There are various stages in the life of a young man: Infant, Baby, Toddler, Little Boy, Boy, Young Man, Tween, Adolescent, Teen, Young Adult, etc. Each stage has it's own rite of passage, if you will. If there was any doubt, Today, Full House solidified his "Boy" status.
Every now and then (ok, basically all the time), Full House and I wrestle. He jumps on me, I tickle him, he climbs on me, etc. Today, as he was running to jump on me, I rolled over. As I did so my elbow came in contact with his bottom lip.
Did he cry? Nope. Did he scream? Nope. Did he bleed? Yup.
There you have it, my little Full House bled without shedding a single tear.
Now I have a Boy.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Bill (Post I)
Sunday, by the narrowest of margins, the House passed a Healthcare reform bill. First, let me say how phenomenally pleased I am that this version of the bill does not include a "public option." The Government will not be entering the market as a healthcare provider.
Now, allow me to blast this reform bill. According to the Obama administration this bill will provide coverage for 30 million Americans who do not currently have it and will cause health care premiums to decrease for those that do have it.
(In rereading my complete and utter dismantling of this bill, I'm seeing that the post is very long. Due to the length of this post, I've split it into several updates. For your convenience I'll list here a table of contents, if you will. Read the portions that interest you.)
Post I (This post)
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
Problem #1
An assumption made by the crafters of this bill
This bill assumes that the 30 million Americans without healthcare all want it. I didn't have healthcare after I graduated from college until about a month before I got married. I didn't need it. I didn't want it. This bill would have punished me for making that financial decision. There is a clause that allows young adults to stay on their parents healthcare until they are 26 instead of 22 as it is now. So either I get punished (with a fine) or my parents get punished by having to continue to pay for a family plan rather than an insured plus one. People should have the freedom not to carry healthcare, just as we have the freedom not to carry life insurance, home insurance, or mortgage insurance. One more thing, allowing "children" to remain on their parents plan is great if you want to continue perpetuating the growing problem of "twixters!"
Problem #2
Consequences if individuals choose not to pay for health insurance
Any American without healthcare by 2014 could be fined. For the first year the fines would start at about $95 (and then in fine print "or 1% of your annual income, whichever is higher") Who makes $9,500 a year?! Then next year the fines could increase to a starting amount of $695. Individuals and families who make less than a certain amount would be exempt from these fines. Oh yeah, by the way, the people exempt from the fines would be eligible for Medicaid. A state-based, state and federally funded health care program that they wouldn't have to pay for! So the people who are exempt get free healthcare anyway!
Please keep reading on the next post:
Now, allow me to blast this reform bill. According to the Obama administration this bill will provide coverage for 30 million Americans who do not currently have it and will cause health care premiums to decrease for those that do have it.
(In rereading my complete and utter dismantling of this bill, I'm seeing that the post is very long. Due to the length of this post, I've split it into several updates. For your convenience I'll list here a table of contents, if you will. Read the portions that interest you.)
Post I (This post)
- Problem 1: An assumption made by the crafters of this bill.
Problem 2: Consequences if individuals choose not to pay for health insurance.
- Problem 3: The ramifications of fining companies that don't provide coverage for their employees.
Problem 4: The bogus claim that this bill will somehow decrease health care premiums
- Problem 5: The ridiculous way this bill plans to pay for itself.
Problem 6: The type of coverage that companies are now required to offer.
- Problem 7: The Constitutionality of this bill
Problem 8: When everything is scheduled to take effect.
Final thoughts
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
An assumption made by the crafters of this bill
This bill assumes that the 30 million Americans without healthcare all want it. I didn't have healthcare after I graduated from college until about a month before I got married. I didn't need it. I didn't want it. This bill would have punished me for making that financial decision. There is a clause that allows young adults to stay on their parents healthcare until they are 26 instead of 22 as it is now. So either I get punished (with a fine) or my parents get punished by having to continue to pay for a family plan rather than an insured plus one. People should have the freedom not to carry healthcare, just as we have the freedom not to carry life insurance, home insurance, or mortgage insurance. One more thing, allowing "children" to remain on their parents plan is great if you want to continue perpetuating the growing problem of "twixters!"
Consequences if individuals choose not to pay for health insurance
Any American without healthcare by 2014 could be fined. For the first year the fines would start at about $95 (and then in fine print "or 1% of your annual income, whichever is higher") Who makes $9,500 a year?! Then next year the fines could increase to a starting amount of $695. Individuals and families who make less than a certain amount would be exempt from these fines. Oh yeah, by the way, the people exempt from the fines would be eligible for Medicaid. A state-based, state and federally funded health care program that they wouldn't have to pay for! So the people who are exempt get free healthcare anyway!
Please keep reading on the next post:
The Bill (Post II)
The ramifications of fining companies that don't provide coverage for their employees
Companies that don't provide healthcare coverage for their employees will be fined. The fines would be up to two thousand dollars... per employee! Small business (companies with 25 employees or less) will get a tax credit that would cover anywhere between 35 to 50 percent of the cost of providing coverage for their employees. Large companies (50 or more) would be subject to the fines. The first 30 employees would be exempt from the fine. What's this going to do? Cause a lot of people to lose their jobs! If I'm a company of 30 employees, with this bill I now have to provide all of my employees (not just full time employees) with insurance and I'm not eligible for the tax credit because I have too many employees! Ok, say good bye to five employees. That cuts my healthcare costs and qualifies me for the tax break. Of course, if I'm a small business of 12 and I'm working really hard to stay afloat that 50% tax credit isn't going to do me as much good as it may seem. I've got to front the cost of the coverage for my employees and then wait for tax time to learn that I'll be sending less money to the IRS. That's not money the government is giving me. That's more money going out of my business that I might have been using to pay for supplies, or another employee. "Sorry, Jimmy, I have to let you go because I have to provide healthcare for everyone else."
The bogus claim that this bill will somehow decrease health care premiums
There is no possible way this bill will decrease people's premiums. Healthcare providers can no longer refuse coverage. That's like telling auto companies that they can't decline policies. What would happen to your auto policy if the company you were with was forced to accept the risk of all of the reckless 19 year olds? Well, the insurance companies would charge them more, right? Insurance is "shared risk." Sure they'd charge the 19 year olds more but do you really think the insurance company is going to recoup the $400,000 they just paid out by charging the inexperienced youthful drivers $3,000 a year? Just a little calculation for you: it would take over 100 years for the insurance company to get the money it paid out. That means they are increasing your policy as well. Here's another reason this bill will not decrease premiums. With this bill, it's not legal for insurance companies to charge sick people more than well people. "Great! Those sick people will really get a break!" There was a school system that wanted to give it's best teachers a bonus. The teacher's union said, "no no! If you give them a bonus you have to give all of us a bonus. We're a union, you can't treat us differently." The school system agreed and didn't give anyone a bonus. This will happen here. "Oh, we can't charge the sick more than the well people? Ok, guess what well people, you are now paying what the sick people pay." If this doesn't happen, health insurance companies will go out of business. (perhaps that was one of the goals of this legislation.)
Please keep reading on the next post:
The Bill (Post III)
The ridiculous way this bill plans to pay for itself
For those that cannot afford healthcare, the government will subsidize it. So we can expect, at this point 30 million Americans to have subsidized insurance. We can add to that all of the people that are going to loose their jobs because of the requirements now on businesses. So we've got over 30 million people for whom the government will pay at least a portion of their insurance. Where is this money going to come from? Fines from companies and individuals won't be enough to pay for it. We all know what that means: tax increases! The payment for this bill will come from new taxes on medical procedures (which will just cause health care costs to increase even more), increased taxes on pharmaceuticals (hitting the elderly and the sick), taxes on "expensive" healthcare coverage (meaning those who can afford really good coverage [of course, I'm sure the Congresspeople are exempt from this]), and cuts in reimbursements to doctors and hospitals from Medicare (yet again, targeting the old). Many experts say those still won't be enough and are predicting higher general tax increases to make up the difference. Hmm, I wonder, will the government also subsidize some of the individual fines they are charging as well for those that can't afford insurance but aren't poor enough to qualify for the subsidized version?
The type of coverage that companies are now required to offer
I have to carry things I don't need. If I'm an individual male, my healthcare still has to provide me with maternity and pediatric coverage. I cannot find a way to lessen my costs by rejecting such coverage.
Please keep reading on the next post:
The Bill (Post IV)
The Constitutionality of this bill
It is unconstitutional to require Americans to carry private health insurance. Obama compared it to requiring people to purchase auto insurance. Here's the difference. Auto insurance is only required if you choose to drive. There is no choice in this legislation. What, if I choose to breathe I have to have healthcare? Where is the outrage from those shouting about the government's infringement on our civil liberties because of the Patriot Act? Oh, the people shouting about that "evil" piece of legislation are the same people trampling my civil liberties by requiring me to purchase healthcare on the open market. This bill is completely unconstitutional and needs to be prominently labeled as such.
When everything is scheduled to take effect
The majority of these provisions don't go into effect until after the mid-term elections and after Obama runs for reelection. The Democrats can wear the laurels of healthcare reform upon their brows without having to answer for all of the inevitable negative consequences. At the mid term elections in 2010 the politicians will point out how all of the drastic doomsday prophesies of the Right have not come to pass. As Obama runs for reelection in 2012 he will continually mention the victory of healthcare reform that he was able to pass because he will not have to face the ramifications of it as it still will not have taken effect when he is trying to retain his office. This bill isn't actually law until 2014! And if we look far enough into the future, two years may not be enough time for the damaging effects of this bill to become fully evident. That means in 2016 the Democrats may still be singing the praises of this destructive bill!
Thanks for making it this far!
Once again I'm seeing this action as simply a calculated stepping stone to a single payor government run system. Let's say the Supreme Court does shoot this bill down as being unconstitutional. Rather than ditch it entirely, the legislatures may say, "Well, we can force people to pay into Social Security because it's government run. We'll just require people to carry government insurance. That's legal." Either that, or, with well people paying the same as sick people they begin choosing to pay the fines rather than carry insurance. People pulling out of insurance companies causes them to raise the premiums on those who stay forcing more people out of the system. Private healthcare collapses and the government swoops in as the apparent savior. Like Senator Palpatine, they save us from the destruction they caused. Either way, as I've said before, the crafters of this bill are either oblivious or devious and I don't want either type of person in power in my country!
Let's hope there's still a way to kill this bill.
(Resource)
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Bad Religion
A few days ago, I realized why I hadn't posted for some time. I wasn't paying much attention to the news. I refuse to watch network news. I have had to eat at my desk so I haven't been watching the cable news station on in the cafe. I don't read the newspaper. I listen to either sports or classical music to and from work.
Then I received a gift: a waterproof radio. The only few minutes of the day that I have to myself, now I can listen to the news. I did it for one day because I got so annoyed by what I heard. Three posts created themselves in that one day. I haven't turned the radio on since.
Here's one of the stories I heard:
"Trade in your Bible for free pornography."
An Atheist group is providing pornography if people will turn in their religious texts. I'm sure you can imagine my wrath if the only acceptable trade-in were a Judeau-Christian Bible. But, true to what their name suggests, the Atheists were accepting any religious text. (I wonder if they would have accepted this Bible)
This is a question for all of my atheist readers (of which I know I have at least two). As an Atheist, do you honestly believe that these images, (images that objectify women, images that have ended marriages, images that have been known to cause eating disorders in women, images that have been proved to lead to violence against women) do you believe that these images are less destructive than ancient writings that (for the most part) encourage their followers to love others?
Now, I understand that some people might say that it's not about what the books say, it's what they lead to. I completely admit that a lot of people have done a lot of bad things and used religion to support it. The Crusades. Hitler used religion to back his psychosis. Jihad. But I realized something:
The solution to bad religion is NOT less religion. The solution to bad religion is good religion.
Why is this such a revolutionary thought? This only makes sense. The solution to bad food is good food, not less food. To combat bad employees, you get good employees, not fewer employees. If Hollywood is making bad movies, the answer is not fewer movies, it's good movies!
I just hope the protesters conducted themselves with love.
Then I received a gift: a waterproof radio. The only few minutes of the day that I have to myself, now I can listen to the news. I did it for one day because I got so annoyed by what I heard. Three posts created themselves in that one day. I haven't turned the radio on since.
Here's one of the stories I heard:
"Trade in your Bible for free pornography."
An Atheist group is providing pornography if people will turn in their religious texts. I'm sure you can imagine my wrath if the only acceptable trade-in were a Judeau-Christian Bible. But, true to what their name suggests, the Atheists were accepting any religious text. (I wonder if they would have accepted this Bible)
This is a question for all of my atheist readers (of which I know I have at least two). As an Atheist, do you honestly believe that these images, (images that objectify women, images that have ended marriages, images that have been known to cause eating disorders in women, images that have been proved to lead to violence against women) do you believe that these images are less destructive than ancient writings that (for the most part) encourage their followers to love others?
Now, I understand that some people might say that it's not about what the books say, it's what they lead to. I completely admit that a lot of people have done a lot of bad things and used religion to support it. The Crusades. Hitler used religion to back his psychosis. Jihad. But I realized something:
The solution to bad religion is NOT less religion. The solution to bad religion is good religion.
Why is this such a revolutionary thought? This only makes sense. The solution to bad food is good food, not less food. To combat bad employees, you get good employees, not fewer employees. If Hollywood is making bad movies, the answer is not fewer movies, it's good movies!
I just hope the protesters conducted themselves with love.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Oprah's Failure
Oprah, a cultural bastion of wisdom and followers, has once again disappointed me.
She was interviewing the GOP candidate who won't go away (Sarah Palin) and Sarah's daughter Bristol. Here is the video if you'd like to view it: Oprah's Failure
This is the only clip I could find. This clip has been edited, the original has Oprah saying something to the affect of, "I just wanted to give you an opportunity to take a step back from that statement." But Bristol refused to.
So, in this clip Oprah says to Bristol, "I bristled when I read that you said 'I'm not going to have sex before I'm married, I can guarantee it.'" Oprah then goes on to ask, "Why set yourself up for failure like that?" Excuse me?
Here's what I want to know: When did a dedication to abstinence become unreasonable? We expect youth/young adults to remain abstinent from other things! (Marijuana, Tobacco, Steroids, Texting while driving, Etc)
What did Oprah want Bristol to say? "I'm gonna try not to have sex?" "I've been thinking about it and I'm probably not going to have sex again until I'm married."
Which statement sets Bristol up for more failure: "Maybe I'll have sex, maybe I won't but I'll try not to." (Guess what, if she says this, she will!) or "I'm guaranteeing that I will not have sex again until I'm married." By saying this she knows that people will hold her accountable! It makes the decision not to have sex easier because sex now comes with two things: a baby and public ridicule. (Oh, I forgot, in our culture we don't like accountability.)
And, Oprah, even if you want to believe that a generic youth making this guarantee is setting themself up for failure, who is more likely to know that she's not going to have sex: The anonymous 15 year old who has never done it or the mother of a 13 month old who knows what sex leads to and who has been in the public eye for at least 2 years? Hmmm... Tough one...
In the following scenarios, which statement is more likely to set the speaker up for failure:
"I'm gonna try to stop smoking..."
"I'm quiting, I'm never going to smoke again."
"I'm gonna try to stop lying..."
"I'm going to be honest in my relationships. Period."
"I'm gonna try not to drink in college."
"I will not break the law by drinking while underage."
Now let's pretend that Bristol didn't go on Oprah's show and express certainty about something Oprah doesn't agree with. Let's pretend that Bristol went on Oprah's show and was luke warm about something Oprah is passionate about. What would that conversation have sounded like? I submit that it would have gone something like this:
Bristol: "I'm gonna seriously consider lowering my carbon footprint."
Oprah: "What do you mean 'Seriously consider?' This is something that you have to do. We all have to do it! Right, everyone?" (Cheers from the audience) "Now, what do you say? Are you gonna try? or are you gonna do it!?"
I wonder if Oprah's ever guaranteed that she was going to help those girls in Africa who attend her school? Or if she's been certain that she's going to keep her weight from fluctuating. I hope not. If she did, she's only setting herself up for failure.
She was interviewing the GOP candidate who won't go away (Sarah Palin) and Sarah's daughter Bristol. Here is the video if you'd like to view it: Oprah's Failure
This is the only clip I could find. This clip has been edited, the original has Oprah saying something to the affect of, "I just wanted to give you an opportunity to take a step back from that statement." But Bristol refused to.
So, in this clip Oprah says to Bristol, "I bristled when I read that you said 'I'm not going to have sex before I'm married, I can guarantee it.'" Oprah then goes on to ask, "Why set yourself up for failure like that?" Excuse me?
Here's what I want to know: When did a dedication to abstinence become unreasonable? We expect youth/young adults to remain abstinent from other things! (Marijuana, Tobacco, Steroids, Texting while driving, Etc)
What did Oprah want Bristol to say? "I'm gonna try not to have sex?" "I've been thinking about it and I'm probably not going to have sex again until I'm married."
Which statement sets Bristol up for more failure: "Maybe I'll have sex, maybe I won't but I'll try not to." (Guess what, if she says this, she will!) or "I'm guaranteeing that I will not have sex again until I'm married." By saying this she knows that people will hold her accountable! It makes the decision not to have sex easier because sex now comes with two things: a baby and public ridicule. (Oh, I forgot, in our culture we don't like accountability.)
And, Oprah, even if you want to believe that a generic youth making this guarantee is setting themself up for failure, who is more likely to know that she's not going to have sex: The anonymous 15 year old who has never done it or the mother of a 13 month old who knows what sex leads to and who has been in the public eye for at least 2 years? Hmmm... Tough one...
In the following scenarios, which statement is more likely to set the speaker up for failure:
"I'm gonna try to stop smoking..."
"I'm quiting, I'm never going to smoke again."
"I'm gonna try to stop lying..."
"I'm going to be honest in my relationships. Period."
"I'm gonna try not to drink in college."
"I will not break the law by drinking while underage."
Now let's pretend that Bristol didn't go on Oprah's show and express certainty about something Oprah doesn't agree with. Let's pretend that Bristol went on Oprah's show and was luke warm about something Oprah is passionate about. What would that conversation have sounded like? I submit that it would have gone something like this:
Bristol: "I'm gonna seriously consider lowering my carbon footprint."
Oprah: "What do you mean 'Seriously consider?' This is something that you have to do. We all have to do it! Right, everyone?" (Cheers from the audience) "Now, what do you say? Are you gonna try? or are you gonna do it!?"
I wonder if Oprah's ever guaranteed that she was going to help those girls in Africa who attend her school? Or if she's been certain that she's going to keep her weight from fluctuating. I hope not. If she did, she's only setting herself up for failure.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Payton vs Peyton
Sean Payton, head coach of the New Orleans Saints will face off against Peyton Manning, Quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV.
Of course, there's always some controversy when it comes to the Championship games. I was pleased with the officiating until the overtime session for the NFC Championship game. I'm not sure if the referees just wanted to go home, or wanted to be able to walk safely down Bourbon St. Whichever the case, they gave the game to the wrong team.
On fourth and 1, the Saints went for it. The runner diving over the pile lost control of the football and did not regain control until he was behind the 1st down marker. Somehow this was granted as a first down. Had the correct call been made, Favre and the Vikings would have gotten the ball around mid-field. Only one team had been able to move the ball in the second half and that team was wearing purple.
On 3rd and 7, a phantom pass interference call was made on a ball over thrown by 10 yards. Had the right call been made, likely the Saints would have punted. They might have gone for it, but Belichick only coaches in New England.
On 2nd and 16, a ball that was trapped against the ground was declared a completed catch, allowing the Saints to go for a 40 yard field goal attempt. Had the correct call been made, they'd have been facing 3rd and 16 and looking at a 56 yard field goal attempt that they never would have tried.
As I perused the NFL rule book, it would seem that they've created the "Manning-rule" which is the conspicuous removal of the ruling that a Quarterback who goes under center and takes his hands out without the ball has committed a false start. Well, it's time to take another look at the rulebook.
The NFL rulebook states: "No player on offense may assist a runner except by blocking for him." The NFL needs to decide if they are going to remove this rule or start calling it. I am so tired of seeing three offensive linemen pushing their running back from behind in an effort to gain another three yards. This is illegal but, like the "Manning-rule," it happens every game. Call it or remove it.
Finally, It's time to change the way the NFL handles overtime. There is nothing exciting about a team making it to their opponent's 35 and winning the game with a field goal. I propose the following: Remove the sudden death aspect of overtime. The winner should be the first team to 6 points. Now there is some strategy to kicking a field goal. Do we take three and hope we can keep the other team from scoring a touchdown? Or do we go for the TD and the win now? At least this way to lose without ever touching the ball, you have to give up a touchdown.
For 16 seconds it looked like I was going to have a team to root for in Super Bowl XLIV, and then Favre threw another interception. So, now I have a team to root against: Go Saints!
Of course, there's always some controversy when it comes to the Championship games. I was pleased with the officiating until the overtime session for the NFC Championship game. I'm not sure if the referees just wanted to go home, or wanted to be able to walk safely down Bourbon St. Whichever the case, they gave the game to the wrong team.
On fourth and 1, the Saints went for it. The runner diving over the pile lost control of the football and did not regain control until he was behind the 1st down marker. Somehow this was granted as a first down. Had the correct call been made, Favre and the Vikings would have gotten the ball around mid-field. Only one team had been able to move the ball in the second half and that team was wearing purple.
On 3rd and 7, a phantom pass interference call was made on a ball over thrown by 10 yards. Had the right call been made, likely the Saints would have punted. They might have gone for it, but Belichick only coaches in New England.
On 2nd and 16, a ball that was trapped against the ground was declared a completed catch, allowing the Saints to go for a 40 yard field goal attempt. Had the correct call been made, they'd have been facing 3rd and 16 and looking at a 56 yard field goal attempt that they never would have tried.
As I perused the NFL rule book, it would seem that they've created the "Manning-rule" which is the conspicuous removal of the ruling that a Quarterback who goes under center and takes his hands out without the ball has committed a false start. Well, it's time to take another look at the rulebook.
The NFL rulebook states: "No player on offense may assist a runner except by blocking for him." The NFL needs to decide if they are going to remove this rule or start calling it. I am so tired of seeing three offensive linemen pushing their running back from behind in an effort to gain another three yards. This is illegal but, like the "Manning-rule," it happens every game. Call it or remove it.
Finally, It's time to change the way the NFL handles overtime. There is nothing exciting about a team making it to their opponent's 35 and winning the game with a field goal. I propose the following: Remove the sudden death aspect of overtime. The winner should be the first team to 6 points. Now there is some strategy to kicking a field goal. Do we take three and hope we can keep the other team from scoring a touchdown? Or do we go for the TD and the win now? At least this way to lose without ever touching the ball, you have to give up a touchdown.
For 16 seconds it looked like I was going to have a team to root for in Super Bowl XLIV, and then Favre threw another interception. So, now I have a team to root against: Go Saints!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
All Four Super Bowl Previews IV
What has become a perennial subject is one of my favorite posts. This is where I break down all four possible Super Bowls, discuss who will win, which one I'd like to see, and which one the league and the networks are pulling for.
If you'd like to see how I've done in the past, you can read my previous versions here (I'll list them with the year the Super Bowl happened along with the actual teams that faced off): 2007, Colts over Bears; 2008, Giants over Patriots; and 2009, Steelers over Cardinals.
First, I'm officially announcing that I am not going to make a prediction for either Championship game. It never seems to work out for me. I have my analysis and my expectations, but I'm not sharing any actual predictions.
And now, all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most:
Saints vs Jets
There's not a lot for CBS to leverage here. The only real story is that it's a Super Bowl of "firsts". The Saints have never been before and the Jet's have a Rookie QB with an up and coming coach. That's about it. In regards to the actual game: they say it's defense that wins Championships but I think if the Jets make it their defense will be befuddled by the Saints multi-look offense. The Jets may have a very strong secondary but I think the Saints can overcome it. Winner: Saints(Loser: the viewers)
Saints vs Colts
This game could be fairly entertaining: Two gun slinging QBs with high powered offenses facing off. But for as many points as they can score, the Saints faced a much easier schedule than the Colts did. If this is the match-up there would be several lead changes, but Peyton would win his second ring (Then he'd only be 1 ring and 2 Super Bowl appearances behind Brady). Winner: Colts (Loser: Score Board Operator)
Vikings vs Jets
Now here's a storyline: Oldest Super Bowl QB ever in Favre vs an untested Rookie. The MVP worthy performance of Brett vs the shut down defense of the Revis and Jets. This game might resemble the beginning of the Patriots/Panthers Super Bowl where there was no scoring for the majority of the first half. This would likely be the closest of all four possible games. Winner: Vikings (Loser: Jim Caldwell, Colts coach for not going for 16-0)
Vikings vs Colts
This is definitely the game CBS executives pray for every night before bed. No two active Quarterbacks are more loved or followed than Brett Favre and Peyton Manning. Two Generations of greatness on one field. Will it be the passing of the torch? Or will Brett prove yet again why he deserves to be listed as the greatest of all time? Will the Vikings powerful D-Line get to Peyton? Will the Colts secondary make Favre of the Vikings look more like Favre of the Jets? It's just too close to call. Winner: Jersey Retailers (Loser: Joe Montana)
There you have it. What are your thoughts? Do you have a preference? Think I've picked the wrong winners? Now's your chance: be heard!
If you'd like to see how I've done in the past, you can read my previous versions here (I'll list them with the year the Super Bowl happened along with the actual teams that faced off): 2007, Colts over Bears; 2008, Giants over Patriots; and 2009, Steelers over Cardinals.
First, I'm officially announcing that I am not going to make a prediction for either Championship game. It never seems to work out for me. I have my analysis and my expectations, but I'm not sharing any actual predictions.
And now, all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most:
Saints vs Jets
There's not a lot for CBS to leverage here. The only real story is that it's a Super Bowl of "firsts". The Saints have never been before and the Jet's have a Rookie QB with an up and coming coach. That's about it. In regards to the actual game: they say it's defense that wins Championships but I think if the Jets make it their defense will be befuddled by the Saints multi-look offense. The Jets may have a very strong secondary but I think the Saints can overcome it. Winner: Saints(Loser: the viewers)
Saints vs Colts
This game could be fairly entertaining: Two gun slinging QBs with high powered offenses facing off. But for as many points as they can score, the Saints faced a much easier schedule than the Colts did. If this is the match-up there would be several lead changes, but Peyton would win his second ring (Then he'd only be 1 ring and 2 Super Bowl appearances behind Brady). Winner: Colts (Loser: Score Board Operator)
Vikings vs Jets
Now here's a storyline: Oldest Super Bowl QB ever in Favre vs an untested Rookie. The MVP worthy performance of Brett vs the shut down defense of the Revis and Jets. This game might resemble the beginning of the Patriots/Panthers Super Bowl where there was no scoring for the majority of the first half. This would likely be the closest of all four possible games. Winner: Vikings (Loser: Jim Caldwell, Colts coach for not going for 16-0)
Vikings vs Colts
This is definitely the game CBS executives pray for every night before bed. No two active Quarterbacks are more loved or followed than Brett Favre and Peyton Manning. Two Generations of greatness on one field. Will it be the passing of the torch? Or will Brett prove yet again why he deserves to be listed as the greatest of all time? Will the Vikings powerful D-Line get to Peyton? Will the Colts secondary make Favre of the Vikings look more like Favre of the Jets? It's just too close to call. Winner: Jersey Retailers (Loser: Joe Montana)
There you have it. What are your thoughts? Do you have a preference? Think I've picked the wrong winners? Now's your chance: be heard!
NBC-ya
This may sound odd, but I used to be an NBC loyalist. If there were two shows on network TV that I wanted to watch, I favored the NBC show. I used to watch NBC's 11 o'clock news when I was in high school. I approved of NBC's choice of Leno over Letterman. I was upset when NBC lost the NFL. Funny, I don't feel quite so loyal anymore.
Not since NBC decided to stick it to the new guy because they made a colossal blunder that they can't admit to. That's what NBC head honcho Jeff Zucker is doing by forcing out Conan O'Brien from The Tonight Show.
I've read conflicting stories about the situation, but in either case Zucker shoulders the lion's share of the blame.
Scenario one: Leno is ready to retire but NBC can't let him go as he is one of only a few shows where NBC beats out the competition so they beg him to stay, offer him an obscenely large contract, and move him to Prime Time. The Jay Leno Show tanks and The Tonight Show under Conan's leadership falters so they try to get Leno back to 11:35.
Scenario two: Leno declares he'll be retiring in five years. NBC announces that Conan is the heir apparent to The Tonight Show throne. The late night scepter is set to be passed and Leno decides he's not ready to be done. NBC sees the possibilities and fears that Leno may sign with another network. So they offer him a Prime Time gig along with an obscene amount of money. The Jay Leno Show tanks and Leno starts to complain that he wants his old job back. Zucker tries to move Conan and The Tonight Show back to 12:05 to make room for a 1/2 hour Leno show.
In either scenario Conan says that the integrity of The Tonight Show is too great to change it's time slot. Zucker agrees and tells Conan to take a hike.
All of this hinges on the fact that the final decision is Zucker's call. In "scenario one" he made a major mess of NBC. The Prime Time show was his idea. Rather than cancel Leno's prime time failure and eat the obscene amount of money they signed him to, he'd rather give Conan the boot and move Leno back to 11:35.
In "scenario two" Zucker was afraid that Leno would sign with another network, so he creates a new show in prime time for Leno. After it tanks and Jay "the bully" Leno says he wants his old job back Zucker acquiesces and sends Conan packing rather than telling Leno that if he wants to take his ball and go home, that's up to him, but Zucker isn't going to move him to another team.
The dirtiest part about all of this is that under Conan's contract, anything that he's developed while with NBC is not his own intellectual property. So when he goes to FOX he can't take "In the Year 3000," "The Celebrity Survey," or "The Sears Tower wearing Sears Clothing" with him. They belong to NBC.
I was once one of Leno's most loyal viewers. Not anymore. I'll wait for Conan to sign with another network. Until then, it will be rare that my rabbit-eared TV will be tuned to 30-1 and I can guarantee that it won't be set to that channel past 11PM on weeknights.
Not since NBC decided to stick it to the new guy because they made a colossal blunder that they can't admit to. That's what NBC head honcho Jeff Zucker is doing by forcing out Conan O'Brien from The Tonight Show.
I've read conflicting stories about the situation, but in either case Zucker shoulders the lion's share of the blame.Scenario one: Leno is ready to retire but NBC can't let him go as he is one of only a few shows where NBC beats out the competition so they beg him to stay, offer him an obscenely large contract, and move him to Prime Time. The Jay Leno Show tanks and The Tonight Show under Conan's leadership falters so they try to get Leno back to 11:35.
Scenario two: Leno declares he'll be retiring in five years. NBC announces that Conan is the heir apparent to The Tonight Show throne. The late night scepter is set to be passed and Leno decides he's not ready to be done. NBC sees the possibilities and fears that Leno may sign with another network. So they offer him a Prime Time gig along with an obscene amount of money. The Jay Leno Show tanks and Leno starts to complain that he wants his old job back. Zucker tries to move Conan and The Tonight Show back to 12:05 to make room for a 1/2 hour Leno show.
In either scenario Conan says that the integrity of The Tonight Show is too great to change it's time slot. Zucker agrees and tells Conan to take a hike.
All of this hinges on the fact that the final decision is Zucker's call. In "scenario one" he made a major mess of NBC. The Prime Time show was his idea. Rather than cancel Leno's prime time failure and eat the obscene amount of money they signed him to, he'd rather give Conan the boot and move Leno back to 11:35.In "scenario two" Zucker was afraid that Leno would sign with another network, so he creates a new show in prime time for Leno. After it tanks and Jay "the bully" Leno says he wants his old job back Zucker acquiesces and sends Conan packing rather than telling Leno that if he wants to take his ball and go home, that's up to him, but Zucker isn't going to move him to another team.
The dirtiest part about all of this is that under Conan's contract, anything that he's developed while with NBC is not his own intellectual property. So when he goes to FOX he can't take "In the Year 3000," "The Celebrity Survey," or "The Sears Tower wearing Sears Clothing" with him. They belong to NBC.
I was once one of Leno's most loyal viewers. Not anymore. I'll wait for Conan to sign with another network. Until then, it will be rare that my rabbit-eared TV will be tuned to 30-1 and I can guarantee that it won't be set to that channel past 11PM on weeknights.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
41.
Massachusetts has spoken. The message was loud and clear. Just like the midterm elections under the 41st President were a mandate against the war, this run-off election was a mandate against Obama's plan for nationalized healthcare. Republican Senator Scott Brown is the 41st Republican in the Senate. The Democrats no longer have a filibuster proof majority. The healthcare bill can now be stopped.
In actuality, the Obama Administration should be thankful that they had this opportunity to hear from such a large number of independent voters. Not only independent voters, but independent voters who historically vote liberal. They swung to the right on this issue. And these aren't people who are uninformed about the President's healthcare agenda. As long as this bill has been on the table the Dems have been trying to sell it to America by pointing to Massachusetts and saying, "Look, it's working there." Massachusetts has just pointed back and said, "Nope, we don't want it."
As with all political issues the spin patrol is in high gear. High ranking Democratic officials are saying that this wasn't Massachusetts way of saying "No thank you" to the healthcare bill. The Dems are saying that Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, lost because she ran a lackluster uninspired campaign. She lost because she hinted that Curt Schilling might be a Yankees fan. Former President Clinton and President Obama both flew to Massachusetts to campaign for Ms Coakley. The Democratic Party pulled out all the stops and she lost. John Kerry wore a Yankees hat in Yankee stadium and he still carried Massachusetts.
You know what? That's fine with me. Let the Democrats think the vote isn't a mandate on Washington's politics and policies. Let them think it's about the Candidate and the campaign. The longer they swallow that Kool-Aid, the longer they will be out of touch with the majority of America's independent voters and the more seats they'll lose come November. Feel free to ignore the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Pretend that Senator Brown won Massachusetts with his charisma. Bottom line: The Democrats lost Massachusetts and when the Democrats lose Massachusetts they have a national problem. If they want to stick their collective heads in the sand, that's fine with me.
The Obama Administration does have two final options to get their healthcare bill passed: They can either force a vote before Senator Brown is seated or they can force a delay in his seating so they can get their vote. I say: Go ahead. Force it through before he's seated. Be the party full of bullies that ignores the voters mandate. Either action would only increase the number of seats they are going to lose in November.
Finally, I have a correction to my previous post. I attributed a quote to some political pundit. I was wrong. The quote actually belonged to Senator Scott Brown. He was asked in a debate last week if he was willing to sit in Kennedy's seat and block health care reform. Brown replied, "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
And for the first time in over 40 years, the people made the right decision!
In actuality, the Obama Administration should be thankful that they had this opportunity to hear from such a large number of independent voters. Not only independent voters, but independent voters who historically vote liberal. They swung to the right on this issue. And these aren't people who are uninformed about the President's healthcare agenda. As long as this bill has been on the table the Dems have been trying to sell it to America by pointing to Massachusetts and saying, "Look, it's working there." Massachusetts has just pointed back and said, "Nope, we don't want it."
As with all political issues the spin patrol is in high gear. High ranking Democratic officials are saying that this wasn't Massachusetts way of saying "No thank you" to the healthcare bill. The Dems are saying that Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, lost because she ran a lackluster uninspired campaign. She lost because she hinted that Curt Schilling might be a Yankees fan. Former President Clinton and President Obama both flew to Massachusetts to campaign for Ms Coakley. The Democratic Party pulled out all the stops and she lost. John Kerry wore a Yankees hat in Yankee stadium and he still carried Massachusetts.
You know what? That's fine with me. Let the Democrats think the vote isn't a mandate on Washington's politics and policies. Let them think it's about the Candidate and the campaign. The longer they swallow that Kool-Aid, the longer they will be out of touch with the majority of America's independent voters and the more seats they'll lose come November. Feel free to ignore the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Pretend that Senator Brown won Massachusetts with his charisma. Bottom line: The Democrats lost Massachusetts and when the Democrats lose Massachusetts they have a national problem. If they want to stick their collective heads in the sand, that's fine with me.
The Obama Administration does have two final options to get their healthcare bill passed: They can either force a vote before Senator Brown is seated or they can force a delay in his seating so they can get their vote. I say: Go ahead. Force it through before he's seated. Be the party full of bullies that ignores the voters mandate. Either action would only increase the number of seats they are going to lose in November.
Finally, I have a correction to my previous post. I attributed a quote to some political pundit. I was wrong. The quote actually belonged to Senator Scott Brown. He was asked in a debate last week if he was willing to sit in Kennedy's seat and block health care reform. Brown replied, "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
And for the first time in over 40 years, the people made the right decision!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Irony
There are two totally unrelated, wonderfully ironic possibilities in the very near future. One political, the other sports related. Perfect for JMO.
Massachusetts: The people of Massachusetts will soon be voting for a new US Senator. The seat vacated by Teddy Kennedy is up for grabs and it's anybody's guess right now which political party will claim victory. The Democratic candidate (Martha Coakley, MA's Attorney General) displayed an early lead, but the Republican hopeful (Scott Brown, MA State Senator) has made a late push. While Ms. Coakly once held as much as a 15% lead, most polls show a dead heat, and some even have her trailing very late in the game. (On a side note, one unbiased news reporter asked a political pundit who he thought would win Senator Kennedy's seat to which the commentator corrected him: "The seat does not belong to Edward Kennedy. It belongs to the good people of the state of Massachusetts." But there is no such thing as the liberal media.)
Where is the irony? I spoke, live, one on one, with a Congressman from New York. It was at a town fair and he didn't know that I wasn't one of his constituents. I requested that he vote against the healthcare plan. He asked me why I felt the way I did. I briefly listed some of my concerns. He was ready with the party line of, "Well, look at Massachusetts. It's worked there so clearly it can work on the national level." And now, it is Massachusetts that can decide if we will be forced to bear this irresponsible burden or not. This one Senate seat could upset the Democrats "Filibuster-proof" majority. If Scott Brown wins this election, the Republicans would have enough votes to kill the Healthcare Bill. How well is it working in Massachusetts? I guess we'll find out when the people of that blue state decide if we will be forced to have national healthcare or not.
Indianapolis: Week 16 of the NFL's regular season: The Jets are all but eliminated. They must win their last two games to have a shot at the post season. The Colts are looking at being only the second team ever to go 16-0. But they thumb their nose at history and curl up and die for their opponent. Who was that opponent? The New York Jets. If the Colts played like a real NFL team, the Jets would have been eliminated.
Where's the irony? The Jets have shocked football fans everywhere (Except in New York) by defeating both the Bengals and the Chargers. Now, in the AFC Championship game they face none other than the Indianapolis Colts. The very team that could have prevented them from getting to the playoffs. If the Jets are able to eliminate Dallas Clark and the Colts it would be poetic justice for the Colts deciding they didn't want to actually play any football for the final two weeks of the season.
I love irony of all kinds. I will be ecstatic if both of these ironic possibilities come to fruition!
Massachusetts: The people of Massachusetts will soon be voting for a new US Senator. The seat vacated by Teddy Kennedy is up for grabs and it's anybody's guess right now which political party will claim victory. The Democratic candidate (Martha Coakley, MA's Attorney General) displayed an early lead, but the Republican hopeful (Scott Brown, MA State Senator) has made a late push. While Ms. Coakly once held as much as a 15% lead, most polls show a dead heat, and some even have her trailing very late in the game. (On a side note, one unbiased news reporter asked a political pundit who he thought would win Senator Kennedy's seat to which the commentator corrected him: "The seat does not belong to Edward Kennedy. It belongs to the good people of the state of Massachusetts." But there is no such thing as the liberal media.)
Where is the irony? I spoke, live, one on one, with a Congressman from New York. It was at a town fair and he didn't know that I wasn't one of his constituents. I requested that he vote against the healthcare plan. He asked me why I felt the way I did. I briefly listed some of my concerns. He was ready with the party line of, "Well, look at Massachusetts. It's worked there so clearly it can work on the national level." And now, it is Massachusetts that can decide if we will be forced to bear this irresponsible burden or not. This one Senate seat could upset the Democrats "Filibuster-proof" majority. If Scott Brown wins this election, the Republicans would have enough votes to kill the Healthcare Bill. How well is it working in Massachusetts? I guess we'll find out when the people of that blue state decide if we will be forced to have national healthcare or not.
Indianapolis: Week 16 of the NFL's regular season: The Jets are all but eliminated. They must win their last two games to have a shot at the post season. The Colts are looking at being only the second team ever to go 16-0. But they thumb their nose at history and curl up and die for their opponent. Who was that opponent? The New York Jets. If the Colts played like a real NFL team, the Jets would have been eliminated.
Where's the irony? The Jets have shocked football fans everywhere (Except in New York) by defeating both the Bengals and the Chargers. Now, in the AFC Championship game they face none other than the Indianapolis Colts. The very team that could have prevented them from getting to the playoffs. If the Jets are able to eliminate Dallas Clark and the Colts it would be poetic justice for the Colts deciding they didn't want to actually play any football for the final two weeks of the season.
I love irony of all kinds. I will be ecstatic if both of these ironic possibilities come to fruition!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Reflections on the Playoffs thus far
My beginning thoughts are general thoughts about no one specific game.
First, I want to hear the outrage from the "purists" for Favre and the Vikings running up the score on the Cowboys. I don't think that what the Patriots did in 2007 was "unsportsmanlike" but there are those that do. I want to hear from those people the same sentiment towards the Vikings. Or is only unsportsmanlike with it's a team that plays in New England?
Second, can we all agree that we now know why Belichick and the Patriots "Go for it" on fourth down so often? I'm fairly certain that these playoffs have proven that field goals are no longer "easy points." "Just put the points on the board" is no longer a guarantee. I think I've seen more missed field goals in the past 8 games than I've seen in an entire season.
So, for the Divisional playoff round, I decided to give up on analysis and just pick all of the teams that started with a "C": the Cardinals, Colts, Cowboys, and Chargers. Three of them lost. Why is it that the JMO curse doesn't seem to apply to teams that I don't like, but applies in all other cases? The only team that won that I picked was the game that I was hoping I'd picked wrong.
Speaking of the Colts, I have a few questions for the officiating team of that game.
1) Late in the first half a play was run and there were 9 seconds left on the clock. Then, just before the ball was snapped for the next play, the clock read 11 seconds. Where did those 2 seconds come from? Those two seconds allowed the Colts to run an extra play and score a TD, rather than have to settle for a FG.
2) Since when is a receiver who has caught the ball "Defenseless"? Third and goal, Dallas Clark catches a TD pass and the ball is knocked loose by a perfectly timed hit by the DB. But a flag is thrown giving the Colts 4 more chances to score. And they do. So, where is it in the rule book, again, that a receiver who has caught the ball is "defenseless"?
3) Are there special rules for players who wear a horseshoe on their helmet? I could have sworn that if you play the receiver and not the ball and you interfere with the completion of the pass that it's pass interference. Just like what happened when the Ravens faced 3rd and 3 in the 3rd. But, as my question supposes, there must be a separate rule book for the boys from Indy.
In the end, I knew that the Ravens would not win because a team can break down film, they can game plan, and they can execute. A team can pressure the QB, stop the run, disrupt the passing game, but there is one thing that no team can do. No team can defend against the refs.
Stay tuned to JMO. Don't miss my annual breakdown of all four possible Super Bowls. Let's see if I can call the participants and the winner of that game wrong, too!
First, I want to hear the outrage from the "purists" for Favre and the Vikings running up the score on the Cowboys. I don't think that what the Patriots did in 2007 was "unsportsmanlike" but there are those that do. I want to hear from those people the same sentiment towards the Vikings. Or is only unsportsmanlike with it's a team that plays in New England?
Second, can we all agree that we now know why Belichick and the Patriots "Go for it" on fourth down so often? I'm fairly certain that these playoffs have proven that field goals are no longer "easy points." "Just put the points on the board" is no longer a guarantee. I think I've seen more missed field goals in the past 8 games than I've seen in an entire season.
So, for the Divisional playoff round, I decided to give up on analysis and just pick all of the teams that started with a "C": the Cardinals, Colts, Cowboys, and Chargers. Three of them lost. Why is it that the JMO curse doesn't seem to apply to teams that I don't like, but applies in all other cases? The only team that won that I picked was the game that I was hoping I'd picked wrong.
Speaking of the Colts, I have a few questions for the officiating team of that game.
1) Late in the first half a play was run and there were 9 seconds left on the clock. Then, just before the ball was snapped for the next play, the clock read 11 seconds. Where did those 2 seconds come from? Those two seconds allowed the Colts to run an extra play and score a TD, rather than have to settle for a FG.
2) Since when is a receiver who has caught the ball "Defenseless"? Third and goal, Dallas Clark catches a TD pass and the ball is knocked loose by a perfectly timed hit by the DB. But a flag is thrown giving the Colts 4 more chances to score. And they do. So, where is it in the rule book, again, that a receiver who has caught the ball is "defenseless"?
3) Are there special rules for players who wear a horseshoe on their helmet? I could have sworn that if you play the receiver and not the ball and you interfere with the completion of the pass that it's pass interference. Just like what happened when the Ravens faced 3rd and 3 in the 3rd. But, as my question supposes, there must be a separate rule book for the boys from Indy.
In the end, I knew that the Ravens would not win because a team can break down film, they can game plan, and they can execute. A team can pressure the QB, stop the run, disrupt the passing game, but there is one thing that no team can do. No team can defend against the refs.
Stay tuned to JMO. Don't miss my annual breakdown of all four possible Super Bowls. Let's see if I can call the participants and the winner of that game wrong, too!
Friday, January 15, 2010
Imagine
It seems that every time the new year rolls around, someone decides it's a good idea to ring it in with John Lennon's "Imagine."
I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that I don't like the song "Imagine." And not because I want my stuff or even due to my outspoken dedication to one specific religion.
The world that John imagines is one of a purposeless drab useless existence.
Imagine no religion and no heaven and hell. Ok, that means that the life I live is regulated to this world. There is no reward or punishment, so I have to find meaning in this life, as there isn't one that follows.
I'll pour myself into Patriotism and the defense and bettering of my country. Oh, wait, there are no boarders, boundaries, or countries. Ok, well, that's out.
Hmm, I'll find something I'm passionate about. What's that John? There's nothing to kill or die for? Well, while I get the nothing to kill for (with the exception of possibly killing one to save many others) If I have nothing to die for, what kind of life is that? I wouldn't give up my life for my children? My wife? I have no religion be martyred for or country to defend. What's left?
I guess I'll live a life of comfort. Oh no! All of my stuff is gone! I have no possessions.
What am I left with? The brotherhood of man? Based on what? The fact that we live in a world devoid of hope, meaning, purpose, drive, or ambition.
John's utopia is in fact a distopia. If I lived in his imagined world I might just have found something to die for: to get out of it.
I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that I don't like the song "Imagine." And not because I want my stuff or even due to my outspoken dedication to one specific religion.
The world that John imagines is one of a purposeless drab useless existence.
Imagine no religion and no heaven and hell. Ok, that means that the life I live is regulated to this world. There is no reward or punishment, so I have to find meaning in this life, as there isn't one that follows.
I'll pour myself into Patriotism and the defense and bettering of my country. Oh, wait, there are no boarders, boundaries, or countries. Ok, well, that's out.
Hmm, I'll find something I'm passionate about. What's that John? There's nothing to kill or die for? Well, while I get the nothing to kill for (with the exception of possibly killing one to save many others) If I have nothing to die for, what kind of life is that? I wouldn't give up my life for my children? My wife? I have no religion be martyred for or country to defend. What's left?
I guess I'll live a life of comfort. Oh no! All of my stuff is gone! I have no possessions.
What am I left with? The brotherhood of man? Based on what? The fact that we live in a world devoid of hope, meaning, purpose, drive, or ambition.
John's utopia is in fact a distopia. If I lived in his imagined world I might just have found something to die for: to get out of it.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Dodd's Done!
The Dump Dodd movement has been successful in removing Connecticut's Mortgage Sweetheart Senator Christopher Dodd. This is a major victory for the state of Connecticut. It marks the second time that voters have voiced their displeasure with the way the Democrats have been running things in their state. In 2008, the Democrats ran a challenger against their once favorite son Joe Lieberman. Lieberman lost in the primary so he ran as an independent, and won. The Democrats shot themselves in the foot by turning their back on their long term lemming. Now, he is free to vote his conscience, rather than tow the party line.
Hopefully, the Democrats will do it again. It seems clear to me that Christopher Dodd's decision not to run for reelection was due to much internal pressure. The only reason a politician doesn't run for reelection is if he or she has died. The Dump Dodd movement would have been more successful if he had run and lost (which was very likely). Instead, the Democrats have supplanted the disgraced Senator with Connecticut's business hating Attorney General. Richard Blumenthal (who has been the AG since '91) has been grooming himself (and his uber-slicked ultra-stiff hair) for a run at something. I've always assumed it was for Governor but I guess he's always had his sights set higher.
Blumenthal portrays himself as being a defender of the people, protecting the young and the old. However, in doing so he's chased out of Connecticut more companies (and therefore, jobs) than one can count. He has an abnormal approval rating due to the fact that he is frequently featuring himself on TV and telling the people of Connecticut what wonderful things he's doing for them. Like protecting them against dual labels on designer coats, and "unfair utility rates." While the latter sounds great, he never really did anything and I didn't make up the former. He made a specific appearance to let the people of Connecticut know that he wouldn't stand for designer coats to have the designer label over a generic label. Thanks Richard!Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of this entire episode is that, before he even formally announced that he was planning on being a candidate for Dodd's vacated seat, Mr. Blumenthal received a cell phone call from none other than the President of the United States. Sounds to me like the Democrats are looking for another lemming. Let's hope Connecticut doesn't send one to Washington!
NFL Playoff Preview
It's that time again: Time for me to review how my preseason predictions panned out. In this post I'll also be cursing at least four teams by predicting that they will do well in the playoffs!
You can find my preseason preview here. Here's how I did:
AFC
East
Prediction: Patriots
Actual: Patriots
West
Prediction: Chargers
Actual: Chargers
(Other notable prediction: Denver would not win the division due to the preseason trade and that trade would keep them from the wild card. This didn't look good as Denver started out 6-0 but still managed to miss the playoffs)
North
Prediction: Steelers
Actual: Bengals
South
Prediction: Jaguars
Actual: Colts
(Um, yeah, Jaguars finished dead last)
Wild Card
Prediction: Colts & Titans
Actual: Ravens & Jets
NFC
East
Prediction: Giants
Actual: Cowboys
(This prediction looked pretty good when the Giants were 5-0, but they managed to miss the playoffs entirely.)
West
Prediction: Cardinals
Actual: Cardinals
North
Prediction: Vikings
Actual: Vikings
(Other notable prediction: Detroit would win two whole games this year. That's exactly how many they won!)
South
Prediction: Panthers
Actual: Saints
(Panthers came in second...)
Wild Card
Prediction: Cowboys & Falcons
Actual: Packers & Eagles
And when it comes to my preseason playoff predictions all that I have to say for them is that my Super Bowl is still possible (though unlikely) with Patriots vs Vikings.
Playoff Predictions
I don't know that I've had more trouble picking winners than I've had this year. Complicating matters is that three of the four first round contests are rematches of week 17 games. In all three cases one team completely dominated the other. Should be easy, right? Wrong. I guarantee that round one will not have the exact same outcome as week 17.
Alright, here we go:
AFC
Wild Card Round:
Jets at Bengals
The Jets absolutely owned the Bengals last week. But here's the problem: more than any other team, the Bengals controlled who they faced this week (as they played Sunday night). If they beat the Jets, they would have faced Baltimore. In losing to the Jets, they face the Jets. They played a team who needed to win and saw how they did it. Now they know how to beat them. The Bengals selected their opponent and did so accurately.
Winner: Bengals
Ravens at Patriots
The Patriots purposefully lost to the Texans to prevent the Steelers from getting into the playoffs. While the Patriots have struggled this year, they haven't done so at home. Patriots win even without Welker.
Winner: Patriots
Divisional Round:
Bengals at Chargers
The Chargers are one of the only teams going into the playoffs with a winning streak. The Jets have a 2 game winning streak but both teams basically forfeited the games. Bengals will be unable to overcome the Chargers.
Winner: Chargers
Patriots at Colts
The Patriots should have beaten the Colts earlier in the season. Even though the Colts have been struggling (needing a fourth quarter comeback to achieve half of their victories and are on a two game losing streak) the Patriots are without Welker. Will the pressure be too much for a rookie coach? Will Belichick out think the Colts? It will be a good game, a close game, but the Colts will emerge victorious.
Winner: Colts
Championship Round:
Chargers at Colts
No contest. The Chargers will be on a 12 game winning streak, the Colts will have won one of their last three games. Having given up in the last two games of the season, the added pressure to win it all is too great for Peyton. He throws an incredible three interceptions. His third coming during a last gasp fourth quarter comeback attempt that (obviously) falls short. This will, yet again, give Colts fans a reason to despise the Chargers, almost as much as they hate the Patriots.
Winner: Chargers
NFC
Wild Card Round:
Eagles at Cowboys
I've heard it said that it's very hard to defeat a team three times in one season. That is what the Cowboys would have to do if they are to defeat the Eagles. Something else working against the Cowboys is that they haven't won a playoff game since 1996. And yet, both the Eagles and the Cowboys had everything to play for last week: Division on the line, host a playoff game, beat a hated rival. And who came out on top? The Cowboys ~ and it wasn't close. Once again, everything is on the line: Win, move on; lose, go home. Eagles are going home.
Winner: Cowboys
Packers at Cardinals
This is the hardest game for me to figure out. There was no reason for either team to go all out last week, and yet both did. And in doing so, the Cardinals looked mediocre and the Packers, stellar. But the Cardinals are so inconsistent that they just might win this game. And the Packers have proven inconsistent enough that they might lose it. Somehow, I don't think they will.
Winner: Packers
Divisional Round:
Packers at Saints
The Saints are in rough shape. Unlike the number one seed in the AFC, the number one seed in the NFC actually tried to win their last three games. But they lost all them (including the 3 win Buccaneers)! The '07 Patriots, '01 Rams, and the '08 Cardinals have shown us that while a powerful offense may get you to the playoffs, you can't win it all without a defense, which is something the Saints lack. Packers shock with a win.
Winner: Packers
Cowboys at Vikings
Some have called the Cowboys "the most dangerous team in the NFC." I don't think those people are paying much attention to one of the leagues most talented rushers with the most experienced active Quarterback at the helm. Romo may be good, but Favre is great. With the "controversy" in the Vikings locker room over, and with Childress recognizing that he needs to trust his star QB, the Cowboys don't stand a chance.
Winner: Vikings
Championship Round:
Packers at Vikings
The "Don't Miss" match-up of the post season. Favre takes on his old team. Two power running games match up against two great defenses. Something's gotta give. Something has to separate these two teams. Favre is the difference maker.
Winner: Vikings
Super Bowl
Chargers vs Vikings
We'd be in for a treat of a Super Bowl. The second year in a row where one man stands poised on the brink of history as the first Quarterback to lead two different teams to a Super Bowl victory. The other team has a leader who is beginning to be in the discussion with such greats as Brady and Manning. Does youth triumph over age? Or does experience dominate the new comer? I'd like to see Favre win.
Winner: Chargers
There you have it. Now we know that the Chargers will definitely not win it all. Let's see who actually does! Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!
You can find my preseason preview here. Here's how I did:
AFC
East
Prediction: Patriots
Actual: Patriots
West
Prediction: Chargers
Actual: Chargers
(Other notable prediction: Denver would not win the division due to the preseason trade and that trade would keep them from the wild card. This didn't look good as Denver started out 6-0 but still managed to miss the playoffs)
North
Prediction: Steelers
Actual: Bengals
South
Prediction: Jaguars
Actual: Colts
(Um, yeah, Jaguars finished dead last)
Wild Card
Prediction: Colts & Titans
Actual: Ravens & Jets
NFC
East
Prediction: Giants
Actual: Cowboys
(This prediction looked pretty good when the Giants were 5-0, but they managed to miss the playoffs entirely.)
West
Prediction: Cardinals
Actual: Cardinals
North
Prediction: Vikings
Actual: Vikings
(Other notable prediction: Detroit would win two whole games this year. That's exactly how many they won!)
South
Prediction: Panthers
Actual: Saints
(Panthers came in second...)
Wild Card
Prediction: Cowboys & Falcons
Actual: Packers & Eagles
And when it comes to my preseason playoff predictions all that I have to say for them is that my Super Bowl is still possible (though unlikely) with Patriots vs Vikings.
Playoff Predictions
I don't know that I've had more trouble picking winners than I've had this year. Complicating matters is that three of the four first round contests are rematches of week 17 games. In all three cases one team completely dominated the other. Should be easy, right? Wrong. I guarantee that round one will not have the exact same outcome as week 17.
Alright, here we go:
AFC
Wild Card Round:
Jets at Bengals
The Jets absolutely owned the Bengals last week. But here's the problem: more than any other team, the Bengals controlled who they faced this week (as they played Sunday night). If they beat the Jets, they would have faced Baltimore. In losing to the Jets, they face the Jets. They played a team who needed to win and saw how they did it. Now they know how to beat them. The Bengals selected their opponent and did so accurately.
Winner: Bengals
Ravens at Patriots
The Patriots purposefully lost to the Texans to prevent the Steelers from getting into the playoffs. While the Patriots have struggled this year, they haven't done so at home. Patriots win even without Welker.
Winner: Patriots
Divisional Round:
Bengals at Chargers
The Chargers are one of the only teams going into the playoffs with a winning streak. The Jets have a 2 game winning streak but both teams basically forfeited the games. Bengals will be unable to overcome the Chargers.
Winner: Chargers
Patriots at Colts
The Patriots should have beaten the Colts earlier in the season. Even though the Colts have been struggling (needing a fourth quarter comeback to achieve half of their victories and are on a two game losing streak) the Patriots are without Welker. Will the pressure be too much for a rookie coach? Will Belichick out think the Colts? It will be a good game, a close game, but the Colts will emerge victorious.
Winner: Colts
Championship Round:
Chargers at Colts
No contest. The Chargers will be on a 12 game winning streak, the Colts will have won one of their last three games. Having given up in the last two games of the season, the added pressure to win it all is too great for Peyton. He throws an incredible three interceptions. His third coming during a last gasp fourth quarter comeback attempt that (obviously) falls short. This will, yet again, give Colts fans a reason to despise the Chargers, almost as much as they hate the Patriots.
Winner: Chargers
NFC
Wild Card Round:
Eagles at Cowboys
I've heard it said that it's very hard to defeat a team three times in one season. That is what the Cowboys would have to do if they are to defeat the Eagles. Something else working against the Cowboys is that they haven't won a playoff game since 1996. And yet, both the Eagles and the Cowboys had everything to play for last week: Division on the line, host a playoff game, beat a hated rival. And who came out on top? The Cowboys ~ and it wasn't close. Once again, everything is on the line: Win, move on; lose, go home. Eagles are going home.
Winner: Cowboys
Packers at Cardinals
This is the hardest game for me to figure out. There was no reason for either team to go all out last week, and yet both did. And in doing so, the Cardinals looked mediocre and the Packers, stellar. But the Cardinals are so inconsistent that they just might win this game. And the Packers have proven inconsistent enough that they might lose it. Somehow, I don't think they will.
Winner: Packers
Divisional Round:
Packers at Saints
The Saints are in rough shape. Unlike the number one seed in the AFC, the number one seed in the NFC actually tried to win their last three games. But they lost all them (including the 3 win Buccaneers)! The '07 Patriots, '01 Rams, and the '08 Cardinals have shown us that while a powerful offense may get you to the playoffs, you can't win it all without a defense, which is something the Saints lack. Packers shock with a win.
Winner: Packers
Cowboys at Vikings
Some have called the Cowboys "the most dangerous team in the NFC." I don't think those people are paying much attention to one of the leagues most talented rushers with the most experienced active Quarterback at the helm. Romo may be good, but Favre is great. With the "controversy" in the Vikings locker room over, and with Childress recognizing that he needs to trust his star QB, the Cowboys don't stand a chance.
Winner: Vikings
Championship Round:
Packers at Vikings
The "Don't Miss" match-up of the post season. Favre takes on his old team. Two power running games match up against two great defenses. Something's gotta give. Something has to separate these two teams. Favre is the difference maker.
Winner: Vikings
Super Bowl
Chargers vs Vikings
We'd be in for a treat of a Super Bowl. The second year in a row where one man stands poised on the brink of history as the first Quarterback to lead two different teams to a Super Bowl victory. The other team has a leader who is beginning to be in the discussion with such greats as Brady and Manning. Does youth triumph over age? Or does experience dominate the new comer? I'd like to see Favre win.
Winner: Chargers
There you have it. Now we know that the Chargers will definitely not win it all. Let's see who actually does! Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
And Then There Were None
While I'd like to believe that the Colts decision to give up on Sunday against the Jets was their way of admitting that they really did lose to the Pats when the refs blew the call on the "fourth and 2" play, but somehow I doubt it.
Jim Caldwell (Indianapolis Head Coach) decided to thumb his nose at history. The Colts are too good to make an attempt at the undefeated season. It's below them. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl.
I have a few opinions about this. (Is anyone surprised?)
First, that's moronic. Only one team has ever had a perfect 16 game regular season. The 2007 New England Patriots. Every year somebody wins the Super Bowl. Who won the 1995 Super Bowl? What about 1982? 1977? What team went undefeated through the regular season? That's what I thought.
Perhaps Coach Caldwell was attempting to alleviate the pressure of going undefeated. All succeeded in doing was put even more pressure on the team to win the Super Bowl. It would be understandable if they went 18-1. Other teams have done that. One team in particular suffered their only loss in the big game. Now, the Colts have purposefully lost "to keep their stars healthy so they can win it all." Guess what. Now they really need to win it all.
What else has Coach Caldwell done by benching his starters? He's created controversy where there was none. No one was debating if they should play everyone or not. The question was will they. If they played everyone, and won, no one would have faulted them. In fact, Coach Caldwell has now created a situation where they absolutely must lose to the Bills this week. If they leave their starters in, why did they pull them last week? If they pull their starters and their scrubs are able to defeat the Bills, then they should have left Peyton in last week so their perfect season would still be intact. For last week to make any sense, the must lose this week.
The Colts claim that the perfect season wasn't of importance to them. They wanted to hold the record for most consecutive regular season wins (Which they don't, due to their loss to the Patriots this year), and they wanted to hold the record for most wins in a decade. If these records were truly important, and not lip service after the fact, then they should have wanted to beat the Jets to add another tally to both records. They didn't, which leads me to believe the Colts brass were struggling to find any reason as to why they made their terrible decision.
Those (few) that defend the decision claim that the coach would be under even more fire if he'd left the starters in and someone (Peyton) got hurt late in the game. Why do people assume this is going to happen only at the end of a game that doesn't mean anything? Is Peyton immune to injury at all other times? If the logic is we don't want him hurt during a meaningless time in the game then any time the Colts are up by three touchdowns (which wasn't very often this year) he should be out of the game. Funny, I didn't see him out at any other time this year. I guess the teams logic is completely and utterly faulty. But that isn't very surprising.
What did Peyton think of the decision? I don't care what he said verbally after the game. I care about what he said non-verbally during the game. I've never seen anyone out of the game leave their helmet on with the chin strap fastened longer than Peyton Manning. He didn't toss on a Colt's ball cap or one of those knit hats that have the team color on the bottom and fade to black near the top. He didn't relax on the bench like one pleased that he was finally out of the game. He walked the sidelines like a kid in time out, like that star player in little league that has to sit an inning so that everyone can play. "Come on coach, put me in! Put me in coach! I wanna play!" I think even Mr. Manning agrees with me: Coach Caldwell made the wrong decision. Period.
On a final thought, some people are pointing to the utter collapse of the Colts once Peyton was benched as proof that he ought to be the MVP this year. This, too, is an ignorant belief. It would be one thing if Peyton were the only player taken out of the game and Painter failed while sharing the field with Wayne, Clark, and Adai. But no, they were also riding the pine. As were some of the Colts' starting offensive linemen. If this is the evidence that Peyton is MVP worthy, then so is every other starter that was removed in the third quarter. If anybody is the MVP of the Colts, it's Dallas Clark. No one has been more clutch for them this year!
Bottom line: Wrong decision to lay down and die for the Colts. This caused controversy, created a situation where they must enter the playoffs having lost their last two games, and adds even more pressure on the team to win the big game, which isn't going to happen.
Jim Caldwell (Indianapolis Head Coach) decided to thumb his nose at history. The Colts are too good to make an attempt at the undefeated season. It's below them. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl.
I have a few opinions about this. (Is anyone surprised?)
First, that's moronic. Only one team has ever had a perfect 16 game regular season. The 2007 New England Patriots. Every year somebody wins the Super Bowl. Who won the 1995 Super Bowl? What about 1982? 1977? What team went undefeated through the regular season? That's what I thought.
Perhaps Coach Caldwell was attempting to alleviate the pressure of going undefeated. All succeeded in doing was put even more pressure on the team to win the Super Bowl. It would be understandable if they went 18-1. Other teams have done that. One team in particular suffered their only loss in the big game. Now, the Colts have purposefully lost "to keep their stars healthy so they can win it all." Guess what. Now they really need to win it all.
What else has Coach Caldwell done by benching his starters? He's created controversy where there was none. No one was debating if they should play everyone or not. The question was will they. If they played everyone, and won, no one would have faulted them. In fact, Coach Caldwell has now created a situation where they absolutely must lose to the Bills this week. If they leave their starters in, why did they pull them last week? If they pull their starters and their scrubs are able to defeat the Bills, then they should have left Peyton in last week so their perfect season would still be intact. For last week to make any sense, the must lose this week.
The Colts claim that the perfect season wasn't of importance to them. They wanted to hold the record for most consecutive regular season wins (Which they don't, due to their loss to the Patriots this year), and they wanted to hold the record for most wins in a decade. If these records were truly important, and not lip service after the fact, then they should have wanted to beat the Jets to add another tally to both records. They didn't, which leads me to believe the Colts brass were struggling to find any reason as to why they made their terrible decision.
Those (few) that defend the decision claim that the coach would be under even more fire if he'd left the starters in and someone (Peyton) got hurt late in the game. Why do people assume this is going to happen only at the end of a game that doesn't mean anything? Is Peyton immune to injury at all other times? If the logic is we don't want him hurt during a meaningless time in the game then any time the Colts are up by three touchdowns (which wasn't very often this year) he should be out of the game. Funny, I didn't see him out at any other time this year. I guess the teams logic is completely and utterly faulty. But that isn't very surprising.
What did Peyton think of the decision? I don't care what he said verbally after the game. I care about what he said non-verbally during the game. I've never seen anyone out of the game leave their helmet on with the chin strap fastened longer than Peyton Manning. He didn't toss on a Colt's ball cap or one of those knit hats that have the team color on the bottom and fade to black near the top. He didn't relax on the bench like one pleased that he was finally out of the game. He walked the sidelines like a kid in time out, like that star player in little league that has to sit an inning so that everyone can play. "Come on coach, put me in! Put me in coach! I wanna play!" I think even Mr. Manning agrees with me: Coach Caldwell made the wrong decision. Period.
On a final thought, some people are pointing to the utter collapse of the Colts once Peyton was benched as proof that he ought to be the MVP this year. This, too, is an ignorant belief. It would be one thing if Peyton were the only player taken out of the game and Painter failed while sharing the field with Wayne, Clark, and Adai. But no, they were also riding the pine. As were some of the Colts' starting offensive linemen. If this is the evidence that Peyton is MVP worthy, then so is every other starter that was removed in the third quarter. If anybody is the MVP of the Colts, it's Dallas Clark. No one has been more clutch for them this year!
Bottom line: Wrong decision to lay down and die for the Colts. This caused controversy, created a situation where they must enter the playoffs having lost their last two games, and adds even more pressure on the team to win the big game, which isn't going to happen.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Tip Jar
The Tip Jar is a funny thing.
This oddity of nature is most often located in places where one wouldn't normally consider tipping as being an option.
Allow me to explain what I mean: You never see a tip jar at the end of your restaurant table. Why's that? Everybody tips the waitstaff (unless they didn't deserve it. Even then, we still leave a little something). Taxi drivers in New York City don't have a tip jar in the passenger seat. Why not? "Keep the change." That's why not. Bell Hop's don't carry your suitcase to your room with a tip jar dangling from their belt. "Thank you, my good man." The pizza delivery person, your dry cleaner, bar tender, the shoe-shine boy, a Maitre D'. Tip jar? No where to be seen.
So what is the purpose of this silent "suggestion?" I suppose it started out as a way to propose that a tip might be appropriate for certain people who are often overlooked. At your local deli, where someone takes the time and effort to create a sandwich to your exact specifications. I can understand that.
What has it become? An obligation to prevent some college student from spitting in my coffee. Why does Dunkin Donuts have a tip jar? "You had to reach really high to get my chocolate cruller, here's a little something for you." "You put two whole scoops of sugar in my coffee. Don't mention it." How come my local pizzeria has a tip jar inside their store? "Thanks for letting me drive out to pick up my own pizza. Keep the change." What about the ice cream shoppe? "Thanks for putting the regulated amount of peanut butter cup crumbles on my cone. This is for you."
And yet, companies find even more outlandish places for the dreaded Tip Jar. Friends of mine recounted to me a tale of the most recent, most audacious offender. They spotted a Tip Jar at the drive up window of a Starbucks. The drive up window! Now they have another excuse to expectorate in my Latte.
What's next? Am I going to see a Tip Jar at my doctor's office? Will there be one as I leave church? Let's just get rid of them altogether. If I want to tip you, I'll tip you. If I don't, I won't.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
An NFL Prediction
I'm predicting it right now: Two teams will finish the season undefeated (according to the NFL) and neither of them will make it to the Super Bowl.
New Orleans has the easiest path to undefeated. Their toughest test is this week when Dallas comes to town. But it's Romo and it's December which means the 8-5 'Boys are gonna lose. Then the terrifying 1-12 Buccaneers limp into the Superdome for their beating. And finally, New Orleans travels to the 5-8 Panthers for the Saints' 16th win of the year.
The Colts don't have it quite as easy. First they travel to the 7-6 Jaguars. This is definitely their toughest challenge remaining as well because Jacksonville is built to beat the Colts. They rarely do it, but it's what they are designed to do. After Jacksonville, Indianapolis welcomes the 7-6 Jets to town. No contest. And then they travel to frosty Buffalo to beat T.O. and the Bills for the Colts' 16th victory.
I know what you're thinking: How can I foresee two teams going undefeated yet neither of them making it to the big dance? I'm glad you asked.
Neither Indy nor New Orleans has really impressed this year. The teams that the Colts have played average .500 so far this year and the Saints have played teams that average a paltry .333! Not only that but the Colts had a stretch where they had to mount a fourth quarter comeback five games in a row! Against San Fran (6-7), and twice against the 6-7 Houston Texans!
So, who's going to beat these "undefeated" teams? Well, the Patriots have already proven that they can handle the Colts. If their game were a backyard match up (you know, where first downs and pass interference calls are made accurately) the Patriots walk away with the victory. But, the way the Patriots are playing, they're lucky if they make it out of the wild card round. Even if they do win there, it's likely the Bengals lose which means for the Patriots to knock off the Colts they'd have to go through the Chargers and that's not going to happen. Speaking of the Chargers: They are on an unbelievable winning streak and they are peaking at the right time. The Chargers will represent the AFC in the Super Bowl.
Will they face the undefeated Saints? Nope. 5 of the Saints 13 wins are against teams over .500 and 3 of those teams are sitting at 7-6. They've almost lost to the 1-12 Rams and the 4-9 Redskins. This is the first time this team is in the limelight. Once they hit the post season, they won't know what to do with themselves. So who will unseat them? To be honest, of the playoff teams (were the season over today) I think several have a good chance at defeating the Saints. The Cardinals secondary could put an end to the deep threat but their line is still good at stopping the run. The Eagles definitely match up well against New Orleans. But the team that the Saints definitely will not get past is the Vikings. The Purple People will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Now, the real question is: Let's say my prediction turns out completely incorrect. Let's suppose the Saints and the Colts both make it to the Super Bowl undefeated. One team will complete the feat of 19-0. Which team do you root for?
New Orleans has the easiest path to undefeated. Their toughest test is this week when Dallas comes to town. But it's Romo and it's December which means the 8-5 'Boys are gonna lose. Then the terrifying 1-12 Buccaneers limp into the Superdome for their beating. And finally, New Orleans travels to the 5-8 Panthers for the Saints' 16th win of the year.
The Colts don't have it quite as easy. First they travel to the 7-6 Jaguars. This is definitely their toughest challenge remaining as well because Jacksonville is built to beat the Colts. They rarely do it, but it's what they are designed to do. After Jacksonville, Indianapolis welcomes the 7-6 Jets to town. No contest. And then they travel to frosty Buffalo to beat T.O. and the Bills for the Colts' 16th victory.
I know what you're thinking: How can I foresee two teams going undefeated yet neither of them making it to the big dance? I'm glad you asked.
Neither Indy nor New Orleans has really impressed this year. The teams that the Colts have played average .500 so far this year and the Saints have played teams that average a paltry .333! Not only that but the Colts had a stretch where they had to mount a fourth quarter comeback five games in a row! Against San Fran (6-7), and twice against the 6-7 Houston Texans!
So, who's going to beat these "undefeated" teams? Well, the Patriots have already proven that they can handle the Colts. If their game were a backyard match up (you know, where first downs and pass interference calls are made accurately) the Patriots walk away with the victory. But, the way the Patriots are playing, they're lucky if they make it out of the wild card round. Even if they do win there, it's likely the Bengals lose which means for the Patriots to knock off the Colts they'd have to go through the Chargers and that's not going to happen. Speaking of the Chargers: They are on an unbelievable winning streak and they are peaking at the right time. The Chargers will represent the AFC in the Super Bowl.
Will they face the undefeated Saints? Nope. 5 of the Saints 13 wins are against teams over .500 and 3 of those teams are sitting at 7-6. They've almost lost to the 1-12 Rams and the 4-9 Redskins. This is the first time this team is in the limelight. Once they hit the post season, they won't know what to do with themselves. So who will unseat them? To be honest, of the playoff teams (were the season over today) I think several have a good chance at defeating the Saints. The Cardinals secondary could put an end to the deep threat but their line is still good at stopping the run. The Eagles definitely match up well against New Orleans. But the team that the Saints definitely will not get past is the Vikings. The Purple People will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Now, the real question is: Let's say my prediction turns out completely incorrect. Let's suppose the Saints and the Colts both make it to the Super Bowl undefeated. One team will complete the feat of 19-0. Which team do you root for?
One Percent
A faithful reader of JMO requested that I read this article by Thomas Friedman and respond. With pleasure! I'm always happy to discuss the things that interest my readers! If you have something you'd like my opinion on, please don't hesitate to ask!
If you don't have time to read the article, here's a brief run-down. This columnist does something that politicians are masters at: he takes something that he doesn't agree with (Here, it's Vice President Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" that states "If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.") The columnist takes one aspect of this and twists it to fit something that the originator of the concept would likely not agree with. In this case, global warming. He argues that even if it's a 1% chance that humanity is causing Global Warming, we need to treat it as a certainty and respond appropriately.
Another excellent example of this is tactic can be seen in the concept of tolerance. Truly tolerant people must be tolerant of all people, including those that do not embrace the concept of tolerance.
Basically, the general practice is to announce your support for something when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. ("I tolerate all viewpoints, except those of the intolerant." "I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to the Climate, not terrorism") I believe my faithful friend, the reader who suggested that I peruse this article, expected the same duality from me in the reverse of the columnist ("I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to terrorism, not the climate").
Surprise!
I think both the writer and Cheney are wrong. I'm sorry, but 1% is not nearly enough for me to dedicate anything to a cause or concern. There is a greater than 1% chance that my car (304 thousand plus miles on it) will break down while I'm driving to work, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spend gobs of cash or time on it! 1%, that's 1 out of 100. 1 out of 100 people over the age of 60 get Parkinson's. Should I treat that as a certainty and make sure I don't live that long? 1 in 100 children have autism. What would treating that as a certainty do to our reproductive practices? Clearly, the 'One Percent Doctrine' is ludicrous.
Look, there may be a 1% chance that Pakistanis are assisting Al Qaeda. To treat this as a certainty means war. To treat it as though it's even 30% likely is way more than it deserves! And the same goes for Global Warming! (By the way, if the "science" of man-caused-Global-Warming were so certain, why hide things? Why "massage" the facts? Why purposefully misconstrue information to suit your agenda? Things that are truthful are transparent, they aren't disguised. What would you think of a prosecutor who maneuvers data to get a conviction? Or a religion that doesn't welcome scrutiny but runs from it? Not much, I'm afraid.) I digress...
Mr. Cheney, if you want to consider a 1% threat as though it were a certainty, go right ahead. But DO NOT use my taxes or my neighbors in the armed forces and intelligence agencies to do it. And don't try to frighten me with your 1% equals a certainty doctrine.
Mr. Man-Made-Global-Warming politician, if you want to research alternative energy, that's great. If you want to cut down on your own "carbon footprint," fantastic. If you want to privately encourage car makers and large corporations to change the way they do business, good for you! But DO NOT use my taxes to do it. And DO NOT use your questionable evidence to try to frighten people to putting you in office with your apocalyptic, the end is near doctrine.
Now, Mr. Friedman closes his opinion piece by suggesting that even if we are wrong about Global Warming then it's a win-win: The climate is ok and we are more energy innovative and independent.
I think people misunderstand where I stand on this issue. Do I think that man is causing a potentially catastrophic irreversible increase to our planet's temperature? No, I don't. Am I against people creating new energy sources, driving cleaner cars, reducing/reusing/recycling? No, I'm not. Am I against politicians using scare tactics to gain votes? You bet. Am I against the government mandating certain "reforms" that will cause a drastic increase in the cost of living not only in regards to what I pay for energy but also what I pay for food, clothes, etc because of what the companies that produce and distribute those items pay for energy? Absolutely. Am I against "scientists" altering data and causing mass panic and hysteria so they can steal funding from worthy causes (Such as a cure for AIDS, Cancer, Autism, etc) so they can work on their pet project? You better believe it.
Wanna "do your part" for the planet? Please do. But keep the government out of it.
Your thoughts?
If you don't have time to read the article, here's a brief run-down. This columnist does something that politicians are masters at: he takes something that he doesn't agree with (Here, it's Vice President Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" that states "If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.") The columnist takes one aspect of this and twists it to fit something that the originator of the concept would likely not agree with. In this case, global warming. He argues that even if it's a 1% chance that humanity is causing Global Warming, we need to treat it as a certainty and respond appropriately.
Another excellent example of this is tactic can be seen in the concept of tolerance. Truly tolerant people must be tolerant of all people, including those that do not embrace the concept of tolerance.
Basically, the general practice is to announce your support for something when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. ("I tolerate all viewpoints, except those of the intolerant." "I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to the Climate, not terrorism") I believe my faithful friend, the reader who suggested that I peruse this article, expected the same duality from me in the reverse of the columnist ("I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to terrorism, not the climate").
Surprise!
I think both the writer and Cheney are wrong. I'm sorry, but 1% is not nearly enough for me to dedicate anything to a cause or concern. There is a greater than 1% chance that my car (304 thousand plus miles on it) will break down while I'm driving to work, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spend gobs of cash or time on it! 1%, that's 1 out of 100. 1 out of 100 people over the age of 60 get Parkinson's. Should I treat that as a certainty and make sure I don't live that long? 1 in 100 children have autism. What would treating that as a certainty do to our reproductive practices? Clearly, the 'One Percent Doctrine' is ludicrous.
Look, there may be a 1% chance that Pakistanis are assisting Al Qaeda. To treat this as a certainty means war. To treat it as though it's even 30% likely is way more than it deserves! And the same goes for Global Warming! (By the way, if the "science" of man-caused-Global-Warming were so certain, why hide things? Why "massage" the facts? Why purposefully misconstrue information to suit your agenda? Things that are truthful are transparent, they aren't disguised. What would you think of a prosecutor who maneuvers data to get a conviction? Or a religion that doesn't welcome scrutiny but runs from it? Not much, I'm afraid.) I digress...
Mr. Cheney, if you want to consider a 1% threat as though it were a certainty, go right ahead. But DO NOT use my taxes or my neighbors in the armed forces and intelligence agencies to do it. And don't try to frighten me with your 1% equals a certainty doctrine.
Mr. Man-Made-Global-Warming politician, if you want to research alternative energy, that's great. If you want to cut down on your own "carbon footprint," fantastic. If you want to privately encourage car makers and large corporations to change the way they do business, good for you! But DO NOT use my taxes to do it. And DO NOT use your questionable evidence to try to frighten people to putting you in office with your apocalyptic, the end is near doctrine.
Now, Mr. Friedman closes his opinion piece by suggesting that even if we are wrong about Global Warming then it's a win-win: The climate is ok and we are more energy innovative and independent.
I think people misunderstand where I stand on this issue. Do I think that man is causing a potentially catastrophic irreversible increase to our planet's temperature? No, I don't. Am I against people creating new energy sources, driving cleaner cars, reducing/reusing/recycling? No, I'm not. Am I against politicians using scare tactics to gain votes? You bet. Am I against the government mandating certain "reforms" that will cause a drastic increase in the cost of living not only in regards to what I pay for energy but also what I pay for food, clothes, etc because of what the companies that produce and distribute those items pay for energy? Absolutely. Am I against "scientists" altering data and causing mass panic and hysteria so they can steal funding from worthy causes (Such as a cure for AIDS, Cancer, Autism, etc) so they can work on their pet project? You better believe it.
Wanna "do your part" for the planet? Please do. But keep the government out of it.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)