisons?
Hillary as Secretary of State: Bad. President Obama, you had instilled great confidence in me with your speech, parade, and first actions. Then I heard Hilary speak as Secretary of State and I remembered that somehow you wanted to unify the country by appointing one of the most divisive women in the nation to the highest possible position in your administration. (And upon further review I see that you've kept John McCain close to you. You selected someone who said you couldn't be a leader as your VP and another person who said you weren't ready to lead as your Secretary of State. Are you simply keeping your "enemies" close by?) You had many choices, she was a bad one.
A desire that his daughters not receive preferential treatment due to Affirmative Action: Good. I like the sentiment. Act on it. Just like you wouldn't want your daughters to be "punished with a baby." You've acted on that one.
Lifting ban on Federal Funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions: Bad. So much for "trying to reduce the number of abortions." Though, honestly, does this move surprise anyone?
Transparency of Government: Good. In high school, I ran for student council president. I lost. However, one major platform of my campaign was that the student council was insulated from the rest of the student body. They made decisions, interacted with the administration "on our behalf," and suggested changes to how the school was run. All, seemingly, without the knowledge or input of any students except those that got up at the crack of dawn and got a ride to school to attend their meetings. The first thing the Student Council president did once he was elected was put up a bulletin board for notifications of possible changes from, and suggestions for, the student council. Transparency of Government has always been important to me. I hope he fulfills this promise.
Economic Stimulus Package: Bad. Being a fan of small government, anytime they return some of our own money to us I'm happy. Of course, if what I've heard is true and there will be checks sent to those that didn't pay any taxes, I'd need to be sold on why that is a fair action for the government to take. Who else can we give money to? Gave to the banks, gave to Detroit, giving to every American. Whose left? And where is the money coming from?!
Salary Freeze for White House Employees making $100K/Year: Good. This is very good. They shouldn't be handing out raises to people who make more than enough in a time of economic crisis. What does the White House think it is? One of the "failing" banking institutions?
End date for the War in Iraq: To Be Determined. Obama has said he wants US combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months, as long as withdrawal does not endanger either the gains made there or the Americans left behind to provide training. If this is what actually happens: good. If he sticks to the 16 months regardless of outcome: bad.
Praise from Fidel Castro: Bad. Nothing like the most well known former communist leader in the Western Hemisphere praising the new President.
Limits on Lobbyists' White House access: Good. I don't like lobbyists. I think they are part of what is wrong with our government. This is a good first step. The new lobbying rules will ban any former White House employee from trying to influence the administration after they leave the staff. It also includes current aides, should they, at any point, leave their posts. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted. The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any kind to any member of his administration.
Certain appointees: Bad. Fraud. Tax problems for the head of the IRS. Other issues that are being swept under the rug. If this Congress or media had a Republican appointing people with these "errors," "mistakes," or "oversights" it would be all over the news and they probably wouldn't be in those positions. Which really, leads me to my final point:
Democratic President, Democratic House, Democratic Senate: Bad. Nothing like Carte Blanche. Does his majesty want something? It shall be so. Stimulus package? Aye aye! There are checks and balances in the government for a reason. Right now, they are all in the off position.
If we weigh all of these the same, it looks like his first few weeks is leaning bad. But that isn't to say he can't turn it around.
Investigating the detainees at Gitmo: Good. They deserve someone looking into whether or not they should still be detained, convicted, deported, or released with our apologies. I'm not so thrilled that this order is going to declare a halt to all trials currently under way. I thought that getting these people trials was the point.
Closing Gitmo within one year: Bad. It's gonna take more time than that to investigate and give due process to everyone there. Especially if you are putting a stop to current trials. What do we do with the ones that we are holding for trial, or haven't gotten to yet? Put them in our already over crowded prisons?
Hillary as Secretary of State: Bad. President Obama, you had instilled great confidence in me with your speech, parade, and first actions. Then I heard Hilary speak as Secretary of State and I remembered that somehow you wanted to unify the country by appointing one of the most divisive women in the nation to the highest possible position in your administration. (And upon further review I see that you've kept John McCain close to you. You selected someone who said you couldn't be a leader as your VP and another person who said you weren't ready to lead as your Secretary of State. Are you simply keeping your "enemies" close by?) You had many choices, she was a bad one.
A desire that his daughters not receive preferential treatment due to Affirmative Action: Good. I like the sentiment. Act on it. Just like you wouldn't want your daughters to be "punished with a baby." You've acted on that one.
Lifting ban on Federal Funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions: Bad. So much for "trying to reduce the number of abortions." Though, honestly, does this move surprise anyone?
Transparency of Government: Good. In high school, I ran for student council president. I lost. However, one major platform of my campaign was that the student council was insulated from the rest of the student body. They made decisions, interacted with the administration "on our behalf," and suggested changes to how the school was run. All, seemingly, without the knowledge or input of any students except those that got up at the crack of dawn and got a ride to school to attend their meetings. The first thing the Student Council president did once he was elected was put up a bulletin board for notifications of possible changes from, and suggestions for, the student council. Transparency of Government has always been important to me. I hope he fulfills this promise.
Economic Stimulus Package: Bad. Being a fan of small government, anytime they return some of our own money to us I'm happy. Of course, if what I've heard is true and there will be checks sent to those that didn't pay any taxes, I'd need to be sold on why that is a fair action for the government to take. Who else can we give money to? Gave to the banks, gave to Detroit, giving to every American. Whose left? And where is the money coming from?!
Salary Freeze for White House Employees making $100K/Year: Good. This is very good. They shouldn't be handing out raises to people who make more than enough in a time of economic crisis. What does the White House think it is? One of the "failing" banking institutions?
End date for the War in Iraq: To Be Determined. Obama has said he wants US combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months, as long as withdrawal does not endanger either the gains made there or the Americans left behind to provide training. If this is what actually happens: good. If he sticks to the 16 months regardless of outcome: bad.
Praise from Fidel Castro: Bad. Nothing like the most well known former communist leader in the Western Hemisphere praising the new President.
Limits on Lobbyists' White House access: Good. I don't like lobbyists. I think they are part of what is wrong with our government. This is a good first step. The new lobbying rules will ban any former White House employee from trying to influence the administration after they leave the staff. It also includes current aides, should they, at any point, leave their posts. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted. The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any kind to any member of his administration.
Certain appointees: Bad. Fraud. Tax problems for the head of the IRS. Other issues that are being swept under the rug. If this Congress or media had a Republican appointing people with these "errors," "mistakes," or "oversights" it would be all over the news and they probably wouldn't be in those positions. Which really, leads me to my final point:
Democratic President, Democratic House, Democratic Senate: Bad. Nothing like Carte Blanche. Does his majesty want something? It shall be so. Stimulus package? Aye aye! There are checks and balances in the government for a reason. Right now, they are all in the off position.
If we weigh all of these the same, it looks like his first few weeks is leaning bad. But that isn't to say he can't turn it around.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Why?
Often certain questions nag at me. They don't surround any one topic. The only through-line for them is I don't know the answer.
Why is it a faux pas to wear the shirt of the band you are going to see, but an expectation that you wear the shirt of the team you are going to see?
Why is it that if something is hard there are those that think we weren't meant to do it? (IE: Fidelity in marriage, purity in life, unexpected pregnancy, etc)
Why can't we have some event designed for the weekend between Championship Sunday and the Super Bowl? That's got to be the most boring two weeks in the sports world!
Why won't the government offset the cost of the Digital converter box for analog TVs if you don't subscribe to cable or a dish network? The very time you don't need it!
Why is it not considered "racist" that 96% of African Americans voted for President Obama?
Why is it that toddlers never want to go to bed and teenagers never want to get up?
Why do "cutting edge" comedians try to push the envelope like George Carlin's "Seven things you can never say on TV" in an effort to offend, and this is called funny and we should get over it, but say the words "Jesus," "God," or "hell" and this is just offensive and we should keep that to ourselves?
Why did President Clinton hold a press conference on the tarmac before leaving Washington?
Why, when airing a video of Bin Laden, do news outlets insist on putting "Courtesy: Al Jazeera?" Are they really being "Courteous" in allowing us to air their propaganda?
Why does February have to be such a boring sports month?
Why does the local Christian camp plan their high school snow camp weekend for the same weekend as the Super Bowl every year?
Why do retired people think they are the only ones on a fixed income? My paycheck is the same every week, too.
Why isn't there a salary cap in baseball?
Does anyone have an answer for any of these? Or feel free to add your own conundrums!
Why is it a faux pas to wear the shirt of the band you are going to see, but an expectation that you wear the shirt of the team you are going to see?
Why is it that if something is hard there are those that think we weren't meant to do it? (IE: Fidelity in marriage, purity in life, unexpected pregnancy, etc)
Why can't we have some event designed for the weekend between Championship Sunday and the Super Bowl? That's got to be the most boring two weeks in the sports world!
Why won't the government offset the cost of the Digital converter box for analog TVs if you don't subscribe to cable or a dish network? The very time you don't need it!
Why is it not considered "racist" that 96% of African Americans voted for President Obama?
Why is it that toddlers never want to go to bed and teenagers never want to get up?
Why do "cutting edge" comedians try to push the envelope like George Carlin's "Seven things you can never say on TV" in an effort to offend, and this is called funny and we should get over it, but say the words "Jesus," "God," or "hell" and this is just offensive and we should keep that to ourselves?
Why did President Clinton hold a press conference on the tarmac before leaving Washington?
Why, when airing a video of Bin Laden, do news outlets insist on putting "Courtesy: Al Jazeera?" Are they really being "Courteous" in allowing us to air their propaganda?
Why does February have to be such a boring sports month?
Why does the local Christian camp plan their high school snow camp weekend for the same weekend as the Super Bowl every year?
Why do retired people think they are the only ones on a fixed income? My paycheck is the same every week, too.
Why isn't there a salary cap in baseball?
Does anyone have an answer for any of these? Or feel free to add your own conundrums!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Welcome President Obama
It is my pleasure to welcome to office the 44th President, my President, Barack Obama.
As I watched the motorcade move toward the capital building I felt a sense of pride. As I reflected on it, I found that my pride was multifaceted:
Pride in my country: I take great pride that we have had two hundred twenty three unbroken years of transfer of power without bloodshed. Yes, there are those that have shed blood and others have taken over in power. However, it has never been the person who caused the bloodshed who took power. We've never had a coup. No one had to rise up to remove another from power. No one has ever refused to leave office. The peaceful transfer of power to someone other than a son is a shining example that America has provided for the world; particularly when the leaving leader and the pristine President are as different as the two taking part in this ceremony.
Pride in my country's people: While in my previous post I chuckled at those who "approve" of now President Obama before he has taken office, this is a sharp contrast to the mindset of those in many other countries. It expresses hope. Americans thrive on hope. This is not the case in many other countries. The smiling faces, the expectant gleams in the eyes of those gathered on the green, these displayed the great hope that people have, not only in the man, but in the nation. One can only encourage those people to turn that hope into action. It is that kind of hope that can spur people to do good things as they strive to bring about the kind of change they want to see.
Pride in my President: I often find it hard to post about those things with which I agree. President Obama has conducted himself in a fashion worthy of the Oval Office. Dignity. Humility. Expectation. His speech was captivating, moving, and unifying. As you know, JMO cannot go without finding fault. I wanted a moment. I wanted that pivotal moment. That "Ask not..." or "A day that will live in infamy..." or "". I was not given such a memorable moment. I did enjoy the final line, however: "Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
I am excited. I've not reached the height of Obamamania that many have, but I am not ashamed nor afraid to admit that I have an expectant excitement about this man's Presidency. If he can be as inspiring to the Houses of Congress as he has been to the people of this country, we may be able to do great things. I even appreciate the fact that he "called an audible" and walked for more of the parade route than was originally planned. The President is the ultimate public servant. I think Barack Obama understands that.
I've seen his picture with the seal of the highest office behind him and, for a moment, I imagined the face of some of the other political figures whom I opposed who could have held that office. I had an internal undeniable visceral reaction to the thought of President Gore or President Kerry or even President Dukakis. I do not have the same emotional response to President Obama.
The monotonous chanting of "Obama" is a little unsettling. Let's let the man do something before we begin singing his praises. He has promised many things. He believes he can deliver. I look forward to what he brings to the Oval Office. There are those that have said, "regardless of your party persuasion, we need this man to succeed." While that may be true, I also want President Obama to succeed. I want him to serve a second term. I can't say those sentiments won't change. But it's how I feel today.
Welcome President Obama.
As I watched the motorcade move toward the capital building I felt a sense of pride. As I reflected on it, I found that my pride was multifaceted:
Pride in my country: I take great pride that we have had two hundred twenty three unbroken years of transfer of power without bloodshed. Yes, there are those that have shed blood and others have taken over in power. However, it has never been the person who caused the bloodshed who took power. We've never had a coup. No one had to rise up to remove another from power. No one has ever refused to leave office. The peaceful transfer of power to someone other than a son is a shining example that America has provided for the world; particularly when the leaving leader and the pristine President are as different as the two taking part in this ceremony.
Pride in my country's people: While in my previous post I chuckled at those who "approve" of now President Obama before he has taken office, this is a sharp contrast to the mindset of those in many other countries. It expresses hope. Americans thrive on hope. This is not the case in many other countries. The smiling faces, the expectant gleams in the eyes of those gathered on the green, these displayed the great hope that people have, not only in the man, but in the nation. One can only encourage those people to turn that hope into action. It is that kind of hope that can spur people to do good things as they strive to bring about the kind of change they want to see.
Pride in my President: I often find it hard to post about those things with which I agree. President Obama has conducted himself in a fashion worthy of the Oval Office. Dignity. Humility. Expectation. His speech was captivating, moving, and unifying. As you know, JMO cannot go without finding fault. I wanted a moment. I wanted that pivotal moment. That "Ask not..." or "A day that will live in infamy..." or "". I was not given such a memorable moment. I did enjoy the final line, however: "Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
I am excited. I've not reached the height of Obamamania that many have, but I am not ashamed nor afraid to admit that I have an expectant excitement about this man's Presidency. If he can be as inspiring to the Houses of Congress as he has been to the people of this country, we may be able to do great things. I even appreciate the fact that he "called an audible" and walked for more of the parade route than was originally planned. The President is the ultimate public servant. I think Barack Obama understands that.
I've seen his picture with the seal of the highest office behind him and, for a moment, I imagined the face of some of the other political figures whom I opposed who could have held that office. I had an internal undeniable visceral reaction to the thought of President Gore or President Kerry or even President Dukakis. I do not have the same emotional response to President Obama.
The monotonous chanting of "Obama" is a little unsettling. Let's let the man do something before we begin singing his praises. He has promised many things. He believes he can deliver. I look forward to what he brings to the Oval Office. There are those that have said, "regardless of your party persuasion, we need this man to succeed." While that may be true, I also want President Obama to succeed. I want him to serve a second term. I can't say those sentiments won't change. But it's how I feel today.
Welcome President Obama.
24
*Ka-dink Ka-dunk Ka-dink Ka-dunk*
Jack Bauer has returned and the series has never been better! Undercover in a terrorist cell, independent of any government agency, relying on Bill and Chloe to keep him safe and alive, Jack has teamed up with Tony Almieda to capture a devise that gives the user the ability to control - or shut down - any aspect of America's infrastructure: Air traffic control, the power grid, water supply, etc.
Of course, I can't feature something on my blog just to say how great it is. I have a question:
With all of the liberals in Hollywood, how did 24 get all conservatives on its writing staff? What do I mean?
There's a new President and she's disbanded CTU. Jack is facing an indictment from a Senate Judicial committee for his "techniques." The FBI is now in charge and they do everything by the book! How is this a conservative view? None of it is working!
Jack Bauer sits in front of the Senators and after you think, "Who would elect the Dad from That 70's Show to public office?" you wonder "What is Jack doing there? He's saved the country from countless terrorist attacks. He's almost single handedly responsible for saving millions of lives and he has to answer to you, oh distinguished Senator from Wisconsin? I don't think so!" It's fairly apparent that, if anyone is going to be the sacrificial lamb for all of CTU, it shouldn't be Jack Bauer.
The FBI has been a step an a half behind the threat to the nation and the only progress they've made is because an agent has been going "Jack Bauer" on some suspects. Meanwhile, the former CTU agents are not only in the cell, but have gained the trust of the local leader.
FBI Agent Renee Walker has rapidly moved from a by-the-book agent to someone who's actually getting things done. First, she tells Jack to do what needs to be done to get information, then she does it herself with a different suspect. She disobeys her commanding agent when he orders her back because she knows it wouldn't be productive to continuing to protect US citizens.
By the book, the Attorney General has sent an investigator to the FBI to speak with and arrest Agent Walker for what happened with the suspect she tortured. Wouldn't you know it, he's doing nothing but getting in the way. His insistence on carrying out his duty to the law is actually slowing down the FBI which is already falling behind.
Perhaps, in future episodes, the writers will give some victories to the law abiding authorities. For the time being, however, it appears that the current message of 24 is that we have to do whatever it takes to defend our people and our country. This is not a sentiment shared by those who oppose the tactics of the administration leaving the White House today. So, do we do anything to protect people? Or do we abide by the law at all costs, perhaps forfeiting innocent lives?
Jack Bauer has returned and the series has never been better! Undercover in a terrorist cell, independent of any government agency, relying on Bill and Chloe to keep him safe and alive, Jack has teamed up with Tony Almieda to capture a devise that gives the user the ability to control - or shut down - any aspect of America's infrastructure: Air traffic control, the power grid, water supply, etc.
Of course, I can't feature something on my blog just to say how great it is. I have a question:
With all of the liberals in Hollywood, how did 24 get all conservatives on its writing staff? What do I mean?
There's a new President and she's disbanded CTU. Jack is facing an indictment from a Senate Judicial committee for his "techniques." The FBI is now in charge and they do everything by the book! How is this a conservative view? None of it is working!
Jack Bauer sits in front of the Senators and after you think, "Who would elect the Dad from That 70's Show to public office?" you wonder "What is Jack doing there? He's saved the country from countless terrorist attacks. He's almost single handedly responsible for saving millions of lives and he has to answer to you, oh distinguished Senator from Wisconsin? I don't think so!" It's fairly apparent that, if anyone is going to be the sacrificial lamb for all of CTU, it shouldn't be Jack Bauer.
The FBI has been a step an a half behind the threat to the nation and the only progress they've made is because an agent has been going "Jack Bauer" on some suspects. Meanwhile, the former CTU agents are not only in the cell, but have gained the trust of the local leader.
FBI Agent Renee Walker has rapidly moved from a by-the-book agent to someone who's actually getting things done. First, she tells Jack to do what needs to be done to get information, then she does it herself with a different suspect. She disobeys her commanding agent when he orders her back because she knows it wouldn't be productive to continuing to protect US citizens.
By the book, the Attorney General has sent an investigator to the FBI to speak with and arrest Agent Walker for what happened with the suspect she tortured. Wouldn't you know it, he's doing nothing but getting in the way. His insistence on carrying out his duty to the law is actually slowing down the FBI which is already falling behind.
Perhaps, in future episodes, the writers will give some victories to the law abiding authorities. For the time being, however, it appears that the current message of 24 is that we have to do whatever it takes to defend our people and our country. This is not a sentiment shared by those who oppose the tactics of the administration leaving the White House today. So, do we do anything to protect people? Or do we abide by the law at all costs, perhaps forfeiting innocent lives?
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Historic Inauguration
Tomorrow is the "Historic" inauguration of President Elect Barack Obama. I'm sure everyone is surprised to learn that I have some thoughts on the subject:
Obama currently has a 70% approval rating. While 25% disapprove. Um... of what? What has he done? Of what am I approving or disapproving? Am I approving just because he isn't Bush? Am I approving because of his skin color? How does a man have a 70% approval rating before he spends a day in office? At least 5% of the people have brains enough to say that they have no opinion of the nothing he has done to this point.
Wait, the humor continues: This same poll has 65% of the people "confident" that Obama will make a good president. 28% are "not confident." 7% have "no opinion." So, if we assume that all 65% of the "confident " people approve of him, that means that 5% of the approving public had to register a response other than "confident." If we also assume that the 25% and the 5% disapprove/no opinion held true to their logical answers we can conclude that 3% of the people who "Approve" of Obama are "Not confident" that he will be a good President! (And 2% who approved aren't sure). If we don't assume that the 25%/5% answered what one would expect, then the percentage of "approving" people who were other than "confident" is actually higher than 3%!
So, the inauguration will kick off tomorrow. Here are the people scheduled to attend/appear (in alphabetical order):
Jessica Alba
Marc Anthony
Halle Berry
Joe Biden
Mary J Blige
Bon Jovi
Bono
Garth Brooks
Mariah Carey
George Clinton
Elvis Costello
Sheryl Crow
Miley Cyrus
Eve
Fantasia
Renee Fleming
Jamie Fox
Aretha Franklin
Timothy Geithner (Treasury Nominee)
Macy Gray
Josh Groban
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Herbie Hancock
Tom Hanks
Ed Harris
Anne Hathaway
Heather Headley
Faith Hill
Eric Holder (Att Gen Nominee)
Ron Howard
Jay-Z
John Kerry
Alicia Keys
Chaka Khan
Beyonce Knowles
Queen Latifah
Bettye LaVette
Spike Lee
John Legend
Lil Jon
LL Cool J
Jennifer Lopez
Ludacris
Yo-Yo Ma
Maroon 5
John Mellencamp
Harold Melvin & The Bluenotes
Monica
Jennifer Nettles
Barack Obama
Malia Obama
Michelle Obama
Sasha Obama
OutKast's Big Boi
Peter, Paul & Mary
Rihanna
Tim Robbins
Samantha Ronson
Peter Saarsgaard
Susan Sarandon
Shakira
Bruce Springsteen
Sting
Michael Stipe
T-Pain
James Taylor
The Temptations
U2
Usher
Rick Warren
Dionne Warwick
Denzel Washington
Will.i.am
Oprah Winfrey
Stevie Wonder
As the Queen of Hearts adeptly put it, "Who are we inaugurating? Tom Hanks?" Possibly. I mean, he'll be there. Going through that list I found 8 people that I would say belong at the inauguration and the celebrations that follow. Am I supposed to have more confidence in this man because of all of the celebrities that are going to be at his inauguration? Is this how President Elect Obama wants to begin a presidency that he won due to the economic crisis that occurred months before he was elected? By throwing the biggest glitziest political bash Washington has ever seen? I guess it's historic in a few ways: A new president is always a historic event. He is the first black president. It looks like the most celebrities gathered for a political event ever.
I'll be waiting to see what political policies Mr. Obama puts forth before passing judgement, (and, I'll be honest, it sounds like he's trending more centrist than his Senate record would have us expect. I'm cautiously optimistic.) But with these massive spectacles, he sure doesn't seem to be starting out on the right foot...
Obama currently has a 70% approval rating. While 25% disapprove. Um... of what? What has he done? Of what am I approving or disapproving? Am I approving just because he isn't Bush? Am I approving because of his skin color? How does a man have a 70% approval rating before he spends a day in office? At least 5% of the people have brains enough to say that they have no opinion of the nothing he has done to this point.
Wait, the humor continues: This same poll has 65% of the people "confident" that Obama will make a good president. 28% are "not confident." 7% have "no opinion." So, if we assume that all 65% of the "confident " people approve of him, that means that 5% of the approving public had to register a response other than "confident." If we also assume that the 25% and the 5% disapprove/no opinion held true to their logical answers we can conclude that 3% of the people who "Approve" of Obama are "Not confident" that he will be a good President! (And 2% who approved aren't sure). If we don't assume that the 25%/5% answered what one would expect, then the percentage of "approving" people who were other than "confident" is actually higher than 3%!
So, the inauguration will kick off tomorrow. Here are the people scheduled to attend/appear (in alphabetical order):
Jessica Alba
Marc Anthony
Halle Berry
Joe Biden
Mary J Blige
Bon Jovi
Bono
Garth Brooks
Mariah Carey
George Clinton
Elvis Costello
Sheryl Crow
Miley Cyrus
Eve
Fantasia
Renee Fleming
Jamie Fox
Aretha Franklin
Timothy Geithner (Treasury Nominee)
Macy Gray
Josh Groban
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Herbie Hancock
Tom Hanks
Ed Harris
Anne Hathaway
Heather Headley
Faith Hill
Eric Holder (Att Gen Nominee)
Ron Howard
Jay-Z
John Kerry
Alicia Keys
Chaka Khan
Beyonce Knowles
Queen Latifah
Bettye LaVette
Spike Lee
John Legend
Lil Jon
LL Cool J
Jennifer Lopez
Ludacris
Yo-Yo Ma
Maroon 5
John Mellencamp
Harold Melvin & The Bluenotes
Monica
Jennifer Nettles
Barack Obama
Malia Obama
Michelle Obama
Sasha Obama
OutKast's Big Boi
Peter, Paul & Mary
Rihanna
Tim Robbins
Samantha Ronson
Peter Saarsgaard
Susan Sarandon
Shakira
Bruce Springsteen
Sting
Michael Stipe
T-Pain
James Taylor
The Temptations
U2
Usher
Rick Warren
Dionne Warwick
Denzel Washington
Will.i.am
Oprah Winfrey
Stevie Wonder
As the Queen of Hearts adeptly put it, "Who are we inaugurating? Tom Hanks?" Possibly. I mean, he'll be there. Going through that list I found 8 people that I would say belong at the inauguration and the celebrations that follow. Am I supposed to have more confidence in this man because of all of the celebrities that are going to be at his inauguration? Is this how President Elect Obama wants to begin a presidency that he won due to the economic crisis that occurred months before he was elected? By throwing the biggest glitziest political bash Washington has ever seen? I guess it's historic in a few ways: A new president is always a historic event. He is the first black president. It looks like the most celebrities gathered for a political event ever.
I'll be waiting to see what political policies Mr. Obama puts forth before passing judgement, (and, I'll be honest, it sounds like he's trending more centrist than his Senate record would have us expect. I'm cautiously optimistic.) But with these massive spectacles, he sure doesn't seem to be starting out on the right foot...
All Things Football
So the table is set. For the second time in three years the Super Bowl that I rated as least interesting or compelling is the one we've been saddled with.
Two Complaints: First When will a helmet to helmet hit be a penalty when it's on a player other than a Quarterback? Is the health of the other 21 players on the field not as important? Second When will they stop calling holding on the defensive player who tackles the running back who was just part of a play action fake? Guess what: that means it worked! If they are going to fake the ball to him, and he's going to run like he has it, the defense has to be allowed to tackle him.
Final reason for this post: Recently I saw that my side bar was longer than my posts. I decided that the records set (and nearly set) by the 2007 New England Patriots were great, but they didn't need to be on the side bar anymore. Therefore, in order to preserve (and because I spent a lot of time compiling them) I'm going to list them here and simply have a link to this post on the side bar.
NFL Records set by the
2007 New England Patriots
Let's just hope when Brady comes back (if Brady comes back) that he's still Tom Brady.
Two Complaints: First When will a helmet to helmet hit be a penalty when it's on a player other than a Quarterback? Is the health of the other 21 players on the field not as important? Second When will they stop calling holding on the defensive player who tackles the running back who was just part of a play action fake? Guess what: that means it worked! If they are going to fake the ball to him, and he's going to run like he has it, the defense has to be allowed to tackle him.
Final reason for this post: Recently I saw that my side bar was longer than my posts. I decided that the records set (and nearly set) by the 2007 New England Patriots were great, but they didn't need to be on the side bar anymore. Therefore, in order to preserve (and because I spent a lot of time compiling them) I'm going to list them here and simply have a link to this post on the side bar.
NFL Records set by the
2007 New England Patriots
- Team Records
- Consecutive Wins, Many Seasons
Record: 21 06-08 Patriots
Previous: 18 03-04 Patriots - Touchdowns, Single Season
Record: 75 2007 Patriots
Previous: 70 '84 Dolphins - TD's scored by different players
Record: 21 '00 Broncos & '87 Rams
Current: 21 2007 Patriots
Final result: Tied - Margin of Victory, Single Season
Record: +315 net points 2007 Patriots
Previous: +292 '42 Bears
This is a crazy record as it has stood for
65 years and was set during an 11 game season! - PATs made, Single Season
Record: 75 Gostkowski
Previous: 66 Uwe von Schamann - Scoring, Single Season
Record: 589 2007 Patriots
Previous: 556 98 Vikings - Wins, Single Season
Record: 16 2007 Patriots
Previous: 14 Multiple Teams - Consecutive Wins, Single Season
Record: 16 2007 Patriots
Previous: 14 72 Mia, 04 Pitt - TD Passes, Single Season
Record: 50 Brady
Previous: 49 Manning - Passing yards, Single Season
Record: 5084 Marino
Final: 4806 Brady
Needed: 278 yds
Did the inclimate weather during the Jets game cost Brady this record? - Passer Rating, Single Season
Record: 121.1 Manning
Final: 117.2 Brady - TD Receptions, Single Season
Record: 23 Moss
Previous: 22 Rice
Let's not forget that Rice's record was set during a strike shortened season. He caught 22 Touchdowns in just 12 games! He was on pace for nearly 30 TD receptions!
Individual Records
Let's just hope when Brady comes back (if Brady comes back) that he's still Tom Brady.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
All Four Super Bowl Previews III
It's a JMO tradition to post on the four possible Super Bowls now that we know who will be playing in the Championship games. So I don't waste the time of the people not reading this here they are:
I'm going to list them as least compelling to most:
Arizona vs Pittsburgh
I don't see any reason to hope for this Super Bowl. Pittsburgh's defense was #1 in the NFL in many categories this year. Now, Arizona's offense have become more potent in the last few weeks but they are no match for the modern Steel Curtain. If San Diego couldn't get past them, the Cardinal's certainly won't. That and there's no other story. Kurt Warner vs Big Ben? Arizona's first trip to the big game vs a franchise with lots of history? Pittsburgh would be the first to 6 Super Bowls. I think this matchup would give the Steeler's their second Super Bowl victory in 3 seasons and maybe their first legitimate one. winner: Steelers (Loser: NFL Fans)
Philadelphia vs Baltimore
Another snoozer. Less so than AZ vs PIT just because the Eagles offense is slightly better than AZ and the Raven's D is slightly worse than PIT. But, again, there's no compelling story here. Rookie QB vs QB likely leaving? East Coast Battle? Redemption for McNabb vs a team that's not as good as the last team he lost to in the Big Game? I think the pressure gets to McNabb again and Ravens walk away with their first Super Bowl win since they trounced the Giants in Super Bowl XXXV. Winner: Ravens (Loser: McNabb)
Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh
Now we're getting interesting. "The Clash of the Keystone state!" "The Fray for P.A." "Pennsylvania Pummelling!" I think the most entertaining part about this game would be in the stands. Both fan bases are known for being obnoxious, berating, and combative. There might be harder hits in the stands than on the field. Maybe they should have the Eagles fans on one side and the Steelers fans on the other like at high school basketball games. Winner: Pittsburgh (Loser: Stadium Security)
Arizona vs Baltimore
I've listed this one last because I think this would be the best game. Two first time trips: The Cardinals and Flaco. The matchup for the Arizona offense and the Baltimore Defense is very exciting and the reverse is almost as even. Kurt Warner and his near explosive offense vs Ray Lewis and his near impenetrable defense. Veteran QB vs Rookie QB. Personally, I'd like to see Warner go out on top with a victory here. This game is tough to call. Can Flaco win the game his first time there? Can the Cardinals stop him and overcome the Ravens vaunted D? Winner: Ravens (Loser: the Manning family)
So, I'd like to see Arizona vs Baltimore with AZ winning it all. I expect to see Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia.
What are your picks (hopeful and expected)?
I'm going to list them as least compelling to most:
Arizona vs Pittsburgh
I don't see any reason to hope for this Super Bowl. Pittsburgh's defense was #1 in the NFL in many categories this year. Now, Arizona's offense have become more potent in the last few weeks but they are no match for the modern Steel Curtain. If San Diego couldn't get past them, the Cardinal's certainly won't. That and there's no other story. Kurt Warner vs Big Ben? Arizona's first trip to the big game vs a franchise with lots of history? Pittsburgh would be the first to 6 Super Bowls. I think this matchup would give the Steeler's their second Super Bowl victory in 3 seasons and maybe their first legitimate one. winner: Steelers (Loser: NFL Fans)
Philadelphia vs Baltimore
Another snoozer. Less so than AZ vs PIT just because the Eagles offense is slightly better than AZ and the Raven's D is slightly worse than PIT. But, again, there's no compelling story here. Rookie QB vs QB likely leaving? East Coast Battle? Redemption for McNabb vs a team that's not as good as the last team he lost to in the Big Game? I think the pressure gets to McNabb again and Ravens walk away with their first Super Bowl win since they trounced the Giants in Super Bowl XXXV. Winner: Ravens (Loser: McNabb)
Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh
Now we're getting interesting. "The Clash of the Keystone state!" "The Fray for P.A." "Pennsylvania Pummelling!" I think the most entertaining part about this game would be in the stands. Both fan bases are known for being obnoxious, berating, and combative. There might be harder hits in the stands than on the field. Maybe they should have the Eagles fans on one side and the Steelers fans on the other like at high school basketball games. Winner: Pittsburgh (Loser: Stadium Security)
Arizona vs Baltimore
I've listed this one last because I think this would be the best game. Two first time trips: The Cardinals and Flaco. The matchup for the Arizona offense and the Baltimore Defense is very exciting and the reverse is almost as even. Kurt Warner and his near explosive offense vs Ray Lewis and his near impenetrable defense. Veteran QB vs Rookie QB. Personally, I'd like to see Warner go out on top with a victory here. This game is tough to call. Can Flaco win the game his first time there? Can the Cardinals stop him and overcome the Ravens vaunted D? Winner: Ravens (Loser: the Manning family)
So, I'd like to see Arizona vs Baltimore with AZ winning it all. I expect to see Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia.
What are your picks (hopeful and expected)?
Friday, January 09, 2009
Review: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
2008/PG/Documentary
Hosted by Ben Stein of Ferris Beuller's Day Off and Win Ben Stein's Money fame, Expelled is a revealing documentary on the hypocrisy of today's modern biologists. The film reports on several seemingly isolated occurrences of people losing their positions in the scientific field because they dared to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design. When these "isolated" firings are grouped together, the apparent intolerance for any scrutiny of the theory of Evolution is rather disturbing. The film also puts forth a well organized and well executed argument that Darwinism was one of the major stepping stones that gave rise to Hitler's Nazi regime.
The film's contention is that, thanks to the concept of natural selection, Hitler believed he was bettering the human species by exterminating the Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the Jews. Also, because evolution provided a Godless origin for man, he had no ethical qualms with which to wrestle. To him, the actions were amoral and beneficial.
Throughout the course of the documentary scientists from both sides are interviewed. It came as no surprise that the Intelligent Design scientists were lit with warm light in bright open locations while the Darwinist scientists were lit with stark cool light in cramped spaces. I have to say, whether one agrees with the theory of I.D. or not, this picture raised many ethical and sociological questions that beg for a response from the Evolutionist community. If Darwinism is fact, what's to stop us from cloning, organ harvesting, or other scientific ventures that are currently considered unethical? Why are those scientists that are seriously researching the possibility of I.D. facing such staunch and active discrimination. Evolution and Darwinism are still theories! They are good ideas but there is no solid proof with which to anchor them in the category of fact. I'm amazed that the theory of evolution is held in such a tight strangle hold by today's modern "scholars" that it can't take any type of scrutiny from other theories! If it is as air tight as has been suggested then, by all means, question it. It should be able to withstand without wavering. Is not questioning the basis of scientific discovery? How would it look if Christians didn't welcome questions from atheists or other religions? We assert that what we believe to be true. If it is true, it should be unshakable regardless of the inquest it falls under. Why won't Darwinists allow for the same dialog?
**Spoiler Alert**
The single best moment in the movie occurred when host Ben Stein sat down with the undisputed champion of the anti-intelligent design movement Richard Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion in which he uses the theory of Evolution to prove that God doesn't exist. Don't be mistaken, this is not a scientific treatise, this is a philosophy book. When discussing the origin of life (an event that Darwinism still struggles to explain) Mr. Dawkins offered several different possibilities: The most common primordial soup plus lightning equals life theory, "Life may have piggy-backed on crystals." (whatever that might mean...), and the "Seed" theory.
The "Seed" theory states that life on Earth may have been seeded here by some higher life form from another planet. Here is the direct quote from the movie:
The bottom line of this whole issue (having been brought to light by this movie) is that I can't help seeing a parallel between how the I.D. scientists of today are treated and how "Round Earth" and "Heliocentric" scientists were historically treated. Darwinism is the new religion and Intelligent Design scientists are the heretics.
4 out of 5 stars
Hosted by Ben Stein of Ferris Beuller's Day Off and Win Ben Stein's Money fame, Expelled is a revealing documentary on the hypocrisy of today's modern biologists. The film reports on several seemingly isolated occurrences of people losing their positions in the scientific field because they dared to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design. When these "isolated" firings are grouped together, the apparent intolerance for any scrutiny of the theory of Evolution is rather disturbing. The film also puts forth a well organized and well executed argument that Darwinism was one of the major stepping stones that gave rise to Hitler's Nazi regime.
The film's contention is that, thanks to the concept of natural selection, Hitler believed he was bettering the human species by exterminating the Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the Jews. Also, because evolution provided a Godless origin for man, he had no ethical qualms with which to wrestle. To him, the actions were amoral and beneficial.
Throughout the course of the documentary scientists from both sides are interviewed. It came as no surprise that the Intelligent Design scientists were lit with warm light in bright open locations while the Darwinist scientists were lit with stark cool light in cramped spaces. I have to say, whether one agrees with the theory of I.D. or not, this picture raised many ethical and sociological questions that beg for a response from the Evolutionist community. If Darwinism is fact, what's to stop us from cloning, organ harvesting, or other scientific ventures that are currently considered unethical? Why are those scientists that are seriously researching the possibility of I.D. facing such staunch and active discrimination. Evolution and Darwinism are still theories! They are good ideas but there is no solid proof with which to anchor them in the category of fact. I'm amazed that the theory of evolution is held in such a tight strangle hold by today's modern "scholars" that it can't take any type of scrutiny from other theories! If it is as air tight as has been suggested then, by all means, question it. It should be able to withstand without wavering. Is not questioning the basis of scientific discovery? How would it look if Christians didn't welcome questions from atheists or other religions? We assert that what we believe to be true. If it is true, it should be unshakable regardless of the inquest it falls under. Why won't Darwinists allow for the same dialog?
The single best moment in the movie occurred when host Ben Stein sat down with the undisputed champion of the anti-intelligent design movement Richard Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion in which he uses the theory of Evolution to prove that God doesn't exist. Don't be mistaken, this is not a scientific treatise, this is a philosophy book. When discussing the origin of life (an event that Darwinism still struggles to explain) Mr. Dawkins offered several different possibilities: The most common primordial soup plus lightning equals life theory, "Life may have piggy-backed on crystals." (whatever that might mean...), and the "Seed" theory.
The "Seed" theory states that life on Earth may have been seeded here by some higher life form from another planet. Here is the direct quote from the movie:
Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. [Emphasis added] Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.And here we come to the crux of the issue. You see, Intelligent Design is not a problem, even for the most ardent anti-Intelligent Design biologist Richard Dawkins. It's only a problem when God is thrown into the mix. (Oh, and Mr. Dawkins apparently isn't up on his theology. If there is a God, it didn't "jumped into existence spontaneously." The theology he's refuting states that God always was. God has no beginning.) Of course, with the Seed theory, no one stops to ask how life began for the advanced civilization that designed and seeded life here. In fact, the Seed theory doesn't actually answer the question of how did life begin, it just moves the location of the event to another planet. Why is Intelligent Design ok if it's been done by aliens but not God? Morals, ethics, and responsibility. Without a God, we do not have to answer for how we live our lives.
The bottom line of this whole issue (having been brought to light by this movie) is that I can't help seeing a parallel between how the I.D. scientists of today are treated and how "Round Earth" and "Heliocentric" scientists were historically treated. Darwinism is the new religion and Intelligent Design scientists are the heretics.
4 out of 5 stars
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Liberal Media
It came to no surprise to those of us who monitor such things that the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for President in this last election. But is that enough for us to label this well respected news organization "liberal?" I had some conservative friends support Senator Obama and I wouldn't consider them liberal for that action. Misguided maybe, but not liberal.
Well, recently the New York Times did the research for me. In a celebratory move, the Times created a "Endorsements through the ages" website documenting the candidates for president that they've endorsed since Lincoln.
Thank you, New York Times, I no longer have to exert any energy convincing people that you are a banner holder for the left, you've done it yourself.
Here are some of the things that this website shows us:
Since JFK first ran for President in 1960, the New York Times has endorsed exactly zero Republicans or Independents for President.
Since Woodrow Wilson prevented President Taft from serving a second term in 1912, the New York Times has endorsed 3 non-Democrats. (The supported Wendell Willkie when he ran against FDR's third term (of course, they gave FDR the nod for his fourth term). They backed Dewey against Truman. And they endorsed Ike.) To reiterate, that's nearly 100 years of elections, 3 non-Democratic endorsements.
It should come as no surprise that this institution would back the Northern Republicans during and immediately following the Civil War. Between 1860 (as rumors of war grew) through 1880 (as the war raged through the 1860s and reconstruction through the 1870s) there was an amazing stretch of 6 Republican endorsements, all of whom won the election.
Here are some other interesting statistics this website provides us with:
Since 1884, the candidate the New York Times endorsed has won the election 53% of the time.
Since 1884, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat (or a member of the "National Democratic Party") 81% of the time.
Since 1912, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 88% of the time.
Since 1960, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 100% of the time.
When the New York Times has endorsed a Republican, that candidate has won the election 83% of the time.
When the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat, that candidate has won the election 52% of the time.
What does this show us? That the New York Times isn't going to endorse a Republican unless the Democrat is a really bad choice. It also shows us that the New York Times has clearly been descending into a liberal position since the end of the Civil War.
Often times I end my rants with a disclaimer that what you've just read is "Just My Opinion." However, in this case, I've presented only the facts offered by the New York Times itself and the logical conclusions there derived. I think anyone would be hard pressed to attempt to contradict the findings.
Well, recently the New York Times did the research for me. In a celebratory move, the Times created a "Endorsements through the ages" website documenting the candidates for president that they've endorsed since Lincoln.
Thank you, New York Times, I no longer have to exert any energy convincing people that you are a banner holder for the left, you've done it yourself.
Here are some of the things that this website shows us:
Since JFK first ran for President in 1960, the New York Times has endorsed exactly zero Republicans or Independents for President.
Since Woodrow Wilson prevented President Taft from serving a second term in 1912, the New York Times has endorsed 3 non-Democrats. (The supported Wendell Willkie when he ran against FDR's third term (of course, they gave FDR the nod for his fourth term). They backed Dewey against Truman. And they endorsed Ike.) To reiterate, that's nearly 100 years of elections, 3 non-Democratic endorsements.
It should come as no surprise that this institution would back the Northern Republicans during and immediately following the Civil War. Between 1860 (as rumors of war grew) through 1880 (as the war raged through the 1860s and reconstruction through the 1870s) there was an amazing stretch of 6 Republican endorsements, all of whom won the election.
Here are some other interesting statistics this website provides us with:
Since 1884, the candidate the New York Times endorsed has won the election 53% of the time.
Since 1884, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat (or a member of the "National Democratic Party") 81% of the time.
Since 1912, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 88% of the time.
Since 1960, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 100% of the time.
When the New York Times has endorsed a Republican, that candidate has won the election 83% of the time.
When the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat, that candidate has won the election 52% of the time.
What does this show us? That the New York Times isn't going to endorse a Republican unless the Democrat is a really bad choice. It also shows us that the New York Times has clearly been descending into a liberal position since the end of the Civil War.
Often times I end my rants with a disclaimer that what you've just read is "Just My Opinion." However, in this case, I've presented only the facts offered by the New York Times itself and the logical conclusions there derived. I think anyone would be hard pressed to attempt to contradict the findings.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Holiday Compromise
Every year I have something to say about either the "Holiday Tree" controversy or the "Nativity in a Public Place" issue. This year is no different, but rather than my usual response: "Why is it ok for you to force your views on me by demanding that I can't have a tree with lights unless I call it a "Holiday Tree" but I can't force my views on you by making you refer to it as a "Christmas Tree?" This year I actually have a solution:
You are free to call it a holiday tree. You are free to be offended if your town puts a nativity in the public square. You are free to require people to wish you "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Here is the compromise that I require of you:
You will not have December 25th off and while you are working you will not be earning double time.
Clearly the day has no meaning for you. I don't take Rosh Hashanah off. I'm working on the Summer Solstice. I don't sleep late on Eid Al-Fitr. I don't stay up till midnight on January 25th. You don't get my religious holiday off. Now, if it's your argument that exchanging gifts with loved ones on the 25th day of the 12th month is cultural and that's why you should get the day off, then that would be called "Christmas."
So, the choice is yours: Sit behind your desk in an empty office the week before New Years or take your kids around looking at Christmas lights, save money while buying things during Christmas (and after Christmas) sales, and give the Baby Jesus a high five in his manger for being born so we can have an excuse to see people we don't often see, get an extra day off of work, and spend enough money to keep our economy in the black.
A very Merry Christmas to everyone!
You are free to call it a holiday tree. You are free to be offended if your town puts a nativity in the public square. You are free to require people to wish you "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Here is the compromise that I require of you:
Clearly the day has no meaning for you. I don't take Rosh Hashanah off. I'm working on the Summer Solstice. I don't sleep late on Eid Al-Fitr. I don't stay up till midnight on January 25th. You don't get my religious holiday off. Now, if it's your argument that exchanging gifts with loved ones on the 25th day of the 12th month is cultural and that's why you should get the day off, then that would be called "Christmas."
So, the choice is yours: Sit behind your desk in an empty office the week before New Years or take your kids around looking at Christmas lights, save money while buying things during Christmas (and after Christmas) sales, and give the Baby Jesus a high five in his manger for being born so we can have an excuse to see people we don't often see, get an extra day off of work, and spend enough money to keep our economy in the black.
A very Merry Christmas to everyone!
Friday, January 02, 2009
2008 NFL Playoff Predictions
With the NFL playoffs set, I couldn't resist my annual playoff prediction post. I know you've all been checking wondering when I was going to get it on the site, so, without further ado, here's JMO:Just the Facts 2008 NFL playoff predictions:
NFC
The New York Giants and the Carolina Panthers have the bye (So much for my prediction that the 2007 Super Bowl Champions wouldn't make the playoffs...)
Wild Card Round
Falcons vs Cardinals
The battle of the birds. Youth triumphs over experience in this contest as rookie Matt Ryan elevates the Falcons over Kurt Warner and the Cards.
Eagles vs Vikings
Did all of the birds make it this year? (Nope, the Seahawks are sitting at home right now.) The Eagles left it all on the field last week with their drubbing of Dallas. They are unable to overcome Adrian Peterson and the Vikings.
Divisional Round
Falcons vs Giants
The Giants D-line proves too much for young Matt Ryan. Giants win easily.
Vikings vs Panthers
Though they run well, the Panther struggle to stop the Vikings ground game and lose a close game.
Championship
Vikings vs Giants
They say defense wins championships. They are right. With Peterson unable to run against the Giants, they are forced to try to win through the air. They are unsuccessful. The Giants return to the big game.
AFC
The Tennessee Titans and the Pittsburgh Steelers have the bye. (Steelers need it with the injury to Big Ben. He may not play at all in the playoffs)
Wild Card Round
Ravens vs Dolphins
More birds. The Dolphins storybook season following last season's nightmare ends here. The Ravens D is too much for Pennington.
Colts vs Chargers
(This is a good time to mention that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. More on this sad state of affairs below.) Indy won the game in the regular season and they will do it again.
Divisional Round
Ravens vs Titans
The Titans have had a little magic up their sleeve all year. Some how they find a way to win late in the game.
Colts vs Steelers
Leftwich plays admirably and adequately. But adequate is not enough when Peyton is on the other side of the ball. Despite a great season, the Steelers lose their first playoff game of the post season.
Championship
Cots vs Titans
Nothing like peaking at the right time. Last year the Giants showed us how well that works, this year it's the Colts. Though they fight valiantly, the Titans fall to the Colts in overtime.
Super Bowl
Colts vs Giants
The matchup the networks wanted. The "Manning Bowl" will go down in history as the first time two brother's faced each other at quarterback in the big game. It will have another distinction of the most non-called false start penalties ever. (It is illegal for the QB to go under center and come out without the ball. The Mannings do this 20-30 times a game.) It will also be one of the most lopsided wins in recent memory, bringing to mind the Cowboys/Bills Super Bowls of the 90's as the elder Manning picks apart the Giants secondary and the younger Manning picks the turf out of his helmet. Colts win in a landslide 47-10.
Now, back to the fact that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. This is just because the Chargers won their sorry excuse for a division and the Colts squeaked in as a wild card team. This is also happening in the NFC where the 9-7 Cardinals are hosting the 11-5 Falcons. Consider this: There are four teams in the playoffs that have a worse record than the 11-5 Patriots. Yet New England is not in the post season. This has happened too often the past few years. The NFL needs to move to a seeded post season where division is irrelevant. The NHL and NBA are very successful with this model. The time has come.
Watch for my next picks in a few weeks when I preview the four possible Super Bowls based on the teams that make it to the Championship Round in each division. (Of course, I may feel compelled to predict the next round of games. We'll have to see how I did with this round.)
NFC
The New York Giants and the Carolina Panthers have the bye (So much for my prediction that the 2007 Super Bowl Champions wouldn't make the playoffs...)
Wild Card Round
Falcons vs Cardinals
The battle of the birds. Youth triumphs over experience in this contest as rookie Matt Ryan elevates the Falcons over Kurt Warner and the Cards.
Eagles vs Vikings
Did all of the birds make it this year? (Nope, the Seahawks are sitting at home right now.) The Eagles left it all on the field last week with their drubbing of Dallas. They are unable to overcome Adrian Peterson and the Vikings.
Divisional Round
Falcons vs Giants
The Giants D-line proves too much for young Matt Ryan. Giants win easily.
Vikings vs Panthers
Though they run well, the Panther struggle to stop the Vikings ground game and lose a close game.
Championship
Vikings vs Giants
They say defense wins championships. They are right. With Peterson unable to run against the Giants, they are forced to try to win through the air. They are unsuccessful. The Giants return to the big game.
AFC
The Tennessee Titans and the Pittsburgh Steelers have the bye. (Steelers need it with the injury to Big Ben. He may not play at all in the playoffs)
Wild Card Round
Ravens vs Dolphins
More birds. The Dolphins storybook season following last season's nightmare ends here. The Ravens D is too much for Pennington.
Colts vs Chargers
(This is a good time to mention that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. More on this sad state of affairs below.) Indy won the game in the regular season and they will do it again.
Divisional Round
Ravens vs Titans
The Titans have had a little magic up their sleeve all year. Some how they find a way to win late in the game.
Colts vs Steelers
Leftwich plays admirably and adequately. But adequate is not enough when Peyton is on the other side of the ball. Despite a great season, the Steelers lose their first playoff game of the post season.
Championship
Cots vs Titans
Nothing like peaking at the right time. Last year the Giants showed us how well that works, this year it's the Colts. Though they fight valiantly, the Titans fall to the Colts in overtime.
Super Bowl
Colts vs Giants
The matchup the networks wanted. The "Manning Bowl" will go down in history as the first time two brother's faced each other at quarterback in the big game. It will have another distinction of the most non-called false start penalties ever. (It is illegal for the QB to go under center and come out without the ball. The Mannings do this 20-30 times a game.) It will also be one of the most lopsided wins in recent memory, bringing to mind the Cowboys/Bills Super Bowls of the 90's as the elder Manning picks apart the Giants secondary and the younger Manning picks the turf out of his helmet. Colts win in a landslide 47-10.
Now, back to the fact that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. This is just because the Chargers won their sorry excuse for a division and the Colts squeaked in as a wild card team. This is also happening in the NFC where the 9-7 Cardinals are hosting the 11-5 Falcons. Consider this: There are four teams in the playoffs that have a worse record than the 11-5 Patriots. Yet New England is not in the post season. This has happened too often the past few years. The NFL needs to move to a seeded post season where division is irrelevant. The NHL and NBA are very successful with this model. The time has come.
Watch for my next picks in a few weeks when I preview the four possible Super Bowls based on the teams that make it to the Championship Round in each division. (Of course, I may feel compelled to predict the next round of games. We'll have to see how I did with this round.)
Monday, December 22, 2008
Newsweak
The following is a letter I sent to Newsweek:
Dear Editor of Newsweek,
You may accept this letter as the cancellation of my subscription. I'd like to tell you why I'm canceling, though I doubt it will have any bearing on how you continue to run your magazine.
I first subscribed to "Newsweek" because I wanted the "News" in a format that would go more indepth than my local paper or the cable news networks. I didn't realize I was subscribing to "Newsweak" or more appropriately: "Opinionweek" - and certainly not a balance of opinions. Truth be told, it turns out I was subscribing to "FarLeftweek." Of all of the coverage of the election that I consumed before I made my decision on who to vote for, none were more in the tank for Obama than your periodical. I found nothing but article upon article promoted the cultural messiah-like greatness of Obama while deriding McCain as simply a clone of George W Bush. This was most obviously portrayed in an article that ran the week before the election entitled "Why McCain Won" which was an apologetic on how McCain would have won the election, had he won, which basically ends with the sentiment that voting for Obama is exerting "common sense and decency" and a vote for anyone else is not.
Your Leftism is so extreme that it seems almost to be to the level of outright fear of the right. Even in this most recent edition in "conventional" wisdom (which never quite seemed "conventional") you managed to find a reason to slam Sarah Palin yet again even though her bid for Vice President has been soundly defeated.
While I prefer to read the opinions of both sides to get a fair understanding of the arguments, I could overlook your painfully obvious political bias.
However, when that became coupled with a complete misrepresentation of the Bible and its stance on homosexual marriage, I could not continue to support your publication.
Had your piece on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" been written by someone with a Biblical education, rather than two people with a concordance and a search engine, it might have held more credence with your more educated readers. The assertions of Ms Ball and Ms Underwood that the multiple wives of the patriarchs was condoned, that lesbian activity is never mentioned in the Bible, and that the New Testament doesn't speak to what a marriage should look like are completely and categorically false. I can forgive them for not understanding the difference between cultural, ceremonial, and moral laws as they are laid out in the Old Testament. However, the sinfulness of homosexuality is repeated many times in the New Testament, confirming the law as a moral one when written about in Leviticus, not a cultural or ceremonial law. Romans 1:26 states "...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." While some might argue this refers to beastiality, verse 27 says "In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Verse 26 must be a Biblical mention of lesbianism as this was "in the same way" as the homosexual men. And if the Bible doesn't speak against homosexual marriage, why does it call these relationships "unnatural?" Why is it that when the Bible gives instruction on a successful marriage does it always refer to the husband and wife? To be a leader in the church, one must be the "husband of but one wife. (1 Timothy)" A husband is to love his wife "as he loves himself (Ephesians 5)." If homosexual marriage is Biblically acceptable, why is there such gender specific language, and familial roles?
Ms Ball and Ms Underwood did, however, get one thing correct: Without a doubt Jesus would have reached out with love to those with homosexual desires. In face, He loved them enough to die for them, just has he did for all sinners; myself included. No sin is any worse than another in the eyes of God and my sin is no better or worse than those who lust for members of the same sex. Jesus would have loved them the same way he would love a person engaged in extra-marital sex: He'd welcome them with open arms and love them as a person without condoning the relationship they were engaged in. Jesus loves me. Jesus loves you. And Jesus loves homosexuals.
Truly, the final straw and the ultimate cause of my cancellation was a small plug for your website "xtra.Newsweek.com." I could not have been more disappointed in the choice of verbiage. The piece reads, "Also, a look at the charges that African-Americans are responsible for Prop 8's passage." "Charges?" Murders face "charges." Rapists face "charges." Voters do not! Regardless of how one feels about the outcome of the vote, such sentiments should never be expressed in this fashion. Do we levy the same "charges" against African-Americans for putting Obama in the White House? I didn't think so.
Dear Editor of Newsweek,
You may accept this letter as the cancellation of my subscription. I'd like to tell you why I'm canceling, though I doubt it will have any bearing on how you continue to run your magazine.
I first subscribed to "Newsweek" because I wanted the "News" in a format that would go more indepth than my local paper or the cable news networks. I didn't realize I was subscribing to "Newsweak" or more appropriately: "Opinionweek" - and certainly not a balance of opinions. Truth be told, it turns out I was subscribing to "FarLeftweek." Of all of the coverage of the election that I consumed before I made my decision on who to vote for, none were more in the tank for Obama than your periodical. I found nothing but article upon article promoted the cultural messiah-like greatness of Obama while deriding McCain as simply a clone of George W Bush. This was most obviously portrayed in an article that ran the week before the election entitled "Why McCain Won" which was an apologetic on how McCain would have won the election, had he won, which basically ends with the sentiment that voting for Obama is exerting "common sense and decency" and a vote for anyone else is not.
Your Leftism is so extreme that it seems almost to be to the level of outright fear of the right. Even in this most recent edition in "conventional" wisdom (which never quite seemed "conventional") you managed to find a reason to slam Sarah Palin yet again even though her bid for Vice President has been soundly defeated.
While I prefer to read the opinions of both sides to get a fair understanding of the arguments, I could overlook your painfully obvious political bias.
However, when that became coupled with a complete misrepresentation of the Bible and its stance on homosexual marriage, I could not continue to support your publication.
Had your piece on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" been written by someone with a Biblical education, rather than two people with a concordance and a search engine, it might have held more credence with your more educated readers. The assertions of Ms Ball and Ms Underwood that the multiple wives of the patriarchs was condoned, that lesbian activity is never mentioned in the Bible, and that the New Testament doesn't speak to what a marriage should look like are completely and categorically false. I can forgive them for not understanding the difference between cultural, ceremonial, and moral laws as they are laid out in the Old Testament. However, the sinfulness of homosexuality is repeated many times in the New Testament, confirming the law as a moral one when written about in Leviticus, not a cultural or ceremonial law. Romans 1:26 states "...Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." While some might argue this refers to beastiality, verse 27 says "In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another." Verse 26 must be a Biblical mention of lesbianism as this was "in the same way" as the homosexual men. And if the Bible doesn't speak against homosexual marriage, why does it call these relationships "unnatural?" Why is it that when the Bible gives instruction on a successful marriage does it always refer to the husband and wife? To be a leader in the church, one must be the "husband of but one wife. (1 Timothy)" A husband is to love his wife "as he loves himself (Ephesians 5)." If homosexual marriage is Biblically acceptable, why is there such gender specific language, and familial roles?
Ms Ball and Ms Underwood did, however, get one thing correct: Without a doubt Jesus would have reached out with love to those with homosexual desires. In face, He loved them enough to die for them, just has he did for all sinners; myself included. No sin is any worse than another in the eyes of God and my sin is no better or worse than those who lust for members of the same sex. Jesus would have loved them the same way he would love a person engaged in extra-marital sex: He'd welcome them with open arms and love them as a person without condoning the relationship they were engaged in. Jesus loves me. Jesus loves you. And Jesus loves homosexuals.
Truly, the final straw and the ultimate cause of my cancellation was a small plug for your website "xtra.Newsweek.com." I could not have been more disappointed in the choice of verbiage. The piece reads, "Also, a look at the charges that African-Americans are responsible for Prop 8's passage." "Charges?" Murders face "charges." Rapists face "charges." Voters do not! Regardless of how one feels about the outcome of the vote, such sentiments should never be expressed in this fashion. Do we levy the same "charges" against African-Americans for putting Obama in the White House? I didn't think so.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Behold the Lamb of God
This weekend I had the privilege of escorting the most beautiful woman in the world to a very special event. 11 years ago, I was astonished when the Queen of Hearts agreed to go with me to a Caedmon's Call concert in Boston. The opening acts were two people that we hadn't heard before: Bebo Norman and Andrew Peterson. They have since become my favorite artists.
In 2004 Andrew Peterson, with the help of some of the most talented musicians on the planet, put together the single greatest "Christmas" album ever made: Behold the Lamb of God. To celebrate our sixth wedding anniversary, the QofH and I attended the Behold the Lamb of God tour in Connecticut. (The Queen of Hearts has also commented on this on her blog).
There is so much that I want to say about this that I don't even know where to start. I'll just go with stream of conscience:
The concert was fantastic. ~Beyond fantastic~ Andrew Peterson, Bebo Norman, Jill Phillips, Andrew Osenga, Ben Shive, and Andrew Gullahorn all played some of their own music in the beginning. After a brief intermission (and the obligatory Compassion International infomercial) they all returned and played, without stop, through every song on the album. The music on the CD is moving, the music live is incredible. (Did I mention we were in about the sixth row?) We even had the chance to momentarily speak with Mr. Peterson.
There was the possibility that I was going to have to attend this concert with someone else as our little Wild Card might not have cooperated enough for the QofH to feel comfortable leaving her to accompany me. I'm so very glad that wasn't the case.
I have tried my hand at many things. I even think I'm not to shabby at some of them (Athletics, film, public speaking...) There are things that I'm not very good at. (Basketball, watercolors, cleaning...) Of the things that I'm not good at, there is nothing that I want to excel at more than music. I listen to these artists. I bask in their songwriting genius and I wish that I could have a part in that. I wanted to be up on that stage surrounded by these titans of talent. Is it because of how their music speaks to my life? Is it because they are witty and poignant in conveying a message in their songs? Is it because they seem to enjoy a camaraderie that I have not know for some time? I do not know the answer to these questions.
Andrew Peterson spoke briefly of Frederick Law Olmsted. He is known as the "father of landscape architecture." He designed Central Park. He knew that what he was designing would not attain its full design until years after he died. He painted with trees and flowers and bushes. Andrew said that was what he wanted his music to be like: He wanted it to be relevant today and even more so thirty years from now. That comment gave me pause to think: Compare what typical "Christian" music sings about to the topics typical "secular" music includes. On average (and I am not creating any kind of rule here, but on average) secular music contains things that are fleeting and temporary while Christian music has more lasting themes. What if "secular" music started singing about community responsibility more so than just "stop snitchin'?" What if they started singing about loyalty in marriage rather than "don't worry 'bout the ring you wear 'cause as long as no one knows then nobody can care?"
This made me stop an consider: What is the most fleeting, most temporary subject that I focus on? Sports. Nothing is more out-of-date than a two week old Sports Illustrated. What happens when a team wins it all? We immediately start looking to next year. When JMO:Just the facts puts out a power ranking, how long is it good for? Until the next game is played.
So: What has this concert done for me? It gave me an amazing evening out with the love of my life. It's given me a greater appreciation for the music of Andrew Peterson and friends. It made me wish I had the time, energy, and talent to be a singer/songwriter. It reminded me what's important in this life. And hopefully it will cause me to focus more on the Word than the World Series.
It was a great concert!
Monday, December 08, 2008
Red State/Blue State Myth
I'd just like to take a moment to point out the myth of the Red State and the Blue state. Presented below are the electoral maps by county rather than by state for the last three elections. (Red=Republican, Blue=Democrat)
Here is 2008:
Here is 2008:
The Democrats won this election by about 6%. Ok, I can see that. The heavy population centers are all blue. Here is the 2008 electoral map by state:
Now, some of the things this juxtaposition shows are no brainers: New England is in the back pocket of the Democrats just as the South is owned by the GOP. However, some of what we see should cause some concern... Look at Oregon. That red state went blue. As did Nevada! And the blue state South Carolina went red! Maybe this was an anomaly. Let's look at 2004:
By county:
By state:
Take a look at California, Illinois, Michigan, and Oregon! Somehow those states went blue. And New Mexico somehow went red. Take a look at the 2008 Nevada and the 2004 Nevada. That little county in the northwest corner switched the state from red to blue!
Now, here's the most interesting one:
2000 by county:
2000 by state:
Remember, the blue candidate actually received more votes than the red candidate! So, what can we learn from this? Cities decide elections
Let's take a detailed look:
Pennsylvania: on all three maps, PA goes blue. Where are the blue specks? Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Illinois: Also a blue state. Where is the blue located? Chicago and outside of Saint Louis, MO.
California: Sacramento, San Fransisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego,
Ohio: The two times Ohio managed to go red, the Dems failed to get Cincinnati
As Detroit goes, so goes Michigan. As Green Bay and Madison goes, so goes Wisconsin.
I've done some pain staking research. I looked up the population of all of the cities in the United States that have over 100,000 people. Then I catalogued the population of each state. I added the total population of "City-Dwellers" and compared that to the total population of each state. Any one care to guess what I discovered?
In Red States: The majority of the time, less than 25% of the states population lived in a 100,000 person city. In some cases, they didn't even have a city totaling 100,000 people.
In Blue States: The majority of the blue states had over 40% of their population living in 100,000 person cities.
As you know, JMO doesn't like to point out problems without offering solutions. In today's electoral process, rural and suburban voters are left out in the cold. I propose an electoral college for each state. Every county gets a certain number of state electoral votes based on the population of that county then they are tallied to determine which candidate carries that state. The numbers would be the same as each State House of Representatives. I believe this will balance out the desires of the more rural citizens with those that live in the big cities. I will endeavor to do more research regarding this solution.
In the meantime, here are the Electoral College maps broken down by county one after another for easy comparison:
Friday, December 05, 2008
Review: Goodnight and Good Luck
2005/PG/Drama
Set during the 1950's McCarthy Red Hunt, Goodnight and Good Luck chronicles the heroic actions of Edward R Murrow and his team at "See it Now" as they battle TV Executives and the posibility of being black listed or even imprisoned to combat Senator McCarthy and his actions.
What impressed me most about this film was the sheer amount of original footage they were able to use. It was as if Senator McCarthy were a paid actor in this movie. Also, much of the movie was Mr Murrow delivering portions of the show "See it Now," adding more original content to this compelling picture.
While there were a few lines thrown into this movie that appeared to be aimed at the Bush Administrations Gitmo Detention Center, overall, this was a remarkably un-political political film. The makers admitted that they recognize that some of the things that were said could be misconstrued to be purposeful attacks on the current administration, but they simply wanted to tell the story of Murrow vs McCarthy and the courage that it took at the time.
Much like Shattered Glass, though the film was set mostly in a TV studio it was still compelling and captivating. I was disappointed when it was over because I wanted to see more of the tension, more of the planning, more of the history of the exchange between Murrow and McCarthy. Most of the acting was stellar, including the possible weak link of Actor/Director Clooney which was good. He wisely selected a smaller role than other Actor/Directors have in the past (*cough* Gibson *cough* Cosner *cough* Eastwood *cough*). I appreciated that it was shot in black and white and only one of the subplots seemed unnecessary.
If you liked Thirteen Days or even if you didn't, chances are good you won't feel like the 93 minutes you gave to Goodnight and Good Luck was a waste of time.
3.5 out of 5 stars.
Set during the 1950's McCarthy Red Hunt, Goodnight and Good Luck chronicles the heroic actions of Edward R Murrow and his team at "See it Now" as they battle TV Executives and the posibility of being black listed or even imprisoned to combat Senator McCarthy and his actions.
What impressed me most about this film was the sheer amount of original footage they were able to use. It was as if Senator McCarthy were a paid actor in this movie. Also, much of the movie was Mr Murrow delivering portions of the show "See it Now," adding more original content to this compelling picture.
While there were a few lines thrown into this movie that appeared to be aimed at the Bush Administrations Gitmo Detention Center, overall, this was a remarkably un-political political film. The makers admitted that they recognize that some of the things that were said could be misconstrued to be purposeful attacks on the current administration, but they simply wanted to tell the story of Murrow vs McCarthy and the courage that it took at the time.
Much like Shattered Glass, though the film was set mostly in a TV studio it was still compelling and captivating. I was disappointed when it was over because I wanted to see more of the tension, more of the planning, more of the history of the exchange between Murrow and McCarthy. Most of the acting was stellar, including the possible weak link of Actor/Director Clooney which was good. He wisely selected a smaller role than other Actor/Directors have in the past (*cough* Gibson *cough* Cosner *cough* Eastwood *cough*). I appreciated that it was shot in black and white and only one of the subplots seemed unnecessary.
If you liked Thirteen Days or even if you didn't, chances are good you won't feel like the 93 minutes you gave to Goodnight and Good Luck was a waste of time.
3.5 out of 5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)