IWLWaM Fired Up Again

We fired up our music blog, I Wanna Live With a Musician again. We think some of our better work is over there. So hit it up.

Other than that... I don't think we've cared less about sports than we do right now. We'll be fired up for Ohio State and LSU. But we can't get into the NBA this year. We really HATE the NFL playoffs right now (Wake us next week only for the AFC games). So that leaves us wanting some footie, which we can get, but sadly no Champions League for two months. SOOOOO... it's been all about the NHL for us here at VFLOAB.

We'll do more soon. We promise. Have to bang out the top 30 songs of 2007. We suck. We know.

The Wire starts up again for season 5. If you haven't seen the other four seasons, just wait until you see them. This is the Greatest TV Show EVER remember. It's better just to start from the beginning.
if you walk with Jesus
he's gonna save your soul
you gotta keep the devil
way down in the hole

Links

I've had like five articles linked up on Firefox for the last week and I've very slowly read them. Anyway, they're all worth the read if you ask me.

Because you can never have too much Chuck Klosterman in your life. I was thinking about Chuck the other day... he's only 9 years older than me, but he might as well by 15 years older than me. Yes folks, that's who wide the gap is between Gen X and Gen Y!

While the Mafia in Sicily seems to have taken a few shots and might be losing some of their grip on their power, the 'Ndrangheta is alive a well. And controls the coke trade in Europe.

All you ever wanted to know about the Subprime crisis. And if you ask me, it's not nearly as complicated as it appears. Well the derivative stuff is complicated, but the gist of what went wrong (loaning money to people who shouldn't have been loaned money) is pretty easy to 'get'.

Honestly, a long but amazing history of the War on Drugs. What I find the most amazing is that an issue that should be driven by policy has so often been driven by politics. I mean, who votes one way or the other because of drugs? That said, the policy has been far from perfect over the years. But it does go to show that destroying the supply will not change anything until we tackel drug use here in the States. That means going after the rich whites who are involved in drugs. (BTW, kudos to the Supreme Court to correcting the unjust, institutional racism that were the crack and cocaine laws).

Finally, a very interesting read on IQ and how flawed the test is. Maybe another case of institutional bias? Probably not, but it goes to show that IQ does test anything other well, read it.

It may shock those who know me, but I'm rooting for BC against Michigan State (and the Big Ten) in the Whatever Bowl Sponsored by Whomever game right now.

Bhutto isn't Mandela

The media coverage of Bhutto's tragic assassination on CNN is making her out to be something she really wasn't.

The thoughts and claims that Bhutto this pro-Democratic force is off base. While by no means anti-democratic she also wasn't this huge, Nelson Mandela like pro-democracy force. She was completely and totally corrupt - managing even to piss off the Swiss banks which in itself is an accomplishment. The idea that she went into 'self-exile' is pretty far off since she either had to leave Pakistan or be arrested on corruption charges. So she left.

Going back to this idea of democracy and Bhutto, in October she cut a deal with the US and Musharraf to come back to the country. This happened because Pakistan has have an election; there's also an Islamic party whose leader was also in exile (and may have come back, I'm not sure) which the US and Musharraf do not want to take power. So the US wanting no part of this party in the election because of their Islamic ties looked else where. As a result, a deal was cut with Bhutto since she was the lesser of two evils (btw her party either leans towards or is socialist - gots to love that go Communism says the USA!). Basically, the US in an attempt to prevent an Islamic government from taking over in Pakistan (which would be a complete and total disaster) decided to throw their support towards the socialist party. A moth ago this Islamic party, the Pakistan Muslim League, called off their boycott of the election to take place on the 8th of January. A lot of this - I believe - was being done to split the vote and allow Musharraf to stay in power. The US can't lose Pakistan as an ally and they knew at the same time that Pakistan couldn't be an undemocratic country.

I have no clue what Bhutto's death will lead to or what it 'means'. Will the elections be delayed? Will Musharraf declare emergency powers? Who knows. Hopefully it ends peacefully.

The NFL Mitchell Report

With Major League Baseball just minutes away from being dealt the blow that will be the Mitchell Report, where players both good and bad are about to be called out for their 'enjoyment' of steroids, I thought today would be a good day to bust out the 'what would the NFL Mitchell Report' look like.

Here's a list of guys who have some sort of connection to steroids in the NFL since 2000 or so:
Bill Romanowski*
Barret Robbins*
Dana Stubblefield*
Chris Cooper*
Jeff Mitchell
Todd Sauerbrun
Todd Steussie
John Milem
Henry Taylor
Dave Fiore
Wesley Walls
Kevin Donnalley
Ray Edwards*
Obafemi Ayanbadejo*
Shawne Merriman*
Rodney Harrison
Ryan Tucker*
David Boston*
Marcus Stroud *

*Tested positive for steroids or THG; here's a list of banned substances by the NFL.

But here's the thing with NFL suspensions - they don't always say if a player was suspended for steroid use. For example, Shaun Rogers was suspended last year, but we don't know for what. Travis Henry is another guy who may have violated the NFL's policy for something other than pot.

Anyway, getting back to what would the NFL Mitchell Report look like, let me make this quick - if there actually was a NFL Mitchell Report, we wouldn't be talking who was on the list, we'd be talking who WAS NOT on the list. See, as bad as baseball's steroid problem is (or was) the NFL's problem is much, much worse.

The problem in baseball is an obvious issue. But in the NFL, a game that we as a viewing public watch differently than baseball, may even be bigger. I don't know about anyone else, but if steroids are so useful in baseball, a game where strength and speed isn't as necessary as
in football, then wouldn't it make more sense for NFL players to be doing the juice? In a game where being bigger and stronger than the other guy is much more beneficial then well... I'll let you connect the dots. But I believe that most players in the NFL are probably using steroids, after all I don't know any 6'1", 250 pound men who can run 40 meters in less than 6 seconds let along 5 seconds.

I will say, that we follow and watch the NFL much differently than baseball. Baseball is the romantic, artful, intellectual American game. While we watch football in a much different manner - we gamble on football, it's a violent game, the players strap on armor to go into 'battle' to 'fight' the other team. It's a tactical game, where strategic takes place to prepare the team for the single battle once a week. Football is a battle, it's a war. And we watch it that way, so if the other players are willing to destroy their bodies, then that's okay by us - hypocritically of course.

George Carlin puts it best:

Mission Accomplished

I was thinking about this for some reason today... maybe it's because there may actually be light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe it's because we've only got a year left of what will almost certainly go down as one of the worst tenures in the White House. (Yeah, we know, people said similar things about Truman, but you know what... they also said that about Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, James Buchanan, and Ulysses S. Grant).

Anyway, I'm watching it, and looking back four plus years later, Bush looks utterly ridiculous in that flight suit. Maybe at the time it didn't seem so ridiculous, but now it looks silly. Sort of like a 5 year old girl dressing up as a princess.



The coverage of the event is interesting. I don't really know how to describe it. Things seem deceptively quiet, sort of like being in the eye of a hurricane. No matter, here is Bush saying Mission Accomplished. Just a bit outside...

College Football Thoughts - Notre Dame vs Stanford

For some reason, the Notre Dame v. Stanford game is on ESPN as I write this. The two teams are 5-17 combined. Considering the slate of games today, I would rank this one some where in the 30s in terms of games that I'd actually want to watch.

It's one thing for Notre Dame to have their TV contract with NBC. But is ESPN really pulling the ratings that would justify Notre Dame and Stanford? Just quickly looking at the list of games today, here are games that are just as 'good' or better as the ND/Stanford match up:
Duke/UNC
Maryland/NC State
Wake/Vandy
Oregon/UCLA (which is on ABC but we ain't getting it here in the Midwest)
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State (which I can't find on TV)

More interesting than anything else - I'm assuming that the ESPN bean-counters believe or can prove that ND will pull better ratings than any of those games above (though I think that Big12 game might be tough to get on ESPN because of conference TV deals).

Needless to say, we're not watching the ND/Stanford game.

It doesn't happen often, but Paul McGuire has moved into Ron Santo territory - he's so bad, he's great. Rarely do announcers regress to the point where they become so annoying and so lame and so bad that they actually become ironic. Anyway, I think Paul McGuire has reached the point where there a situation where Paul McGuire wouldn't be fun to have around.

I know this isn't football related, but what's the point of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge? We all know the ACC will go 6-3 or something... so who cares?

I could name four SEC games alone that have been more fun to watch than every NFL game this year. So when Bill Simmons goes on about how this is a great NFL season, he's clearly not watching college football.

I'm still amazed that 10 Big Ten teams are bowl eligible - sure only 8 are guaranteed a bowl, but 10 teams from the Big Ten could be playing in a bowl this season. And amazingly, Illinois has a decent shot at making the BCS - they sit 17th right now but look as if they'll move to 14 or 15th tomorrow. Taking away the six conference winners that leaves 4 at large spots - Hawaii looks like they're all but in one of the BCS games at this point, and Georgia is in, which then cuts it down to two at large spots. I can't see two teams from the Big East or ACC making the BCS. And with Oregon losing it's going to be tough for the Pac-10 to get two teams in the BCS. So right now: Arizona State, Kansas/Missouri/Oklahoma, and Illinois fighting for those last two spots. I can't see a situation where the Big 12 doesn't get two teams in... so really it's down to Arizona State and Illinois (and maybe Virgina Tech/BC loser) fighting for that last spot. I guess Arizona State gets the nod over Illinois since they only have two losses to Illinois three and the Fiesta Bowl would take them before Illinois - but man oh man, is this crazy or what? Notre Dame picked a bad year to stink since all they had to do was be okay to make the BCS - seriously, an 8-4 ND team would be BCSing this year.

BCS Prediction:
Ohio State vs Georgia
At this point why not?

Why Georgia... check this out -- Georgia will finish 10-2 and third in the SEC. Right now they're 7th in the BCS. They'll pass Arizona State and I also think they'll pass LSU and the loser of the Missouri/Kansas game. That would put them in 4th place in the BCS. Let's say the winner of the Missouri/Kansas game loses to Oklahoma next week AND West Virginia trips up... AND Tennessee beats LSU next week. Wouldn't that put Georgia in the BCS Championship? What a crazy and amazing college football season.

Poor Bill Simmons

Good Lord I feel bad for Bill Simmons. After reading this "We wish we were Jay Marriotti" entry from Kissing Suzy Kolber we really feel for the guy. He's getting blasted just because he was born in New England. All the guy did was grow up in Boston/New England, root for those Boston teams, cheer for them, give his heart and soul for those teams. Now, everyone wants to rip him because he's a Boston fan.

Since he's a pretty good writer, Simmons got a break and then got lucky when ESPN.com picked him up.

Six years after ESPN picks him up, three Boston teams are really, really good. And this pisses everyone off, and everyone takes it out on him because he roots for those teams. Either we have completely forgotten what the point of the Sports Guy was, to write from the prespective of a fan, or we're just really jealous (and petty) that we aren't from Boston right now.

Is it Bill's fault that the entire Red Sox Nation bullshit thing is out of control? Is it his fault that millions of rich white kids who grew up in subdivisions and never went to baseball games thus never having a team became Red Sox fans in college because it was 'cool' - just like doing E and Eminem once was? Is it Simmons' fault that Tom Brady and probably that entire line backing corps probably injects HGH and that the Pats head coach may be the most unlikable American that doesn't live on Mass Ave in Northwest DC? Is it Bill's fault that the Celtics got KG because the Bulls were to fucking scared too trade away Gordon AND Deng?

Was Simmons' column today outrageous? Yes. But he’s a Boston fan, he’s suppose to feel that way. He is suppose to feel that the refs are screwing over his team. As fans, we all feel this way. Just like I thought the Bears were getting hosed by the refs in the Eagles game and the fact that it came down to a 97 yard drive was and still is ridiculous in my mind (The Bears should have won by 17 points if the refs were even half way decent in that game). And how Josh Paul did drop that third strike in Game 2 of the 2005 ALCS. This may be viewed as an outrageous claim. I am fully aware of that - but I still think the Bears got screwed and that AJ was totally doing the right thing.

But let’s not forget, if you watched the Pats/Colts game the refs were brutal. Those two pass interference calls on the Pats early in the game were totally made up. And that Faulk play was a mugging. Does that make up for the 2002 Super Bowl when the refs let the Pats get away with mugging the Rams? No. But it was a poorly refereed game.

If it was John Clayton or Gary Smith or Sal Paolantonio writing what Simmons’ wrote then I’d have a problem. But he’s just a Boston fan. And if he was from Chicago, I'd enjoy the guy even more than I do now (assuming that he wasn't a Cubs fan).

And if he was from Philly they'd love him… wait forget that, they’d boo the shit out of him and then cry about how they should have the best sport writers* of all time but bad luck took him away.

And remember, it's a free Internets column. Not reading it is always an option. I stopped reading it half way though.


* not sportswriter/jorunalist

Niner Pickers

Picks… because we’re bored.

BILLS (+1) over Bengals
If the Bills were in the NFC the good people of Buffalo could be buying playoff tickets.

Broncos (+3) over LIONS
Ugh… I the Broncos are just good enough to lose. Meanwhile the Lions are a pretty pitiful team. In fact, they might be the poster child of the quality of the 2007 season. They’re 5-2 and maybe looked impressive in one of those wins.

TITANS (-4) over Panthers
Then again, the Titans seem like they’ll be the team that goes 10-6 but 4-12 against the spread.

CHIEFS (-2) over Packers
KC at home… KC at home… How many bad interceptions does Favre throw this game? Three? Four?

Chargers (-7) over VIKINGS
It’s going to be hard for the Chargers to get a bye at this point, but they are setting themselves up to peak at just the right time. The week before they play the Pats or Colts.

Niners (+3.5) over FALCONS
Hey look, it’s the third game, already!, on the schedule that you won’t catch me watching!

SAINTS (-3) over Jags
In this crazy NFC world that we live in, the Saints are suddenly not only back in a divisional race, but who’s to say they couldn’t go to the Super Bowl? Other than some talking heads, who’s to say they can’t? Who? Who? Who? Oh, and since it was the NFL, yet another positive ‘roid test this week. This time it was Marcus Stroud on the Jags. Yet that barely made ESPN’s front page. Meanwhile, Mike Cameroon apparently hangs out with Mike Vick.

Redskins (-3.5) over JETS
The Jets suck.

Cardinals (+3.5) over BUCS
The forth game that we won’t be watching.

BROWNS (-1) over Seahawks
Seriously, the crisis in the NFC is nearing White House action. It wouldn’t shock me if the winners of the NFC West and South had 8-8 records.

COLTS (+5.5) over Patriots
In the grand scheme of things, this really isn’t that big of a game. But it’s nice to know that they’re playing it in Indy for the first time in like six years. Since this is the only game that really matters this week, a few more thoughts:
- We’re thoroughly enjoying the Patriots running up the score.
- The Pats D hasn't played all that great this year. Just a thought.
- What has gotten into Tom Brady? Does he want to go down as the greatest Quarterback of all time or something? We admitted before the season started that Peyton was the greatest of all time. Peyton had won the Super Bowl. And sure, while his playoff record and stats are nothing to write home about; the way Manning dominates a game, from his vision to his pre-snap bullshit, no one we’ve seen is like him. (fyi: Manning has the lowest QB rating for a Super Bowl winner or maybe it was for a QB Super Bowl MVP… no matter it’s like 65). But no Tom Brady seems set on throwing as many touchdowns as Barry Bonds had taters in a season.
- Why don’t the Colts get more love? Because they only win by 20? Weird. And if they win, everyone and their mother will crown them the greatest team of all time.
- One of these two teams will not make it back to the AFC Championship game. So enjoy this one.

Texans (+3) over RAIDERS
Five games no one wants to see.

Cowboys (-3) over EAGLES
If you’re Andy Reid are you relieved that your kids are going to jail? Is there a reason Andy Reid didn’t resign as coach a year ago? Two years ago? Did he not know about his kids being junkies? Did he put football in front of family? I mean there are like a million questions to this entire situation aren’t there? And while we’re asking questions, after last weekend I think McNabb is right about those black QB stuff. If Donny was the one getting lap dances from Britney, would there be any doubt that he’d be getting killed by ever single media member in the world?

Ravens (+9) over STEELERS
The over/under is 36… so apparently the Steelers are suppose to win 24-10 or 24-13. I’ll take the points.

Season:
61-55

The Hater on Maher

We can't stand the blowhard that is Bill "Glib" Maher because he's part of the problem, even though he's either too stupid to realize it or he sold he soul for the sake of his ego. Maher is just as bad as the Bill O'Reilly or Rush's of the world since he goes on TV and attacks people who he doesn't agree with - thus giving him blowhard status. Instead of dialogue it's all about Maher's 'correct' and extremely limited point of view. It's people like Maher that hurt his cause (either the Truth or liberal American point of views) without even realizing it.



Anyway, the Hater is right, this is almost too perfect to not be staged.

Mossberg is right, free the phone. It's crazy that we're held hostage by the contracts and 'rites' that the telecoms companies hold. It'd be one thing if AT&T was the one who invented and patent the iPhone for example, but they didn't. So what right should they have over the use of the iPhone (and Apple isn't innocent either here since Apple does attempt to limit users of Apple products to only Apple's software).

We know that our little blog has gone though a few tough months, but boy-oh-boy, what about Deadspin? It sucks now. The new format (well new in that it's a few months old) stuck a fork in the site for us. While the quality of posts have been so-so for a while, there would be a gem here and there. But with the new format making it nearly impossible to read, why even bother? The comments section is filled with all those people you hear old people bitching about when they say younger generations suck. Thankfully, The Big Lead has stepped it up, actually talking about you know, sports, without the "look at how funny we are at writing without actually trying to be funny! It's natural we swear!" style of writing. The rise and fall of Deadspin should be a book in about three years.

(We should note, we have been linked on Deadspin a few times and we are thankful for that).

Soulja Boy up in it (OH!)
Watch Me Crank It
Watch Me Roll
Watch Me Crank Dat Soulja Boy,
that Super Man Dat (OH!)
Now Watch Me Do
(Crank Dat Soulja )

For Shits, and Giggles!

Since everyone else does an NFL picks post and we’ve done it in the past… why figured, why not do a NFL picks post? And here we are. Sorry if you’re yawning already.

Vikings (+9.5) over COWBOYS
Adrian Peterson, aka the 2nd pick of next years fantasy drafts, may have had the best game I’ve ever seen an NFL running back have. My Lord this kid is good. I saw a highlight of him two weeks ago and was impressed, but after watching him for 60 minutes, I’m in love. The kid is going places.

On that note, are the Cowboys really the best team in the NFC? And why isn’t anyone else talking about the Vikings? They can run the ball and stop the ball. Yes, I know their QB is Tavaris Jackson, or at least I think it is, but they can control the line which is like 70% of an NFL game.

BILLS (+3) over Ravens
I don’t think the Bills are that good, but the Ravens can’t score points. I’ll take the three.

LIONS (-2) over Bucs
The Lions are the closest thing we have to a college team in the NFL right now. They sort of play defense, they can throw the ball, they won’t win on the road but they’ll play you tough, and they’re going to win most games at home. As for the Bucs… I have nothing good or bad to say about them.

DOLPHINS (+16.5) over Patriots
I know the Patriots are beating everyone by 20 points. But I’m going to take the Fins for one reason: they’re at home playing a divisional opponent. Even after the Pats win by 21 points, I’m not going to feel bad about picking this game.

Falcons (+9) over SAINTS
Wait the Saints win one game in Seattle and all of a sudden they’re giving 9 points? Too many points… yuck. Bad game. Don’t bet this game unless you know something I don’t.

GIANTS (-9) over Niners
Personally, I think the Giants stink. But apparently, the 49ers stink more. But seriously, how are the Giants this good?

REDSKINS (-9) over Cardinals
Redskins at home and the Cardinals are without a QB.

TEXANS (+1) over Titans
I’m assuming Vince Young isn’t playing. Note: The Texans aren’t that good, yet some how they’re going to be in this playoff race. The 2007 NFL Season! Where Bad means Good!

BENGALS (-6) over Jets
The Jets stink. The Bengals aren’t very good. I could see this being a big fantasy day for a few guys on the Bengals… if only because I can’t see the Jets scoring 20 points, so I’ll go with the Bengals.

Chiefs (+3) over RAIDERS
You’re guess is as good as mine… but the Chiefs are in first place in the AFC West! The Chiefs!

SEAHAWKS (-8) over Rams
The last few minutes against the Saints last week, the Seahawks ran the worst late game drill ever. Hasselbeck was throwing the ball up for grabs. They weren’t rushing to the line, using time outs, calling weird plays. It was easily the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen in my life, which was topped off by them going for it on 4th down losing by 10 points instead of kicking the field goal. Yet, a week later I’m taking them against the Rams. My Lord the NFL stinks.

Bears (+5) over EAGLES
The Eagles almost lost to the Jets. Andy Reid will throw the ball. Meanwhile, the Bears don’t have anyone who can play safety. So you know what… this game could go either way. Maybe I still think the 2006 Bears will sort of show up one of these weeks, you know the team which was good for a bomb, a return by Hester, and the D making five or six plays. Right now, they’ve got the bombs, they’ve got the returns from Hester, but the D has done shit. I’d love to see Andy Reid tell McNabb to put the ball up in the air 45 or 50 times.

Steelers (-3.5) over BRONCOS
This is more a “what happened to the Broncos” pick than a “wow, the Steelers look great” pick.

Indians over RED SOX
The Baseball Gods hate TV ratings. I know Paul Byrd just got busted for HGH, but you know what, the Red Sox break hearts. This is what they do best. 2004 was the exception to the rule. And now, as a country is forced to suffer though millions and millions of white people wearing faux worn Boston hats, to go along the green and pink hats, every white male who has strong allegiances to a baseball team and every minority is rooting for the Indians today. Sure it’s only 40% of America, but we’re vocals.

JAGUARS (+3) over Colts
I’ll take the home dog in divisional games almost every time. And this is another one of those times. And can we just make it official: Peyton Manning is the best QB in NFL history.

SEASON: 45 - 44
This is using ESPN's pick 'em game, which is totally flawed. But it's all we've got right now (and by the way, that puts us in the 83 percentile).

Sqeezin' Red Sox Style

CC Sabathia had a walks per nine innings of 1.38 -walking 37 batters in the entire 2007 regular season – and posted an impressive 5.65 strike out to walk ratio. Sabathia’s season high for walks in a game was three, which he only did twice.

This year Fausto Carmona had a walks per nine innings average of 2.55 – he walked 61 batters this year – posting a K/BB ratio of 2.25. Carmona was more up and down with his control, he walked four batters or more four times this year.

I’m currently watching Game Two of the ALCS and maybe it’s me, but there seems to be an awful lot of balls. The 3rd inning isn’t even over and Carmona has already walked four batters. Last night, Sabathia walked five batters – two more than he had in any game this season. In Game One of the ALDS against the Yankees, Sabathia walked six batters. (It should be noted that in Game Two of the ALDS, Carmona walked two batters).

My point in all this is that it has long been speculated (by whom other than fans, I’m not sure) that the Red Sox and Yankees have smaller strike zones. And in watching these games, it appears that this is true. If batters on the Red Sox or Yankees don’t swing, rarely is the pitch called a strike.

Now, you could argue that the Red Sox and Yankees preach this approach and look for and sign players who have good eyes. The Red Sox, after all, lead the majors in walks this year and the Yankees were 4th. The Oakland A’s, another team that preaches patience at the plate, were second in walks in the majors.

There is no doubt that the Yankees and Red Sox have players who have fantastic batting eyes. But why does it seem that pitchers like Sabathia, who have such great control in 34 starts in the regular season, become Daniel Cabrera against the Red Sox and Yankees (then again maybe Cabrera leads the league in walks because he gets squeezed in 20% of his starts?). Seems to me that opposing pitchers have a teacup-sized strike zone against Boston and New York – and this goes a long way to their success (or in the Yankees' case - only in the regular season).

We’ll be looking for some data or evidence to back up our hypothesis.

And loved this shot that Phil Rogers at the Tribune took at Schilling:

Curt Schilling moves ahead of Daisuke Matsuzaka in the Red Sox rotation-commentary both on how badly Schilling wanted the Fenway Park stage again and how Matsuzaka has disappointed.

Is there any doubt that Schilling refers to himself in the third person when the reporters aren’t around? I hope he breaks a leg on Saturday.

Why the NFL Stinks Right Now

We were speaking with D the other day when he asked about the demise of VFLOAB. I told him that we hadn’t had much free time (true, neglecting to tell him that writing in 90 degree weather has never been our cup of tea). But I casually mentioned that a post ripping the NFL was due up sooner rather than later. D responded “What?!?! This year has been great!” and for a few hours I thought maybe I was missing something. Even my defense and reasoning as to why the NFL sucked was half assed and half hearted.

But in reading Simmons’ picks today, I was reminded why the NFL sucks this year – EVERYONE IN THE NFL STINKS! Okay, the New England Patriots look really, really good. And the Colts have Peyton Manning… but after that? Bueller?… Bueller?… Bueller?…

Looking at Simmons’ power poll he has Tennessee and Jacksonville ranked fifth and sixth respectively and you know what… I didn’t jump out of my chair thinking that Bill had lost it. In fact, I shrugged and said to myself, “He’s probably right.” And that’s it.

I mean seriously, as Bill would go on to point out:
“(Intriguing subplot for this game: If the Bengals lose, I'm moving them into the Bruce Coslet Division of next week's Power Poll, only I'm keeping the Chiefs in there no matter what happens because they stink. If Cleveland loses at home to Miami and the Jets lose at home to Philly, unless Atlanta can somehow win on Monday night, that means an astonishing 11 teams will appear in the Coslet Division for Week 7. In other words, more than one-third of the league would fall into the "completely sucks" category. Amazing. But please, let's expand and add a 33rd team. That's a great idea.)”

That’s right 11 teams (according to Simmons) in the NFL out right stink. In baseball I count 8 or 9 teams that flat out stink (depending on where you stand with Houston (and the entire National League)). In the NFL? You have St. Louis, Miami, New Orleans, Kansas City, San Francisco, Minnesota, Atlanta, Buffalo, New York Jets – 9 right there; and I’ll add Cleveland, Houston, Oakland, and Carolina to that list. Now we’re up to 13… and Simmons has Denver in the stink area and Cincinnati not far behind and I’ll be honest with you, Philly and Detroit (a healthy Bears D destroys that Lions team two weeks ago) aren’t far off either. All told, we may have 17 teams that aren’t good! Seventeen teams! That’s over half the league! And let’s not forget Arizona and the New York Giants who might not be that good… it’s just that they’re not that bad.

It’s sad to say, but the NFL today isn’t about being good, it’s about not being as bad. This is why no one should have been surprised when the Packers started 4-0 or the Redskins suddenly are 3-1… or that Tennessee with no wide receivers and average running backs are arguably the 5th best team in the NFL!

(In fact, look at the number of teams who have a good shot at the playoffs and shit receivers: Tennessee, Jacksonville, San Diego, Seattle, and the Chicago Bears. Amazing).

As I have pointed out in passing, the way the NFL does it’s scheduling, where all the 4th place teams play all the other 4th place teams, suddenly getting ‘good’ in the NFL isn’t all that difficult. If you’re slightly better than those other 4th place teams, suddenly you’ve got 4 wins. If you can find five more wins in your remaining 12 games (not that difficult considering divisional games and home field advantage)… you are a playoff team. Look at the Jets last year. They played the 4th place schedule, made the playoffs, and now, suck with a 2nd place schedule, they’re staring a 6-10 season in the face. Meanwhile, the Redskins, Houston, Oakland, Tampa Bay, and Arizona, all facing 4th place schedules, suddenly look like playoff teams.

It’s complete and utter bullshit. And a really lame way for the NFL to create competition. Just imagine if next year the Red Sox, Indians, Yankees, and Angels faced each other 50 times, while the White Sox got to beat up on the Royals, Rangers, and Devil Rays (this assumes of course the White Sox make a few moves to not suck as much in 2008)? Wouldn’t the 2008 playoffs look something like the White Sox, Red Sox, Angels, and some one else (say the Blue Jays)?

In effect this is what the NFL has done with their schedule. They’ve rigged it so that bad teams face each other – thus a bad team that is slightly better will win those games. Meanwhile the good teams face each other – and the good teams that are slightly worse suddenly lose a few more games than normal. All of a sudden we have pretenders in the playoffs and fake competition and ‘races’.

At least the cream is able and usually does rise to the top (I’m looking at you 2001 Patriots and 2005 Steelers).

We wanted to wait a full month...

...But John Hollinger's preview of the New York Knicks is just too good to be true. My Lord this is too much fun to read. We here at VFLOAB are here to give you the best:

"More weirdness enveloped the team as the season went on. Steve Francis was ready to be bought out with an alleged bad knee, one that magically healed once Jamal Crawford was pronounced out for the season."

Honestly, we just like the idea of Steve Francis acting all pissy and faking injury, then hearing the news about Crawford, and suddenly he's running full speed throwing up threes from mid-court.

"Channing Frye regressed badly from a promising rookie season while his backup, David Lee, exploded onto the scene to be the Knicks' most effective player; yet Thomas never appeared to consider changing the lineup."

Classic Isiah there - you know what, I'll sit the better player.

"And behind the scenes, a sexual harassment lawsuit against Thomas and the Knicks caused continued embarrassment that lasted through the offseason."

This case led me to asking my girlfriend one night if she ever worked for MSG. Thankfully the answer was no. Good times.

"But the one that took the cake was the contract extension team owner James Dolan proudly announced for Thomas -- a reward for leading the Knicks to a 28-35 record through 63 games. Apparently Dolan was beaming because New York momentarily had possession of the eighth spot in the Eastern Conference playoff race; the fact that the Knicks were seven games under .500 with the league's highest payroll didn't appear to be on his radar."

For a second, imagine you root for the Knicks AND Notre Dame? You're locked into Isiah and Charlie Weis for at least three more years!

"Then there were the early-season buyouts for Maurice Taylor and Jalen Rose. Though neither player had value on the court, their expiring contracts could have been used to acquire Allen Iverson or Pau Gasol later in the year. Instead they were set free early on for reasons that never have been made clear."

What's great about the Rose deal is that this only gets better!

"So in the end Thomas never used Rose, after trading for him in the middle of 2005-06 and getting a first-round pick from the Raptors. Factoring in Rose's salary and the luxury tax, Thomas paid close to $30 million for the 21st pick in the first round; the going rate for picks in that range is $3 million. Leave it to the Knicks to pay 10 times the market value for an asset."

That's right, by buying out Rose a year ago, the Knicks paid $30 million dollars for the 21st pick in the draft AND weren't able to trade for two players who might actually have helped them! And even more frustrating is that we all missed the chance to see Marberry, Francis, AND Iverson on the same team and on the court at the same time (and let's not forget the black hole that his Eddy Curry). I just shed a tear thinking about that missed oppertunity.

"However, New York's wagon is still too full. By rule the Knicks can only keep 15 players, but they have 17 guaranteed contracts."

Seriously, how is this even possible? What in the world is Isiah doing - let alone thinking. Does he think that tomorrow David Stern is going to change the rules and allow all NBA teams not only to carry 17 guys but also play six players at the same time?

"Pardon me while I digress, but this [player's strengths replicate each other] is a major problem up and down the Knicks' roster. Isiah's eye for talent only seems to include three types of players -- shoot-first guards who don't defend, athletic small forwards who can't shoot, and huge, lumbering post players."

Ha! No one has better explained Isiah's reasoning better. I love what Hollinger wrote there - classic. Shoot first guards, athletic players who can't shoot, and post players who can't defend... ha.

Hollinger raps up the piece, sadly, in not nearly as an entertaining fasion, but hey, can't beat the beginning of this review of the Knicks. And with that, we can't wait for the NBA season.

An Uninteresting Season

Since this is the most inconsistent and uninteresting baseball season since probably 2000, but first let’s just forget that the White Sox have to be the worst team in the majors right now (they started four minor leaguers and featured a bunch of pitchers who sucked yesterday) – it really hasn’t been that interesting of a season. The first three months almost played out exactly as they were suppose too. Sure the Yankees struggled a bit but they aren’t that good anyway, the White Sox were worse than anyone thought, and Seattle surprised us all. But other than that April, May, June, and even July were eerily blah. Then August hits and baseball goes nuts were every race becomes insane and suddenly the Tigers stink and the Diamondbacks are in first place. Now it’s September and the only interesting race is, ummm, none of them. The NL Central is like watching two kids eat too much at a ball game and then seeing who can throw up the most on the car ride home. Not enjoyable.

The AL East, Central, and West races are all over. The NL East race was interesting for about three days but then the Phillies did what the Phillies do… make things just interesting enough only to let us all down. Seriously, is there an analogy or metaphor that can be made about the Phillies over the last five to six years? Are they like that girl who is cute but only wears a one piece? Nah… are they like that guy who gets drunk only once in a blue moon, is a great time, but never drinks? Seriously, help me. I’ve got nothing.

That leaves us with the NL West race, which, let’s face it, is so bizarre that it doesn’t even make sense. To anyone. Can someone, anyone, stathead, Rob Neyer, Tuesday Morning Blowhard, the Neo-Cons, Obama, scouts, anyone, tell me how the hell the Diamondbacks are 18 games over .500 with a negative 30 run differential? Search these Internets… all you’ll get is people going, ‘well, umm, they win?’ No one can explain this. Scouts will tell you that they’re not that talented. They are an average pitching team and bellow average hitting team… I mean it’s just totally weird. Statheads have just said ‘fuck it’ since there is nothing in the world of statistics that can possibly explain their success.

Meanwhile, the Yankees decided to go something like 40-19 since the All-Star Break and basically put themselves in the playoffs. The Onion summed that one up perfectly. The good news is that we call all bet against them when they play the Angels in the ALDS and make lots of money. Thanks to the Tigers for sucking it big time and leaving us with the Yankees. As I said back in July, the Yankees had to play .700 baseball and have the Tigers or Indians do in the toilet. Cue Yankee fucking luck, miracle, whatever it is they have that is so friggin’ annoying.

I guess there is hope, the Yankees have been playing out of their mind for two months ago… that leads to VFLOAB’s Grady Sizemore Theory:
Baseball teams playing out of their mind will only play out of their mind for two months, after which, they will revert to the mean and struggle to play about .500 baseball.

Don’t believe me? Think back to 2005. The White Sox played out of their minds to start the year. Then after the All-Star Break they played about .500 baseball. Beginning in late July the Indians started to play well, and then in September, they won something like 19 out of 20 games at one point. The Sox, who had a 15 game lead at one point, were only up 2 or 3 games going into the last week of the year. Then Grady Sizemore lost a ball in the sun in KC and the Indians lost something like five of their last six – failed to catch the White Sox and blowing the Wild Card in the process.

This year… well first we had the Red Sox playing out of their minds. Then in the middle of the year we had the Cubs. And now? The Yankees. If we were talking about any other team in the majors, I’d say don’t be shocked if they get cold in the next week or so and choke away the Wild Card. But they’re the Yankees. That’s not going to happen. But we can hope.

(NOTE: We are rooting for the Yankees to catch the Red Sox for comedic purposes).

And yes, I realize that the 2006 Tigers disproved the Grady Sizermore Theory in that they played out of their mind for four months. But remember, even they blew the division in the end.

This was originally going to be about the NFL, but since we’re at 800 words, we’ll hit up the NFL later.

PEACE OUT

Bearforce 1

I think the best part is when they jump backwards into the pool.



BTW, when youtube is funnier than Saturday Night Live 98% of the time, does that means it's time to at least try something new on SNL?

A Minute By Minute Night

About three or four nights a year, you get the Perfect Sports TV Viewing Night Storm, and last Thursday, was one of those nights:
- White Sox/Texas (yes, I actually do tune into Sox game stills even though it is in no way enjoyable).
- Bears/Browns - BRADY!
- Cubs/Brewers - PRINCE!
- LSU/Mississippi State - Five First Round Draft Picks waiting to Happen!
- USA/Maradona, I mean Argentina - Has anyone's stock risen more this summer than Kobe? Seriously... have you seen him for the US over the last two weeks?
- Fox Soccer Channel - Easily the greatest TV station ever.

So with all this on the slate, I went to work:

6:59pm – As we put the final touches on a gin gimlet (Tanqueray) and the Stones singing about death (“You can’t Always Get What You Want” which we didn’t even know was about death until like two years ago) – we’re starting with college football where Sylvester Croom is being show speaking yesterday to the Mississippi State faithful. Quick, name either:
a) A Mississippi State faithful
b) A famous Mississippi State alum

7:04 – Whoa! Miss Mississippi is introducing the MSU team on ESPN in a sweet southern drawl and giving her analysis of the team. Does ABC have Miss America this year? And now James Carville who is clearly reading off of cards, gives us the LSU team! This is almost as cool as when the players introducing themselves on Monday Night Football… THE Ohio State University. I’m praying for someone form CUA to make the NFL and say THE Catholic University of America.

7:11 – Famous MSU alums: John Grisham, MSNBC’s chief meteorologist Sean McLaughlin, the dude who founded the never heard of Pizza Inn, and roughly 183 professional baseball and football players. Once again, you’ve gotta love the SEC, academics be damned (save Vandy).

7:13 – What, no MLS game? Brewers already up 1-0 on the Cubs in the top of the first… it looks like Ted Lilly is going to make this a long night on the North Side… so sad. Wait, the US Open is on TV too? Is another more underrated than tennis – Sharapova! – I mean, it’s one of those things that just sort of sucks you in. Matches seem like they take forever, but they actually move really quickly. Tennis is the anti-golf.

7:17 – Seriously, there aren’t enough TV buttons… I just remember the Bears game and feel like I should watch this because in a half hour it’s pointless to check it out. But there’s a Necaxa/Chiapas Mexican Football match to be watched also!

7:19 – The WNBA playoffs are on ESPN Classic. Does this shatter the Unintentional Comedy Scale? And apparently I don’t have the Big Ten channel. When does that launch? Oh today?

7:22 – I just realized that even though we’re only 6 minutes into the Bears/Browns game, Grossman is on the bench. And wouldn’t you know it, Griese pulls a SexCannon on third down saying, “Fuck it, I’m going deep.”

7:28 – This Bears/Browns game couldn’t be more unexciting. Wouldn’t the NFL be 100 times more exciting if play was continues and only punt returns?

7:32 – So I’m not getting the Big Ten Network even though I’m paying for the Sports Extra package on Comcast. Hey Comcast, you suck… so much. I understand (and don’t agree) with your argument that consumers shouldn’t be forced to receive the BigTen Network and if they want it they should pay extra, but guess what I am paying extra alreay. So why can’t I get it?

7:40 – Switched over to the Sox game, and Thome just killed an offering from Millwood, and it’s 1-0 White Sox. Holy shit he killed that one and that is Jim Thome’s 495th career home run.

8:10 – Some time while starting dinner, Sammy Sosa hits a home run and in classic Hawk call ensues, “There’s a drive deep. Stay in here. [A good five seconds of silence] And it’s a 1-1 ball game.” Meanwhile, as Sosa is rounding the bases, the Texas PA is blaring “The Natural” theme music. As if I needed to dislike the Rangers and Texas even more.

8:14 – Let’s just say this night isn’t going to plan. I think focusing on the two baseball games is hurting… let’s try LSU/MSU and the US Open. And more booze. Surprisingly, it’s only 10-0 LSU in the second and it’s raining in Mississippi! What was I thinking going to the Cubs game and their boring ass announcers (Len Kasper and World Series Manager Bob Brenly).

8:35 – As I start eating dinner, I flip over to the Sox game after LSU scores a TD on the final play of the first half. I apparently just missed a four error inning by the White Sox – and Hawk isn’t pissed or dead.

8:39 - Hawk is talking about a three error inning he once had – apparently he made three errors and then forgot to cover the first base on top if it, all in the same inning. DJ tells him that he’s never seen that. Hawk then shoots back, “When you make three errors in an inning, you’re mind goes places.” And hasn’t said a word since – a good minute has passed – I picture Hawk making the ‘cut throat’ jester to DJ right now since DJ just gave his nervous laugh. The inning ends and Hawk has sit not said a word to DJ. See there is a silver lining to the Sox sucking.

8:44 – Hawk speaks! Hawk is speaking as if he’s some sort of baseball elder in this really forced, calm, wise voice – musing on the finer points of pitching and bad luck.

8:47 – It’s officially NFL season, my first Peyton Manning commercial! It’s that one where he audible to me to order the NFL Season Ticket. But as you know, I can’t since I have Comcast! No matter, it’s good to get that Peyton commercial out of the way – he really does give hope to squares everywhere doesn’t he?

8:49 – The Shins and Snoop Dogg are playing a show together? What? BTW, only during a Cubs game on WGN would such information be broad casted. Cubs games on WGN… well just watch one some time to fully understand the Three Hour Infomercial that it is. Oh yeah, if things don’t pick up, I might pop in the Netflix DVD I got today and then come back for KOBE and USA vs Maradona, I mean, Argentina.

8:52 – I’ll say this, WGN knows their audience – senior citizens and people from downstate Illinois and Iowa. After showing the Batman camera crew (yes, Chicago is Gotham) we had this gem: “I thought I saw the Batmobile in the parking lot tonight. I just thought one of the players went a little overboard, but I guess I was off,” Bob Brenly.

8:55 – YES! It’s the Gillette commercial with Thierry Henry! The coolest man alive! But who okayed that commercial for US audiences? Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, and Henry? Was Shane Warne not available?

9:02 – Why hasn’t the media and bloggers made more noise about the awesomeness that is the tennis shot tracker thingie where players can challenge the official ruling by going to that shot tracker thingie (which is like the coolest thing in sports) and then the get the call right. Why can’t we do that with all sports? I mean, if we can track where a 100 mph tennis ball lands, why do NFL officials spend two minutes figuring out if a ball hit the ground or not? Why does every baseball fan have to suffer from the consistently smaller strike zones that the Red Sox and Yankees get?

9:06 – What does it mean when more blacks are in the crowd at a US Open tennis match than a Red Sox game at Fenway? Rhetorical Question #289,922,188 – is there such a thing as a black Red Sox fan? Is Red Sox Nation a White Only thing?

9:15 – Blake is in a battle in Queens against some French guy named Santoro. But I’m going to but on the Constant Gardener.

12:12 – Well the Constant Gardener makes you think twice about spending any time what’s so ever watching sports… who cares about sports while the situation in Sudan continues? A situation were thousands are being killed and the West is slow to react (and I fully realize that the movie wasn’t really focused on Sudan, but I don’t feel like going into the whole exploitation of Africa by pharmaceutical companies). Anyway, the US is up 22 on Argentina in the second half.

12:19 – As Walton talks about how great it is to see a soccer game in Argentina (warning to all gringos who take Walton’s advice, don’t go to a game). Anyway, Walton drops Maradona’s name! And with that, we’re going to call it a night. We’ve got to finish packing as it is (Watch out Jersey shore, I’m comin’!) and it’s getting late. And this post… well like any solid night of drinking, it was a good idea at the time.

Another Day in the Dog Days

Thoughts while realizing that in four days sports become totally awesome:

- Oasis never made it too big here in the States, but that’s because we’ve always had drinking bands. Can I be the first to say that Oasis is the first great British drinking band? Seriously, Oasis is a 100 times more fun when half or fully drunk. Seriously, singing “Don’t Look Back In Anger” drunk in a Pub is about as good as it gets.

- Admit it, you’re probably more pumped about fantasy football than the NFL aren’t you?

- Netflix – Awesome

- If you came here looking for an explanation as to why the Fed seemingly bailed out Wall Street last week… I haven’t a clue. As the Economist pointed out, if the reason was because of banks, then we can sort of understand the rate cut:
Banks became wary of lending to each other. The outcome was frighteningly similar to a bank run, but one that affected the entire wholesale money market.

But if the cut was just to prop up the market… well there are two major problems with that.
1) Wall Street, the DOW-JONES Industrial Average and SP 500 are not the American economy. They are indicators, and imperfect indicators at that, of the US economy.

2) The Fed attempted to bail out investors (the DOW has been down about 200 on the week). As the New Yorker pointed out, it creates a moral hazard problem:
The Fed’s decision to flood the system with cheap money will create a textbook case of what’s usually called moral hazard: insulating fund managers from the consequences of their errors will encourage similarly risky bets in the future.
Basically, investors who either invested stupidly or over exposed themselves to the sub prime mortgage market are being ‘awarded’ for their stupidity. The Fed is, in effect, saying to those investors, “It’s okay to be foolish, and we’ll bail you out.” This of course is bad on a bunch of different levels. It protects stupid wealthy people, stupid get rich people, and greedy hedge funds/equity firms.

What does this mean for 95% of America? If you own stocks or have a 401(k), it's good. But if you aren't planing on selling those shares any time soon... it doesn't affect you at all. What will hurt, is that with money now cheaper, inflation, which already was a bit of a problem, will become a bit more problematic. Yep, high foot prices. And not as much as a relief from those high summer gas prices in the next few months. In other words, the Fed made your life a little more expensive.

- Rhetorical Question #289,922,187 – Why are the White Sox carrying 13 pitchers?

- If nothing else, this piece on France, Europe, and Sarkozy is very interesting.

- Shouldn’t the anti-Union, GOP folks work on the first Monday of September? I mean aren’t they against workers? So isn’t it hypocritical for them to take the ‘working man’s holiday’ off?

- Alberto Gonzales… we, America and the free world, won’t miss you. Don’t let that door hit you on the way out.

Rove Says Good-Bye

Karl Rove was lucky. I think everyone can agree to that.

But now it comes down to two cliches about luck:
- Is it better to be lucky than good
OR
- You create your own luck?

Where does Rove's career fall if we look at those two clinches?

Take a step back and look at Rove's mythical status inside the Beltway. The Democrats, because he won elections, viewed Rove as the the problem, as some sort of asshole who was attempting to destroy America.

It's fairly obvious that the Democrats, or more specifically, Progressives/Liberals feared Rove more than they should have. And what they feared was that Rove was doing things (organizing) that they should have been doing. But liberals are very good at talking about what needs to be done. Often times they wish/hope/pray for someone to actually do it. And that was Rove's greatest success - he actually did the grunt work, the boring work of organizing. He was a man of action - and that's what people feared.

But Rove was never the Evil Genius behind Bush - that's Dick Cheney. Rove, rather, was on the Bush bandwagon far before Cheney. Rove's job was then and always was to get Bush elected. And he did just that.

Or did he? The 2000 election is the outlier when it comes to elections. Rove's 'victory' is thanks in part to about 100 different factors breaking his/Bush's way:
- Clinton's blowjob
- Clinton lying about a blowjob
- Al Gore being pre-2002 Al Gore
- Al Gore forgetting about the economy
- Al Gore deciding not to use Clinton to his advantage
- Peace
- Janet Reno sending men to get Elian Gonzalez (easily the most overlooked factor of the 2000 election).
- Poor design of ballots in Palm Beach
- Ralph Nader
- The Electoral College

I mean the list goes on and on and on... if one of those factors, just one, goes the other way, Gore's president and Karl Rove is a nobody.

But Rove deserves credit for make the election of 2000 close in the first place. Sure he was aided by missteps by Gore and company and Bush won because, let's face it, a technicality. But the 2000 election shouldn't have been close in the first place - Al Gore, like the 1978 Red Sox or the 1962 Phillies, choked. And Rove ceased the opportunity.

The 2004 election is different. On one hand, Rove was dealt a great hand - another poor candidate from the Democrats and Bush's 'leadership' after 9/11 and the War on Terror. But at the same time, he had to deal with the Iraq War and the inability of the US military capturing bin Laden (remember, as Bush likes to claim, he is the Commander and Chief, so the failure to catch bin Laden, still to this day, lays on Bush's lap - but the Buck Never Stops Here with Bush, does it?). Yet Rove maneuvered around all this and was able to get Bush reelected, not because of gay marriage as most on the left believe, but rather by stressing the strengths of Bush's first four years: The Decider. He makes decisions and sticks to them - and you know what you're getting (we've said it over and over again, but just because one makes a decision and sticks to it does not make it the right thing to do, let alone the right decision. It's also not a great characteristic, flexibility is a much better characteristic).

What Rove was, after all, was a realist. Unlike so many in DC, Rove had a solid pulse of what the country actually felt and desired. He didn't concern himself with Hill gossip or FOXNews (which I'm sure Rove would even admit has little to no effect on the country's political outlook and beliefs) - rather he understood that what people in the US don't like about Washington, is Washington itself. This is lost on anyone who has lived in DC for two years or more. If New Yorkers are arrogant, then DCers are ignorant.

Rove, or at least his legacy, was once again lucky in that less than six months after the 2004 election, Bush reached his tipping point. Only months into his second term, the nation turned on the war, the White House, and Bush was fast becoming a lame duck - in fact Bush was probably a lame duck before the 2006 midterm elections - and achievement in its own right. Rove over played his hand after the 2004 election. By all accounts, he has had little to no say on foreign policy (and we would venture to guess he was against the War in Iraq), but in domestic policy Rove has been a failure. Bush's second term is, after two and a half years, littered with failure. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a positive to come from the second term thus far. From Social Security reform to Harriet Miers and Valerie Plume to the Justice Department, Bush's second term has a 'turn your eyes from the wreck' type feel.

As every paper and quasi-intellectual chip in their two cents on Rove's departure, something like this always seems to come up:
He [Rove] liked to recall Mark Hanna, the political operative behind the rise of President William McKinley a century earlier, who not only helped his boss win the presidency but launched a period of Republican dominance -- the sort of era Rove wanted to usher in himself.

As Rove leaves after six years as the president's closest aide, the biggest question hovering over him may be why this great crusade failed, why the Republican version of a New Deal era seems as elusive as ever.

One has to wonder what Rove was thinking with the Republican New Deal type dreams. The GOP tent has been, at least in the last 80 to 90 years, a small tent. It has never really tried to be an all encompassing and welcoming party, like the Democrats. This has been a positive for the party for the most part. Sure when things go bad, they go really bad for the GOP. But the small, tight-nit GOP of our fathers has been a fairly successful formula. By attempting to 'open' it up to everyone seemed problematic since all it was going to do, eventually, was piss off the base. And that base? The Rockefeller Republicans - wealthy, white males, who desired smaller government, with a slice of libertarian mores. Rove wanted to change this, not with "compassionate conservatives" but to some sort of hybrid Democrats with socially conservative morals. But the social conservatives pissed off Northeast GOPers to the point where the Republican party looks as if it may need to be rebuilt in the Northeast (and scandal has nearly destroyed it in the Midwest from Illinois to Ohio). Immigration reform pissed off the 'newer' social conservatives. Social security reform pissed off everyone. Where have you gone, fiscal conservative Republican? Because right now, the difference between the Democrats and "Bush" Republicans isn't your classical ideological government debate. This isn't Reagan vs. Tip O'Neil or Goldwater against LBJ's Great Society. Today's 'fight' has more to do with some sort of moral correctness - who is more right in their ideas, not actions or policies.

For such a student of history, how and why did Rove seemly forget his history of the Republican party? The New Yorker had this to say:

Rove never pushed for a policy unless he saw a group of big funders or a significant electoral constituency which it might bring to the Republican Party. Social Security privatization was supposed to attract middle-class people whose pensions had been invested in the stock market; immigration reform to attract Latinos and small-business owners; the No Child Left Behind law public-school parents; and so on. Conversely, Rove was always looking for neglected constituencies—the most important by far being frequent churchgoers—and trying to figure out what mix of government goodies and organizing techniques would bring them into the Republican fold. (He was never a real conservative, except in the liberal-hating sense, because the idea that everybody who participates in politics expects something from government was at the heart of his thinking.)

But I think the preceding paragraph probably sums up Rove best:
Whatever Rove really thinks about McKinley, it’s fair to say that his vision of the good in politics (and maybe Bush’s, too) is rooted in the late nineteenth century, when parties and bosses were at their most powerful, when the federal government was run on patronage, and when the distinction between “politics” and “policy,” and the idea that “partisanship” is bad, hadn’t occurred to anyone but a few patrician reformers. If Ronald Reagan was trying to abolish Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, Rove and Bush were trying to abolish the Progressive Era, which, in their view, had given liberal “élites”—judges, journalists, policy analysts, bureaucrats—an electorally unearned thumb on the scales of government.

It's an interesting thought and probably one that isn't too far off. No matter how you voted or what you think of Bush (then or now) there always was an agenda, to undo something and create something new or at least felt new. And as I said, Rove was attempting to enlarge the Republican tent, but the result, partly thanks to Iraq, is a party who lacks a true vision and goal.

And that's scary since now we have TWO parties who have no idea what they want to do or how to lead this country.

Worst Blogger Award

No excuses, we just haven't been blogging. Summer does that to us. People love it... we like it. The humidly and sweating aren't high on our list of things we enjoy. Not saying that we want winter, because come March in Chicago, winter stinks. But summer? Overrated. Who ever said you can't go outside in February anyway? The world after a fresh snow beats the crap out of the beach. Pardon our Midwestern roots... Give us fall. Playoff baseball. Fantasy Football. The SexCannon. College Football. The new TV season. Interesting films instead of crap Wantabe Star War summer movies (though, Borne rocks). Fall is so underrated. He look, a Page 2 column waiting to be written! Someone call Jim Capel!

- Our national sports nightmare is coming to an end. How did we ever survive Bonds breaking the record? Vick and his mess? The NBA bei