We aren’t afraid (or ashamed) to admit that we have been supports of Hugo Chavez in the past. But beginning about 10 months ago we began to sour on Hugo who was becoming more talk and not a lot of walk.
Chavez was pretty much given dictatorial powers today by the Venezuelan congress. All things considered, this is a bit odd. Chavez was and is democratically elected and has support of 63% of the people in his country. One of his claims to fame is that he uses the oil profits and spends it on the poor… unfortunately for Hugo, leftists, and Venezuelans that money and it’s affects seems to be taking a long time to reach the poor.
Chavez is a populist. His anti-American rhetoric plays well in Latin America (most Americans don’t realize that when Hugo trashes Bush and the US many people in Latin America agree with him). He is a former military man, attempted a coup back in the early 90s, failed, was democratically elected in the late 90s, was elected again in 2001, in 2002 there was an attempted coup on Chavez (which the US government may have supported) and then won a closely contested recall election in 2004. Last month Chavez won reelection once again.
There’s no doubt that Chavez has attempted to limited freedom of speech (mainly by nationalizing the media) and with his new powers who knows what is going to happen. He has the support of his people, but at some point, one figures, they will turn against him.
(Oddly, Chavez reminds me of Julius Caesar… in fact the historical comparison is too far off; both being military men, populists, had/have huge support from the masses, used the national resources to gain that support, and gained power through the Senate (and therefore claiming that it was democratic and what the people wanted). Time will tell of Chavez is stabbed 23 times somewhere in Caracas).
Since reelection, Chavez has shifted even further to the left. He views capitalism as evil, calls for a “21st century socialism” revolution, and is attempting to nationalize the media (by shutting down private media) and other industries of Venezuela.
We are supporters of social justice. This means that economically we fall on the left. But we are against monopolies (both private and public) since they lead to waste. We are also fans of democracy, for all its faults it is better than any other system that we have learned about or attempted to dream up. Chavez is breaking two no-nos with us. He’s creating a monopoly by nationalize much of Venezuela and he’s limited freedom of speech, and thus freedom in general, in his country. (And this is interesting, the US has granted asylum to over 2,000 Vezenzuelans since 2004.)
If Hugo Chavez really does have 63% support of the people in his country, there is no need for him to shut down the opposition media. We can live with his nationalization of industry, we don’t think it’s the best idea, but it won’t hurt or limit people’s rights; something that Chavez’s other policies are doing. One would figure that a leader as popular as Chavez would allow the opposition to stay seeing that getting rid of them has little political benefit.
We will say this before anyone on the right attempts to claim victory. Despite Chavez’s current missteps, we are not aware of Chavez allowing the torture of humans by his government. We also are not aware of Chavez starting a war and sending over 3,000 of his own citizens to their death for reasons that are still either completely unclear or completely made up.
29.1.07
2008 Presidental Election (since it's never too early to start!)
Oh you 2008 election. You're so far away, yet everyone has decided to run for you already. Sometimes I wish we had a political system where people at least waited until a few months before the election to declare, but seeing that raising money is fun and you get your ego stroked by the media for the next 20 months (or something like that), why not throw your hat into the ring a good year before anyone in Iowa can do a straw poll?!?!?!
But hey, we're half way done with the Regine of Incompetence and Bush is officially a Lame Duck... even his good ideas will die a slow "social security reform" death (remember when Bush was going to reform social security? Nice call Georgie! At least no one died with that blunder.) Where was I, oh, so yeah this is a weird election since Bush has not successor (in other wordsCondi and Chaney aren't running) so both parties have a wide open primary season to go though (of course that's a year away, but WHATEVERS!).
Let me say this, and this is a fact (trust me):
The Nominees from Both Parties Will both be against the war in Iraq and that person will probably have moved their support away from the war before anyone else. This gives individuals likeObama, Edwards, Al Gore, and Hagel (and a few others) a leg up on everyone else. Now this isn't a guarantee on the Republican side, I guess there is an outside chance that a pro-war nominee can get the nod. But I doubt it. Things being what they are, the further a person is on Iraq and at the earlier date, has the best chance of getting elected. I know, there will be other issues at hand, and the GOP has to be careful in who they nominate. A pro-war candidate like McCain will have trouble beating an anti-war or reformed-war candidate on the Democratic side.
is the only person on this list that can get away with being a bit 'further out' on the political Also, the Democrats have another advantage going into 2008... they're probably going to choose someone who is closer to the 'middle' than they have in the past. Obama can be a bit 'further out' on the spectrum because he's got the natural talent and people like him (he's two parts JFK and one part Bill Clinton). Everyone else will be best served by moving to the middle. Hillary has already done this... and this is not a or by mistake. The American public is sick of the crap that's been going on inside the Beltway the last 12, and especially six, years. The fighting about litterly nothing does not go over well outside of the Beltway and maybe 2% of the population in the rest of the country. I'm sure 99% of Americans could careless if Bush said Democrat Congress instead of Democratic Congress... but the Beltway types freak out over this shit. Don't ask me why. Anyway back to the idea of moving to the middle, compassionate conservatism was a farce in retrospect... but this 'phrase' helped Bush get elected (and a shitty ballot in Florida). I'm not sure 'uniter' talk will go as far this time around, but someone who seems level headed and willing to listen will get a lot of support and go a long way. People are tired of the Beltway and would much rather it be a place to visit rather than a place where talking heads heads explode on MSNBC or FoxNews.
Four years ago it appeared that the Dems were the party that was fighting among themselves, but they got their act together and absolutely destroyed the GOP last November. And since taking 'power' on the Hill they've been extremely uncontroversial. This is not a mistake. This is with 2008 in mind. They know that if they pass laws that most Americans like and don't ruffle any feathers, it only makes it easier for them to take back the White House in 2008.
And right now, is there anyone on the GOP ticket that really excites anyone? And please don't say John McCain. He's old and depending on who you talk too notconservative enough... or too conservative. He's this election's John Kerry.
Let's break this down like we did last year around this time:
People Who Were On the List Last Year but aren't running:
- George Allen (unemployed) - Has a political career died faster than Allen's? Wow... a year ago he was running for President. Today he's out of office. As RayKinsella's wife said, "America, I love ya!"
-Jeb Bush (unemployed) - To be fair, he was never really going to run and he can't run because his brother ran eight years ago and pretty much blew any chance he ever had. What's the lesson learned? If growing up you're considered the smart, ambitious kid of the family, make sure you're brother isn't a fake Texan.
- Bill Frist (unemployed, but may be practicing medicine in Tennessee) - He stepped down from the Senate and then decided not to run for President. Probably a good choice and now can live a quite life where ever he is these days. Doesn't seem like that bad of a guy in retrospect.
- Condoleezza Rice (Security of State) - She may have had a worse year than George Bush, which is saying something. Her "handling" or involvement in the Middle East mess this summer only reinforced those who said that she was a "lap dog" more than anything else. As the Economist pointed out, this is odd since she had such an outstanding career in academia. Might be time to go back to what you're good atCondi.
- John Kerry (Senator Massachusetts) - BUT I GOT MORE VOTES THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE EVER!
- Evan Bayh (Senator Indiana) - More like Evan Blah (ZING!).
- Mark Warner (Unemployed) - He started running in like Dec. of 2004. Now he's not. And I was right! He was too cute of a choice to be considered seriously for the Democrats.
- Russ Feingold (Senator from Wisconsin) - Oh well.
People that I would never vote for and if for some reason the GOP and Dems picked these people to face off against each other I would end up moving to Europe or somewhere else cool instead…
- John McCain (R) (Senator from Arizona) - Just go away. I'm sick of him. He had his shot to go after Bush, to really make a statement and stand up to the President. Instead he choose to get into bed with the man that spread lies about his past (oh I'm sorry, implied bullshit). The man is a fraud, and while his straight talking is popular with the average voter right now, he's a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry. Plus he's pro-Iraq something no one talks about. And he's much more conservative on social issues than everyone realizes.
- Christopher Dodd (D) (Senator from Connecticut) - He's been Senator as long as I've been alive. Amazing. Anyway, there's much better out there.
- Sam Brownback (R) (Senator from Kansas) - I don't think Sam's that bad of a guy, I'm just not going to be voting for him anytime soon. We don't see eye to eye on much of anything. I think he's a Royals fan too (okay, just made that up).
- Mike Gravel (D) (Senator from Alaska) - Not to be all, Old People suck, but the guy is going to be 78 in 2008. I'm sorry, but I can't really envision a 82 year old President doing anything sort of Presidential.
- John Cox (R) (some guy from Illinois, a CPA in fact) - Yeah... right... stop wasting every one's time.
- Hillary Clinton (D) (ex-wife of Bill... oh sorry, Senator from New York) - Blah. See McCain and just change a few words around. And she's a Cubs fan turned Yankee fan. Why do people let her get away with that? But seriously, I think she has a better chance of winning than everyone thinks she does. Sure the far right doesn't like her... but they are never going to vote for her anyway. Who cares if they hate her. What matters is what the independent voters think, and I don't think she's as disliked as people believe she is.
- Duncan Hunter (R) (Rep. from California) - Anti-immigration, anti-my vote.
- Al Sharpton (D) (Reverend) - We sort of liked seeing Al on TV four years ago... we don't like seeing Al on TV any more even if we agree with him about 60% of the time.
- Rudy Giuliani (R) (former mayor of New York City) - I don't get what's so great about this guy. I mean, didn't everyone hate him in August of 2001? He was pretty great during 9/11 and following where he stepped to the plate and was more of a leader than Bush (who went into hiding, awesome leadership!) but come on... does that make him out to be President? Plus his policing tactics have been called into question seeing that it seems likeNYPD shoot a lot of innocent people. And don't forget about Bernie Kerik.
- Mitt Romney (R) (former governor of Massachusetts) - Another flipflopper. He confuses me more than anything else, and while I'm a fan of his heath care plan that requires all citizens of Massachusetts to have health care and makes it accessible to them, something about him rubs me the wrong way. But if he loses at least he's got the whole "I'll be a God of some universe some where else when I die" thing going for him... you know cus he's a Mormon and all (NOTE: I don't think it's true, but it's a rumor that Mormons believe this... google it more if you'd like).
- Newt Gingrich (R) (unemployed) - This guy damaged American politics more than anyone else in the post-Watergate world. He's partisan, kill all Democratic ruling style hurt this country more than anything he ever got passed in the House. He's not an asshole like TomDeLay, but he's not much better.
- Ralph Nader (G) (Who Cares) - Who cares.
People who I can stand, enjoy watching on TV, and even if everything worked out for them I could maybe vote for:
- Joe Biden (D) (Senator from Delaware) - I like watching Joe on TV. That's why he's here. The guy has been running for President for like five years too.
- John Gilmore (R) (former governor of Virgina) - I have no clue who this guy is or what he stands for so I'll put him in the maybe.
- John Edwards (D) (unemployed) - I like what he says. Of course, he's some what hypocritical. And he's probably not mean enough. And he just built a house the size of Rhode Island, so much for Two Americas.
- Ron Paul (R) (Rep. from Texas) - He's a libertarian and voted against the War in Iraq. He's got a better shot than you think and may raise a few eyebrows as the next 13 months fall out.
- Bill Richardson (D) (Governor from New Mexico) - He may end up in the 'guy I could vote for' section in a years time. But right now this seems like a good place to put him. Why don't they call itNeuva Mexico?
- George Pataki (R) (former governor of New York) - I'd like to hear more from him.
- General Wesley Clark (D) (Retired) - For one second forget about the letter next to his name... doesn't he seem like the most electable person in this country? And his CV is more impressive than anyone else on this list. I like Clark because he seems like he'd be a good President since being a good President comes down to make just and prudent decisions. Clark seems like a just and prudent guy. Generals are usually okay Presidents (Grant excluded, but that wasn't entirely his fault).
Okay, now, if the election was held tomorrow, and I could vote for anyone:
- Dennis Kucinich (D) (Rep from Ohio) - He's against Iraq. He's against the Patriot Act. In other words he actually loves freedom. Oh an he loves peace (so much that he wants to create a Department of Peace in the government... now that's a good idea; I mean we've got a Department of War, err, Defense (how attacking Iraq is defense is beyond my intellectual capabilities, but hey)). Anyway, he belief and desire for peace is a fantastic thing and something that we should all strive for.
- Chuck Hagel (R) (Senator from Nebraska) - An old fashion conservative from the Midwest... he's reasonable, he's against the war, and he's got his head out of his ass. These are all positives in elections, but negatives inside the Beltway. This is why I like him a lot. And let's not forget that he hit on an ex-girlfriend (btw, this might be one of our favorite things we've ever written on this blog... Best of Life On a Bench anyone? ZINGING MYSELF!).
- Barrack Obama (D) (Senator from Illinois) - People just like him. And I like him. I first heard and saw Obama in the summer of 1999 when Obama had decided to run against Bobby Rush for the 1st District House seat in Illinois. He was likable. He had a sense of humor. He seemed like he was at ease, he smiled, he was normal. He didn't come across as a politician then... and he doesn't today (well okay as much as one who's running for President cannot come across as a politician). Obama has major flaws: a checky past (which I don't think will hurt him) and lack of a stance on just about everything (where's the beef?). But Obama has IT.
- Al Gore (D) (Academy Award Nominee) - As I said last year, I'm just happy Al Gore didn't kill himself a few years ago. I can't imagine what it's like to be Al Gore. You received more votes that George Bush in 2000... if it wasn't for a bad ballot in one county in Florida, you would have received more votes than George Bush and won the state and thus have become President. He was President... of course, he isn't because Bush did get more votes... but man... can you imagine what that's like to wake up every morning and go "I was a normal ballot away from being President of the United States of America". (I also realize that Gore ran and absolutely horrible campaign and that's the 'main' reason why the election was so close). But back to what I was saying... if you came that close, wouldn't you run for President again? Espically after the last 18 months we've see a 'rebirth' of sorts of Gore. Doesn't he seem like a cool guy now? And after all those years of hammering away about theenviorment... looks like he man have finally found an audience. And as we said about a year ago... he's got a great chance to pull a Nixon.
But hey, we're half way done with the Regine of Incompetence and Bush is officially a Lame Duck... even his good ideas will die a slow "social security reform" death (remember when Bush was going to reform social security? Nice call Georgie! At least no one died with that blunder.) Where was I, oh, so yeah this is a weird election since Bush has not successor (in other wordsCondi and Chaney aren't running) so both parties have a wide open primary season to go though (of course that's a year away, but WHATEVERS!).
Let me say this, and this is a fact (trust me):
The Nominees from Both Parties Will both be against the war in Iraq and that person will probably have moved their support away from the war before anyone else. This gives individuals likeObama, Edwards, Al Gore, and Hagel (and a few others) a leg up on everyone else. Now this isn't a guarantee on the Republican side, I guess there is an outside chance that a pro-war nominee can get the nod. But I doubt it. Things being what they are, the further a person is on Iraq and at the earlier date, has the best chance of getting elected. I know, there will be other issues at hand, and the GOP has to be careful in who they nominate. A pro-war candidate like McCain will have trouble beating an anti-war or reformed-war candidate on the Democratic side.
is the only person on this list that can get away with being a bit 'further out' on the political Also, the Democrats have another advantage going into 2008... they're probably going to choose someone who is closer to the 'middle' than they have in the past. Obama can be a bit 'further out' on the spectrum because he's got the natural talent and people like him (he's two parts JFK and one part Bill Clinton). Everyone else will be best served by moving to the middle. Hillary has already done this... and this is not a or by mistake. The American public is sick of the crap that's been going on inside the Beltway the last 12, and especially six, years. The fighting about litterly nothing does not go over well outside of the Beltway and maybe 2% of the population in the rest of the country. I'm sure 99% of Americans could careless if Bush said Democrat Congress instead of Democratic Congress... but the Beltway types freak out over this shit. Don't ask me why. Anyway back to the idea of moving to the middle, compassionate conservatism was a farce in retrospect... but this 'phrase' helped Bush get elected (and a shitty ballot in Florida). I'm not sure 'uniter' talk will go as far this time around, but someone who seems level headed and willing to listen will get a lot of support and go a long way. People are tired of the Beltway and would much rather it be a place to visit rather than a place where talking heads heads explode on MSNBC or FoxNews.
Four years ago it appeared that the Dems were the party that was fighting among themselves, but they got their act together and absolutely destroyed the GOP last November. And since taking 'power' on the Hill they've been extremely uncontroversial. This is not a mistake. This is with 2008 in mind. They know that if they pass laws that most Americans like and don't ruffle any feathers, it only makes it easier for them to take back the White House in 2008.
And right now, is there anyone on the GOP ticket that really excites anyone? And please don't say John McCain. He's old and depending on who you talk too notconservative enough... or too conservative. He's this election's John Kerry.
Let's break this down like we did last year around this time:
People Who Were On the List Last Year but aren't running:
- George Allen (unemployed) - Has a political career died faster than Allen's? Wow... a year ago he was running for President. Today he's out of office. As RayKinsella's wife said, "America, I love ya!"
-Jeb Bush (unemployed) - To be fair, he was never really going to run and he can't run because his brother ran eight years ago and pretty much blew any chance he ever had. What's the lesson learned? If growing up you're considered the smart, ambitious kid of the family, make sure you're brother isn't a fake Texan.
- Bill Frist (unemployed, but may be practicing medicine in Tennessee) - He stepped down from the Senate and then decided not to run for President. Probably a good choice and now can live a quite life where ever he is these days. Doesn't seem like that bad of a guy in retrospect.
- Condoleezza Rice (Security of State) - She may have had a worse year than George Bush, which is saying something. Her "handling" or involvement in the Middle East mess this summer only reinforced those who said that she was a "lap dog" more than anything else. As the Economist pointed out, this is odd since she had such an outstanding career in academia. Might be time to go back to what you're good atCondi.
- John Kerry (Senator Massachusetts) - BUT I GOT MORE VOTES THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE EVER!
- Evan Bayh (Senator Indiana) - More like Evan Blah (ZING!).
- Mark Warner (Unemployed) - He started running in like Dec. of 2004. Now he's not. And I was right! He was too cute of a choice to be considered seriously for the Democrats.
- Russ Feingold (Senator from Wisconsin) - Oh well.
People that I would never vote for and if for some reason the GOP and Dems picked these people to face off against each other I would end up moving to Europe or somewhere else cool instead…
- John McCain (R) (Senator from Arizona) - Just go away. I'm sick of him. He had his shot to go after Bush, to really make a statement and stand up to the President. Instead he choose to get into bed with the man that spread lies about his past (oh I'm sorry, implied bullshit). The man is a fraud, and while his straight talking is popular with the average voter right now, he's a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry. Plus he's pro-Iraq something no one talks about. And he's much more conservative on social issues than everyone realizes.
- Christopher Dodd (D) (Senator from Connecticut) - He's been Senator as long as I've been alive. Amazing. Anyway, there's much better out there.
- Sam Brownback (R) (Senator from Kansas) - I don't think Sam's that bad of a guy, I'm just not going to be voting for him anytime soon. We don't see eye to eye on much of anything. I think he's a Royals fan too (okay, just made that up).
- Mike Gravel (D) (Senator from Alaska) - Not to be all, Old People suck, but the guy is going to be 78 in 2008. I'm sorry, but I can't really envision a 82 year old President doing anything sort of Presidential.
- John Cox (R) (some guy from Illinois, a CPA in fact) - Yeah... right... stop wasting every one's time.
- Hillary Clinton (D) (ex-wife of Bill... oh sorry, Senator from New York) - Blah. See McCain and just change a few words around. And she's a Cubs fan turned Yankee fan. Why do people let her get away with that? But seriously, I think she has a better chance of winning than everyone thinks she does. Sure the far right doesn't like her... but they are never going to vote for her anyway. Who cares if they hate her. What matters is what the independent voters think, and I don't think she's as disliked as people believe she is.
- Duncan Hunter (R) (Rep. from California) - Anti-immigration, anti-my vote.
- Al Sharpton (D) (Reverend) - We sort of liked seeing Al on TV four years ago... we don't like seeing Al on TV any more even if we agree with him about 60% of the time.
- Rudy Giuliani (R) (former mayor of New York City) - I don't get what's so great about this guy. I mean, didn't everyone hate him in August of 2001? He was pretty great during 9/11 and following where he stepped to the plate and was more of a leader than Bush (who went into hiding, awesome leadership!) but come on... does that make him out to be President? Plus his policing tactics have been called into question seeing that it seems likeNYPD shoot a lot of innocent people. And don't forget about Bernie Kerik.
- Mitt Romney (R) (former governor of Massachusetts) - Another flipflopper. He confuses me more than anything else, and while I'm a fan of his heath care plan that requires all citizens of Massachusetts to have health care and makes it accessible to them, something about him rubs me the wrong way. But if he loses at least he's got the whole "I'll be a God of some universe some where else when I die" thing going for him... you know cus he's a Mormon and all (NOTE: I don't think it's true, but it's a rumor that Mormons believe this... google it more if you'd like).
- Newt Gingrich (R) (unemployed) - This guy damaged American politics more than anyone else in the post-Watergate world. He's partisan, kill all Democratic ruling style hurt this country more than anything he ever got passed in the House. He's not an asshole like TomDeLay, but he's not much better.
- Ralph Nader (G) (Who Cares) - Who cares.
People who I can stand, enjoy watching on TV, and even if everything worked out for them I could maybe vote for:
- Joe Biden (D) (Senator from Delaware) - I like watching Joe on TV. That's why he's here. The guy has been running for President for like five years too.
- John Gilmore (R) (former governor of Virgina) - I have no clue who this guy is or what he stands for so I'll put him in the maybe.
- John Edwards (D) (unemployed) - I like what he says. Of course, he's some what hypocritical. And he's probably not mean enough. And he just built a house the size of Rhode Island, so much for Two Americas.
- Ron Paul (R) (Rep. from Texas) - He's a libertarian and voted against the War in Iraq. He's got a better shot than you think and may raise a few eyebrows as the next 13 months fall out.
- Bill Richardson (D) (Governor from New Mexico) - He may end up in the 'guy I could vote for' section in a years time. But right now this seems like a good place to put him. Why don't they call itNeuva Mexico?
- George Pataki (R) (former governor of New York) - I'd like to hear more from him.
- General Wesley Clark (D) (Retired) - For one second forget about the letter next to his name... doesn't he seem like the most electable person in this country? And his CV is more impressive than anyone else on this list. I like Clark because he seems like he'd be a good President since being a good President comes down to make just and prudent decisions. Clark seems like a just and prudent guy. Generals are usually okay Presidents (Grant excluded, but that wasn't entirely his fault).
Okay, now, if the election was held tomorrow, and I could vote for anyone:
- Dennis Kucinich (D) (Rep from Ohio) - He's against Iraq. He's against the Patriot Act. In other words he actually loves freedom. Oh an he loves peace (so much that he wants to create a Department of Peace in the government... now that's a good idea; I mean we've got a Department of War, err, Defense (how attacking Iraq is defense is beyond my intellectual capabilities, but hey)). Anyway, he belief and desire for peace is a fantastic thing and something that we should all strive for.
- Chuck Hagel (R) (Senator from Nebraska) - An old fashion conservative from the Midwest... he's reasonable, he's against the war, and he's got his head out of his ass. These are all positives in elections, but negatives inside the Beltway. This is why I like him a lot. And let's not forget that he hit on an ex-girlfriend (btw, this might be one of our favorite things we've ever written on this blog... Best of Life On a Bench anyone? ZINGING MYSELF!).
- Barrack Obama (D) (Senator from Illinois) - People just like him. And I like him. I first heard and saw Obama in the summer of 1999 when Obama had decided to run against Bobby Rush for the 1st District House seat in Illinois. He was likable. He had a sense of humor. He seemed like he was at ease, he smiled, he was normal. He didn't come across as a politician then... and he doesn't today (well okay as much as one who's running for President cannot come across as a politician). Obama has major flaws: a checky past (which I don't think will hurt him) and lack of a stance on just about everything (where's the beef?). But Obama has IT.
- Al Gore (D) (Academy Award Nominee) - As I said last year, I'm just happy Al Gore didn't kill himself a few years ago. I can't imagine what it's like to be Al Gore. You received more votes that George Bush in 2000... if it wasn't for a bad ballot in one county in Florida, you would have received more votes than George Bush and won the state and thus have become President. He was President... of course, he isn't because Bush did get more votes... but man... can you imagine what that's like to wake up every morning and go "I was a normal ballot away from being President of the United States of America". (I also realize that Gore ran and absolutely horrible campaign and that's the 'main' reason why the election was so close). But back to what I was saying... if you came that close, wouldn't you run for President again? Espically after the last 18 months we've see a 'rebirth' of sorts of Gore. Doesn't he seem like a cool guy now? And after all those years of hammering away about theenviorment... looks like he man have finally found an audience. And as we said about a year ago... he's got a great chance to pull a Nixon.
28.1.07
The Greatest
“Do you see the light?” shouts Reverend Cleophus James.
Okay this has nothing to do with the band (though I think R.E.M. is making me look again at the light, my Lord these guys were awesome… makes me wonder why we even listen to U2). But yes, I've seen the light. And at the other end is Roger Federer.
ANYWAY, you probably didn’t notice because it’s on at 2 in the morning and it’s a sport that no one watches, but Roger Federer won the Australian Open today. AND HE DIDN’T LOSE A SET THE ENTIRE TOURNAMENT.
The guy isn’t good - he’s the greatest.
It’s not often that we get to see the greatest. I got to see Michael Jordan and I get to watch Tiger Woods. But other than that… I missed The Greatest (be it Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Babe Ruth, Jim Brown, Ali/Jack Johnson/Joe Lewis/Rocky Marciano * and even Carl Lewis
and Bo Jackson (well I did get to use him in Super Temco Bowl )). My point is, it’s not often that we get to see the greatest. And when they come along, we should embrace them and love them. As humans, we love perfection and beauty. There is a greatness to the beauty, be it a painting or a beautiful women. We are attracted to it. This is why we go to movies or museums… and it’s also one of the reasons why we’re attracted to sports. We could see perfection. Though most of the time we only get drama.
And the drama is great. But it’s the constant of sports. People hate blowouts because they’re no fun… the dramatic element of the game has been taken away. And most blowouts aren’t because one team is THAT much better, it’s because the other team stunk up the joint.
But once in a while, we see the perfect game. That game where the ‘beauty’ of the sport comes across on our TV. This happens most often in baseball and least often in football. This is also why these are the two biggest sports in America: The Prefect and Beauty vs the Drama.
Now I’m not going to develop this any further, thought it is VERY interesting if you agree. What I’m getting at is that Federer takes away the drama of a match… but he delivers on the perfection. The guy does not make mistakes. Every shot seems to be perfectly placed. He appears to do this effortlessly. Even when his opponent is playing fantastic, Federer is just better. The man appears to be undefeatable off of clay.
Federer is something else. I heard he went five sets with Jesus a few months ago in fact. (bada-BING!)
Fernando Gonzalez came into the Final playing the best tennis of his life. He destroyed James Blake and Nadal (ranked #5 and #2 in the world respectively). I thought maybe, just maybe, Federer could be taken.
But no way. The man is amazing. And I’ll say it, Federer right now, is better at tennis than Tiger is at golf. Guys on the tennis tour openly say, “Federer is just better.” Unless the match is on clay, Federer is going to win. And even if it is on clay, it appears that only one man can beat him and that’s Nadal. It’s not even fair.
Watching Tiger can be a joy because he looks like a F-16 that’s going to come and save the day, locks in on his opponents, and then blasts them out of the sky. Tiger rarely dominates an event from Thursday to Sunday (that one Maters win and the Open at Pebble being two exceptions; of course those are the two wins we probably remember before anything else because it was watching ‘perfection’). Watching Tiger is watching a man who is more determined than everyone one else… he HAS to win. But Federer? The guy is so fucking good that he makes it look easy. It looks near effortless. The guy is so fucking good that it doesn’t look hard. Almost every single tournament is like Tiger’s victory at Augusta in 1997 or at Pebble Beach in 2000. It’s like Reggie Bush playing against a bunch of 16 year olds… or Johan Santana facing a high school baseball team. Expect Federer is playing against the best!
I didn’t seePedro in 1999, but I think it’s the closest an athlete has come to playing at a level above the competition constantly like Federer does.
The question is, at this point, can he win the French Open? And if he doesn’t, does that ‘hurt’ his career? I honestly don’t know. But I’m going to be watching.
*Clarence: Oh there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'bout boxing, a white man got to pull Rocky Marciano out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Rocky Marciano. Rocky Marciano. Let me tell you something once and for all. Rocky Marciano was good, but compared to Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano ain't shit.
Okay this has nothing to do with the band (though I think R.E.M. is making me look again at the light, my Lord these guys were awesome… makes me wonder why we even listen to U2). But yes, I've seen the light. And at the other end is Roger Federer.
ANYWAY, you probably didn’t notice because it’s on at 2 in the morning and it’s a sport that no one watches, but Roger Federer won the Australian Open today. AND HE DIDN’T LOSE A SET THE ENTIRE TOURNAMENT.
The guy isn’t good - he’s the greatest.
It’s not often that we get to see the greatest. I got to see Michael Jordan and I get to watch Tiger Woods. But other than that… I missed The Greatest (be it Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Babe Ruth, Jim Brown, Ali/Jack Johnson/Joe Lewis/Rocky Marciano * and even Carl Lewis
and Bo Jackson (well I did get to use him in Super Temco Bowl )). My point is, it’s not often that we get to see the greatest. And when they come along, we should embrace them and love them. As humans, we love perfection and beauty. There is a greatness to the beauty, be it a painting or a beautiful women. We are attracted to it. This is why we go to movies or museums… and it’s also one of the reasons why we’re attracted to sports. We could see perfection. Though most of the time we only get drama.And the drama is great. But it’s the constant of sports. People hate blowouts because they’re no fun… the dramatic element of the game has been taken away. And most blowouts aren’t because one team is THAT much better, it’s because the other team stunk up the joint.
But once in a while, we see the perfect game. That game where the ‘beauty’ of the sport comes across on our TV. This happens most often in baseball and least often in football. This is also why these are the two biggest sports in America: The Prefect and Beauty vs the Drama.
Now I’m not going to develop this any further, thought it is VERY interesting if you agree. What I’m getting at is that Federer takes away the drama of a match… but he delivers on the perfection. The guy does not make mistakes. Every shot seems to be perfectly placed. He appears to do this effortlessly. Even when his opponent is playing fantastic, Federer is just better. The man appears to be undefeatable off of clay.
Federer is something else. I heard he went five sets with Jesus a few months ago in fact. (bada-BING!)Fernando Gonzalez came into the Final playing the best tennis of his life. He destroyed James Blake and Nadal (ranked #5 and #2 in the world respectively). I thought maybe, just maybe, Federer could be taken.
But no way. The man is amazing. And I’ll say it, Federer right now, is better at tennis than Tiger is at golf. Guys on the tennis tour openly say, “Federer is just better.” Unless the match is on clay, Federer is going to win. And even if it is on clay, it appears that only one man can beat him and that’s Nadal. It’s not even fair.
Watching Tiger can be a joy because he looks like a F-16 that’s going to come and save the day, locks in on his opponents, and then blasts them out of the sky. Tiger rarely dominates an event from Thursday to Sunday (that one Maters win and the Open at Pebble being two exceptions; of course those are the two wins we probably remember before anything else because it was watching ‘perfection’). Watching Tiger is watching a man who is more determined than everyone one else… he HAS to win. But Federer? The guy is so fucking good that he makes it look easy. It looks near effortless. The guy is so fucking good that it doesn’t look hard. Almost every single tournament is like Tiger’s victory at Augusta in 1997 or at Pebble Beach in 2000. It’s like Reggie Bush playing against a bunch of 16 year olds… or Johan Santana facing a high school baseball team. Expect Federer is playing against the best!
I didn’t seePedro in 1999, but I think it’s the closest an athlete has come to playing at a level above the competition constantly like Federer does.
The question is, at this point, can he win the French Open? And if he doesn’t, does that ‘hurt’ his career? I honestly don’t know. But I’m going to be watching.
*Clarence: Oh there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'bout boxing, a white man got to pull Rocky Marciano out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Rocky Marciano. Rocky Marciano. Let me tell you something once and for all. Rocky Marciano was good, but compared to Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano ain't shit.
24.1.07
Feelings, Beaker, Feelings
There's much to say and talk about... and I'm not even talking about the State of the Bench! (rip-shot, BANG!) But seriously folks, there's like three or four things that have caught our eye... so I'll do the easy one first. The Greatness that is the Muppet Show:
Who doesn't love Animal? And if you didn't enjoy that, there's this. Amazing. Just Amazing:
Who doesn't love Animal? And if you didn't enjoy that, there's this. Amazing. Just Amazing:
19.1.07
A Big Week and a Bigger Weekend
I know you'll think I'm crazy, but this was/is one of the bigger sports weeks in Chicago history that I can remember. Sure it isn't the second week of October in 1993 when we got nuked (theSox lost the ALCS , Jordan retired, the Bears did something stupid, the Hawks lost to the expansion Lightening (and JR might even have blown out his knee again), and the Cubs did what the Cubs did best... blame the manager by firing whoever was manager then and talk about Prior and Wood and next year (okay maybe therewasn't Prior and Wood talk in 1993, but it feels like that doesn't it?)). That will always be the biggest 'week' in Chicago Sports History, followed closely by the last week of October of 2005 and pretty much every week during the 1985 Bears season. But this was a big week. Lets Break It Down, Team By Team!
The Fire: Okay, I think the MLS had their draft and I have no clue who or how good the guy the Fire drafted is, but the Beckham effect is still in full swing. And I want to touch on this oh so quickly, but you know how everyone is saying, 'Beckham isn't that good of a player, he's not going to convert everyone in American to soccer!' Two things here... how the hell would anyone in America, let alone some talking head that doesn't even watch soccer, know howBeckham is doing?!?!?! Real Madrid games aren't on TV here unless we get a Champions League game on ESPN, and none of these heads would watch that game and none of them fly to Madrid to watch him. And Beckham was one of the better players for England during the World Cup (that more says how poorly England played than anything else). Secondly, no one ever saidBeckham was going to convert American into a nation soccerheads that will someday rival Brazil in terms of talent and England in terms of insanity. Stop making things up, Mr. Media.
But I can't believe this connection hasn't been made - remember Wayne Gretzky? Remember how he was traded to LA and how suddenly hockey became something of a 'thing' in the States outside of the northern cities from St. Paul to Boston? The Great One didn't turn this country intoCanadaSouth, but he did raise the awareness of the game in this country to the point where in the mid 90s it looked as if the NHL could really carve itself deep into the American sportsconscious. Of course the NHL made some huge mistakes (and I haven't even mentioned the 2004-2005 lockout) and it lost its momentum . But starting in the 80s when Gretzky was traded to the Kings right up until the Rangers winning the Cup in 1994... the NHL slowly began to become 'something' in this country outside of Chicago, Detroit, the Twins Cities, and Boston. And guess what... DavidBeckham will have the same effect with soccer. He's not going to create five million new fans here in the US, but he is going to turn a few hundred thousand onto the game and slowly build thatmomentum. The MLS will expand to other cities, much like the NHL expanding to Dallas, Carolina, and Florida (Tampa) (it still seems like a bad joke that all three cities have won a Cup). Anyways, find me someone who doesn't want to seeBeckham? Come on... one person... see you can't. He's interesting... he's English... he's charismatic (as long as he keeps his mouth shut mind you; I remember when I finally heard him open his mouth in like March of 2003 and I was mortified... I thought to myself, "I spent two months following a guy that sounds like a girl and may not be able to add 3+8 in his head?") But theBeckham effect will be real. Not in the millions, but in the thousands, and that's what the MLS needs. It isn't looking to take on the NFL or baseball or even the NBA right now. But why not go after the NHL? And I'm sure the Fire are feeling that at the gate already.
The Blackhawks: Okay, after looking like maybe they'd make a run for a playoff spot with Savy as coach, the Hawks fell apart. It's been a shitty few weeks for the Hawks. But I've got to say as a general NHL comment, Sidney Crosby really is something else. And AlexanderOvechkin is the most exciting player in sports RIGHT NOW (taking the title from USC Reggie Bush). This Crosby vs Ovechkin Rivalry has Bird/Magic potential. Of course this is the NHL, and they're going to move Crosby to Kansas City and Ovechkin is stuck in NHL purgatory in DC. How does Gary Bettman have a job? He has to be the worst commissioner. Actually, he's the second worst commish out there. The Commish in my fantasy league refuses to play for money AND rigs the scoring to favor players on the Eagles. He's worse. Okay, I'm moving on.
The White Sox: It's been a slow month for the Sox who have become, imo, the weirdest team in all of sports since no one has a clue what they're going to do next (thanks to Kenny Williams), yet they're still one of the top eight teams in the league, and they can't not stay out of the news (between Ozzie,Uribe maybe shooting a few guys, and random Kenny Williams trades). I'm at the point as a Sox fan, that I think Kenny owns a Twister spinner thingie but puts players faces instead on the colored dots. Once a month, Kenny gives it a spin. Whatever player it lands on he trades for noapparent reason and leaves everyone scratching their head and thinking "Umm, are the Sox better or worse because of this trade?" I have no clue what to think of this team... at least they avoided arbitration with Crede this week!
Northwestern: JUST KIDDING! But seriously, if nothing else, at least Northwestern can go to sleep every night knowing that:
- They'll always be the road team when they play another Big Ten team at home in football AND basketball. The Wisconsin/Northerwestern basketball game last week in Evanston was about 70% Badger fans. It was amazing to be honest.
- And no other team is hated more in their home town than Northwestern is. Seriously, about five people in Chicago actually root for the Wildcats. It's amazing that a team could be so disliked by it's 'hometown'.
Notre Dame: Did everyone who started this year declare for the draft? Hey, at least they're playing well in the Big East in basketball... oh wait, I take that back. But just imagine if CharlieWeis didn't have four weeks to game plan for LSU, the Irish would have lost by 100. And the Big Ten Channel, which will probably totally revolutionize college athletes, launches soon... that Big Ten Bus (ZING) is pulling out of the lot guys.
DePaul/UIC/Loyola Hoops: I think all three are 'okay to good' and then there is this bizarre Jimmy Collins story that I sort of know about but don't really. Moving on...
The Cubs: The More Things Change... it's the Cub Convention this weekend! What friggin' morons. Nice scheduling job guys... the point is to gain interest in the middle of the winter... not be totally over shadowed by the Bears. NICE! Anyway, Pinellia already is sounding like every other Cub manager ever: "I came here to win... I don't believe in curses... we've got good pitching... in a ballpark like Wrigley..." and I'm sure they're still, deep down, talking about Wood and Prior. Prior and Wood. I'm so happy I'm not a Cub fan. I'm just saying, you guys can talk yourselves up every winter, hell even spend 300 million on average baseball players, but just admit, for once, that you're not 'one player away' [I heart commas]. You aren'tCubbies. You have no centerfielder, I'm pretty sure your short stop still sucks, and your 2nd though 5th starters are nothing special. In other words, you need Wood and Prior. And you're not going to get Wood and Prior. And you'll always have this, you nickel and dimers.
The Bulls: If nothing else, this will be the week when I realized that Tyrus Thomas was going to be a very good basketball player. I can't really describe him... he's tall, he's fast, and he can jump about twenty feet in the air. He blocks shots that he shouldn't block. He can grab rebounds and will only get better at it. No he's not Ike Howard, but he's got something. And what I really love about him? He has that look, the look of someone who cares and who's frustrated that he isn't better than he is. And whileBogut doesn't look like a bust, when Bogut and Thomas went head to head the other night, Thomas came away as the player you'd rather have.
As far as how good is this Bulls team... I liked them a lot more before they started blowing 18 point leads. But hey, they still might be the best team in the East and they'll be tough to beat at home in the playoffs.
And finally...
The Bears: Da Bears... what can I say? Well let's start with this Chicago:
That's right. Let's let the Blues Brothers remind us what's important. We need to Stand by Our Man. No more of this "Rex stinks! He wasn't that good last week! We can't win with Rex!" This Philly crap has to end. Stand by your man, Chicago.
That said, it's the biggest Bears game in 19 years or something. A game the Bears can win. A game that the Bears probably should be a little more well liked. A game where the Saints have to come outside to play, and everyone seems to forget this.
And yes, watching Rex is a roller coaster ride. And yes, the 2006 Bears are not the 1985 Bears so let's just stop comparing the two. The Bears don't have to win 49-3 in order to be good. Just winning is enough. I never thought the 1985 Bears would be this much of a problem for other Bear teams. But apparently there are a lot of Bear fans that are pissed that the 2006 Bears aren't winning in the same fashion as the 1985 Bears. Let it go. 1985 wasn't even that cool because Ronnie was President and the USSR and Saddam were still around. Let 1985 be 1985... the Greatest Team of All Time and that's a rap.
After the Lions game in Week 16 I was worried. The Bears hadn't looked good for about a month. They barely beat a crappy Lions team. Things were not looking good.
But in the middle of that week I looked at the stats: top five defense, third most points scored in the league. Then I looked at the players...Urlacher , Briggs, Thomas Jones, Moose, and a run away freight train named Cedric Benson. This was a good team. And sure they weren't playing well at the moment and their QB can't play an average game, but they had built a lead over the first three months, they have shown what they were made of... just like the 2005 WhiteSox. And that's when it hit me... and I felt better.
In September of 2005 I felt like the one person in Chicago who wasn't freaking out about the Sox. "They're fine", I kept saying, "they have a huge lead. There is no way the Indians can keep playing .900 baseball. They'll blow it". And the Tribe did. TheSox then came out in the playoffs blowing the Red Sox out of the water in Game One of the ALDS. El Duque was touched by God in Game Three... and it was on. Sure the Sox had a few breaks (AJ and the 'dropped' ball in game two of the ALCS), but the Sox also went about their business. They did what needed to be done.
And that's how I feel about the Bears. They went out at beat the crap out of the Seahawks in the first half. Then almost blew it in the 3rd. But like El Duque they made the plays they needed to make to beat the Seahawks in the 4th quarter and overtime. Now it's the "ALDS" and the Bears are going to need some luck... but hey, why can't they get it this week? And they're just as good as the Saints as it is... remember the Saints almost lost that game to the Eagles last week.
I didn't really expect this Bears team to win the Super Bowl once Tommie Harris went down... but suddenly with New England and the Colts as the only options in the AFC, I feel better about the Bears maybe even winning this entire thing. But one battle at a time right? First it's the Saints.
Bears 31, Saints 20.
Remember Chicago, Stand By Your Man... SexyRex.
The Fire: Okay, I think the MLS had their draft and I have no clue who or how good the guy the Fire drafted is, but the Beckham effect is still in full swing. And I want to touch on this oh so quickly, but you know how everyone is saying, 'Beckham isn't that good of a player, he's not going to convert everyone in American to soccer!' Two things here... how the hell would anyone in America, let alone some talking head that doesn't even watch soccer, know howBeckham is doing?!?!?! Real Madrid games aren't on TV here unless we get a Champions League game on ESPN, and none of these heads would watch that game and none of them fly to Madrid to watch him. And Beckham was one of the better players for England during the World Cup (that more says how poorly England played than anything else). Secondly, no one ever saidBeckham was going to convert American into a nation soccerheads that will someday rival Brazil in terms of talent and England in terms of insanity. Stop making things up, Mr. Media.
But I can't believe this connection hasn't been made - remember Wayne Gretzky? Remember how he was traded to LA and how suddenly hockey became something of a 'thing' in the States outside of the northern cities from St. Paul to Boston? The Great One didn't turn this country intoCanadaSouth, but he did raise the awareness of the game in this country to the point where in the mid 90s it looked as if the NHL could really carve itself deep into the American sportsconscious. Of course the NHL made some huge mistakes (and I haven't even mentioned the 2004-2005 lockout) and it lost its momentum . But starting in the 80s when Gretzky was traded to the Kings right up until the Rangers winning the Cup in 1994... the NHL slowly began to become 'something' in this country outside of Chicago, Detroit, the Twins Cities, and Boston. And guess what... DavidBeckham will have the same effect with soccer. He's not going to create five million new fans here in the US, but he is going to turn a few hundred thousand onto the game and slowly build thatmomentum. The MLS will expand to other cities, much like the NHL expanding to Dallas, Carolina, and Florida (Tampa) (it still seems like a bad joke that all three cities have won a Cup). Anyways, find me someone who doesn't want to seeBeckham? Come on... one person... see you can't. He's interesting... he's English... he's charismatic (as long as he keeps his mouth shut mind you; I remember when I finally heard him open his mouth in like March of 2003 and I was mortified... I thought to myself, "I spent two months following a guy that sounds like a girl and may not be able to add 3+8 in his head?") But theBeckham effect will be real. Not in the millions, but in the thousands, and that's what the MLS needs. It isn't looking to take on the NFL or baseball or even the NBA right now. But why not go after the NHL? And I'm sure the Fire are feeling that at the gate already.
The Blackhawks: Okay, after looking like maybe they'd make a run for a playoff spot with Savy as coach, the Hawks fell apart. It's been a shitty few weeks for the Hawks. But I've got to say as a general NHL comment, Sidney Crosby really is something else. And AlexanderOvechkin is the most exciting player in sports RIGHT NOW (taking the title from USC Reggie Bush). This Crosby vs Ovechkin Rivalry has Bird/Magic potential. Of course this is the NHL, and they're going to move Crosby to Kansas City and Ovechkin is stuck in NHL purgatory in DC. How does Gary Bettman have a job? He has to be the worst commissioner. Actually, he's the second worst commish out there. The Commish in my fantasy league refuses to play for money AND rigs the scoring to favor players on the Eagles. He's worse. Okay, I'm moving on.
The White Sox: It's been a slow month for the Sox who have become, imo, the weirdest team in all of sports since no one has a clue what they're going to do next (thanks to Kenny Williams), yet they're still one of the top eight teams in the league, and they can't not stay out of the news (between Ozzie,Uribe maybe shooting a few guys, and random Kenny Williams trades). I'm at the point as a Sox fan, that I think Kenny owns a Twister spinner thingie but puts players faces instead on the colored dots. Once a month, Kenny gives it a spin. Whatever player it lands on he trades for noapparent reason and leaves everyone scratching their head and thinking "Umm, are the Sox better or worse because of this trade?" I have no clue what to think of this team... at least they avoided arbitration with Crede this week!
Northwestern: JUST KIDDING! But seriously, if nothing else, at least Northwestern can go to sleep every night knowing that:
- They'll always be the road team when they play another Big Ten team at home in football AND basketball. The Wisconsin/Northerwestern basketball game last week in Evanston was about 70% Badger fans. It was amazing to be honest.
- And no other team is hated more in their home town than Northwestern is. Seriously, about five people in Chicago actually root for the Wildcats. It's amazing that a team could be so disliked by it's 'hometown'.
Notre Dame: Did everyone who started this year declare for the draft? Hey, at least they're playing well in the Big East in basketball... oh wait, I take that back. But just imagine if CharlieWeis didn't have four weeks to game plan for LSU, the Irish would have lost by 100. And the Big Ten Channel, which will probably totally revolutionize college athletes, launches soon... that Big Ten Bus (ZING) is pulling out of the lot guys.
DePaul/UIC/Loyola Hoops: I think all three are 'okay to good' and then there is this bizarre Jimmy Collins story that I sort of know about but don't really. Moving on...
The Cubs: The More Things Change... it's the Cub Convention this weekend! What friggin' morons. Nice scheduling job guys... the point is to gain interest in the middle of the winter... not be totally over shadowed by the Bears. NICE! Anyway, Pinellia already is sounding like every other Cub manager ever: "I came here to win... I don't believe in curses... we've got good pitching... in a ballpark like Wrigley..." and I'm sure they're still, deep down, talking about Wood and Prior. Prior and Wood. I'm so happy I'm not a Cub fan. I'm just saying, you guys can talk yourselves up every winter, hell even spend 300 million on average baseball players, but just admit, for once, that you're not 'one player away' [I heart commas]. You aren'tCubbies. You have no centerfielder, I'm pretty sure your short stop still sucks, and your 2nd though 5th starters are nothing special. In other words, you need Wood and Prior. And you're not going to get Wood and Prior. And you'll always have this, you nickel and dimers.
The Bulls: If nothing else, this will be the week when I realized that Tyrus Thomas was going to be a very good basketball player. I can't really describe him... he's tall, he's fast, and he can jump about twenty feet in the air. He blocks shots that he shouldn't block. He can grab rebounds and will only get better at it. No he's not Ike Howard, but he's got something. And what I really love about him? He has that look, the look of someone who cares and who's frustrated that he isn't better than he is. And whileBogut doesn't look like a bust, when Bogut and Thomas went head to head the other night, Thomas came away as the player you'd rather have.
As far as how good is this Bulls team... I liked them a lot more before they started blowing 18 point leads. But hey, they still might be the best team in the East and they'll be tough to beat at home in the playoffs.
And finally...
The Bears: Da Bears... what can I say? Well let's start with this Chicago:
That's right. Let's let the Blues Brothers remind us what's important. We need to Stand by Our Man. No more of this "Rex stinks! He wasn't that good last week! We can't win with Rex!" This Philly crap has to end. Stand by your man, Chicago.
That said, it's the biggest Bears game in 19 years or something. A game the Bears can win. A game that the Bears probably should be a little more well liked. A game where the Saints have to come outside to play, and everyone seems to forget this.
And yes, watching Rex is a roller coaster ride. And yes, the 2006 Bears are not the 1985 Bears so let's just stop comparing the two. The Bears don't have to win 49-3 in order to be good. Just winning is enough. I never thought the 1985 Bears would be this much of a problem for other Bear teams. But apparently there are a lot of Bear fans that are pissed that the 2006 Bears aren't winning in the same fashion as the 1985 Bears. Let it go. 1985 wasn't even that cool because Ronnie was President and the USSR and Saddam were still around. Let 1985 be 1985... the Greatest Team of All Time and that's a rap.
After the Lions game in Week 16 I was worried. The Bears hadn't looked good for about a month. They barely beat a crappy Lions team. Things were not looking good.
But in the middle of that week I looked at the stats: top five defense, third most points scored in the league. Then I looked at the players...Urlacher , Briggs, Thomas Jones, Moose, and a run away freight train named Cedric Benson. This was a good team. And sure they weren't playing well at the moment and their QB can't play an average game, but they had built a lead over the first three months, they have shown what they were made of... just like the 2005 WhiteSox. And that's when it hit me... and I felt better.
In September of 2005 I felt like the one person in Chicago who wasn't freaking out about the Sox. "They're fine", I kept saying, "they have a huge lead. There is no way the Indians can keep playing .900 baseball. They'll blow it". And the Tribe did. TheSox then came out in the playoffs blowing the Red Sox out of the water in Game One of the ALDS. El Duque was touched by God in Game Three... and it was on. Sure the Sox had a few breaks (AJ and the 'dropped' ball in game two of the ALCS), but the Sox also went about their business. They did what needed to be done.
And that's how I feel about the Bears. They went out at beat the crap out of the Seahawks in the first half. Then almost blew it in the 3rd. But like El Duque they made the plays they needed to make to beat the Seahawks in the 4th quarter and overtime. Now it's the "ALDS" and the Bears are going to need some luck... but hey, why can't they get it this week? And they're just as good as the Saints as it is... remember the Saints almost lost that game to the Eagles last week.
I didn't really expect this Bears team to win the Super Bowl once Tommie Harris went down... but suddenly with New England and the Colts as the only options in the AFC, I feel better about the Bears maybe even winning this entire thing. But one battle at a time right? First it's the Saints.
Bears 31, Saints 20.
Remember Chicago, Stand By Your Man... SexyRex.
17.1.07
Throwing a Bone... Borders and Shite
Reading the Economist this week, came across an article reviewing a new book by Philippe Legrain entitled Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them. Legrain advocates for the free movement of labor. This is an interesting idea... what would happen if our borders were opened up tomorrow? I'll let the economists debate the economics of it all, but socially it does pose an interesting question. After all, what are the point of borders?
Obviously part of the point/purpose of borders is to protect people in the nation state, but other than that, what do borders really do? Ethnically pretty much every border between countries is blurred; just look at a map of Europe, you have people of Polish decent living in Germany and Germans in the Czech Republic. The US/Mexico border features just as many Mexicans, or people of 'Mexican' decent as it does Americans. If you're of Mexican decent and born in Laredo, you've got a leg up on the person of Mexican decent born inNueva Laredo because you'll be the American citizen. The person that might be less than a mile away, but if you're on the wrong side of the river, you're, for lack of a better word, some what screwed.
And then there are cases like in Canada and the US... what's the point of even having a border? Seriously? What's the difference between a Canadian and an American... if you look a someone born and raised in Ottawa, you're going going to be able to tell that they were born and raised in Ottawa. I'm just as much Canadian as a friend of mine born in Ottawa is American.
I realize as an American I should 'protect' my Americaness. By encouraging the masses that aren't Americans to come to America I can, some how, lose part of my Americaness... but what I don't get is that they guy crossing the Rio Grande today... in eight years when he's got his American citizenship, is he less of an American because he was born in Mexico originally?
Borders are silly, or better yet, nation states are silly. History has proven that the nation state is a fantastic killer. People like to blame religion, and sure at times religion has been a brutal murder and war creating organization. But nation states have done a fantastic job at this also. 18th to mid 20th century Europe was pretty much a near constant conflict between warring nation states attempting to increase their power. Africa appears to be going through those same 'growing' pains right now. America did a wonderful job at beating the shit out of Mexico 150 years ago in the name of the nation state. And nation states create borders. I'm fairly sure that the idea of drawing a border around the map of Alexander theGreat's Empire or Genghis Khan's Empire was silly back in their eras. That might be because it was pretty difficult to actually do that, but even still, to my knowledge theRoman's didn't draw borders around their territory. Maybe they did, but I can't find a map doing a google search and I can't think of coming across anachient map with clearly defined borders in the past. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
What's sort of funny about this border talk is that it's yet another issues that the 'right' and the 'left' agree upon. Free market lovers like Beckeret all, would probably argue for the opening of borders (I assume) since it's less regulation and allows skilled workers to find better jobs. Lefters take the position I'm purposing... that borders are bad since they lead to so much harm and serve very little in the process. They're totally objective... the entire idea that I'm an American is somewhat bizarre since maybe 1/128th of my blood actually comes from American (Native American). That's not to say I'm not American, I am... but ethnically I'm only 1/128th American... I guess. 200 years ago, most of my ethnicity came from Europe. I chalk my American Passport up to luck, not some sort of Red, White, and Blue. Count your blessings that your ancestors went to the US and not Canada or Argentina... but then again if they went there, you'd be oh so proud of being Canadian or Argentina and would be able to think of life as a non-Canadian or non-Argentinian.
Hey, if people can choose a new God in life, why not let them choose a new country?
All this said... I ain't trading my American citizenship for anything. It'd just be cool if I could go to Sweden without having to stand in line or get a job in London without having to fill out a bunch of papers. After all, I do live closer to London than I do the 50th State of the Union; yet I could go to Hawaii and have little trouble getting a job. Just the way the world works right now.
Of course, collecting taxes, if there were no borders, would be a pain in the ass. Whatever... a world without borders, or at least with free movement, would be a better place.
(I'm sure this is some what fragmented and disjointed... whatever, this ain't no academic paper; just some thoughts).
Obviously part of the point/purpose of borders is to protect people in the nation state, but other than that, what do borders really do? Ethnically pretty much every border between countries is blurred; just look at a map of Europe, you have people of Polish decent living in Germany and Germans in the Czech Republic. The US/Mexico border features just as many Mexicans, or people of 'Mexican' decent as it does Americans. If you're of Mexican decent and born in Laredo, you've got a leg up on the person of Mexican decent born inNueva Laredo because you'll be the American citizen. The person that might be less than a mile away, but if you're on the wrong side of the river, you're, for lack of a better word, some what screwed.
And then there are cases like in Canada and the US... what's the point of even having a border? Seriously? What's the difference between a Canadian and an American... if you look a someone born and raised in Ottawa, you're going going to be able to tell that they were born and raised in Ottawa. I'm just as much Canadian as a friend of mine born in Ottawa is American.
I realize as an American I should 'protect' my Americaness. By encouraging the masses that aren't Americans to come to America I can, some how, lose part of my Americaness... but what I don't get is that they guy crossing the Rio Grande today... in eight years when he's got his American citizenship, is he less of an American because he was born in Mexico originally?
Borders are silly, or better yet, nation states are silly. History has proven that the nation state is a fantastic killer. People like to blame religion, and sure at times religion has been a brutal murder and war creating organization. But nation states have done a fantastic job at this also. 18th to mid 20th century Europe was pretty much a near constant conflict between warring nation states attempting to increase their power. Africa appears to be going through those same 'growing' pains right now. America did a wonderful job at beating the shit out of Mexico 150 years ago in the name of the nation state. And nation states create borders. I'm fairly sure that the idea of drawing a border around the map of Alexander theGreat's Empire or Genghis Khan's Empire was silly back in their eras. That might be because it was pretty difficult to actually do that, but even still, to my knowledge theRoman's didn't draw borders around their territory. Maybe they did, but I can't find a map doing a google search and I can't think of coming across anachient map with clearly defined borders in the past. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
What's sort of funny about this border talk is that it's yet another issues that the 'right' and the 'left' agree upon. Free market lovers like Beckeret all, would probably argue for the opening of borders (I assume) since it's less regulation and allows skilled workers to find better jobs. Lefters take the position I'm purposing... that borders are bad since they lead to so much harm and serve very little in the process. They're totally objective... the entire idea that I'm an American is somewhat bizarre since maybe 1/128th of my blood actually comes from American (Native American). That's not to say I'm not American, I am... but ethnically I'm only 1/128th American... I guess. 200 years ago, most of my ethnicity came from Europe. I chalk my American Passport up to luck, not some sort of Red, White, and Blue. Count your blessings that your ancestors went to the US and not Canada or Argentina... but then again if they went there, you'd be oh so proud of being Canadian or Argentina and would be able to think of life as a non-Canadian or non-Argentinian.
Hey, if people can choose a new God in life, why not let them choose a new country?
All this said... I ain't trading my American citizenship for anything. It'd just be cool if I could go to Sweden without having to stand in line or get a job in London without having to fill out a bunch of papers. After all, I do live closer to London than I do the 50th State of the Union; yet I could go to Hawaii and have little trouble getting a job. Just the way the world works right now.
Of course, collecting taxes, if there were no borders, would be a pain in the ass. Whatever... a world without borders, or at least with free movement, would be a better place.
(I'm sure this is some what fragmented and disjointed... whatever, this ain't no academic paper; just some thoughts).
12.1.07
At Some Point We get to the Divisional Playoffs
I’ll get to the football games later, right now I’m feeling random…
These UPS commercials with that guy that sort of looks like a TV dad while the Postal Service is playing in the background… weird. Totally weird. I feel like I should be taking notes. Dead serious. I feel like I’m class and he’s some how going to link UPS shipping to the median voter theorem (grad school jokes are hilarious!) Anyway, I’m totally memorized by this guy. I love these ads. I want more. I should hate this ads. I don't. I love.
Things I’m not making up, the color announcer on ESPN is a female… and I’m watching the Hornets and the Wizards. And the area in Oklahoma City keeps playing the “oooo-bop!” from No Digity. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.
In case you missed it, the war on terror reached its third country this week as the US bombed Somalia. Islamic ‘rebels’ need to be taken care of… honestly, I know next to nothing. Just bits and pieces from the Economist on the entire situation (though someone I know who did the Peace Corps in Kenya actually was in support of the Islamic rebels saying that they bring stability; in other words if we weren’t fighting terror, we would give a rats ass).
But I think the bigger issue here is this: are Somali Muslims really that big of a threat to this country? I don’t recall any of the highjackers on 9/11 being Somali. I find it hard to believe that any sort of “Islamic” government in Somalia could be a real threat to US national security. And before you say ‘safe haven’ think about this for a second… how does this look in the Islamic world? How does this look in the Middle East? How does us bombing Somalia look in Iraq. We’re preaching peace and freedom and all that Utah Jazz, and then turn around and bomb an Islamic country that’s of no real threat to us. Does that appear to be the work of a ‘holy war’? Can’t it be viewed, if one was a Muslim, as an attack on Islam for being Islamic?
No matter, this is not my war. Yay Slings and Arrows.
Thanks to Canada (or Candian friends), I finally got my hands on Amy Winehouse’s album “Back to Black”. And “Rehab” is every bit as good as it is on youtube. The album comes out here in the States in March…
Do yourself a favor and get your hands on The Presidents of the Unite States of America “Peaces”… good times. Awesome times in fact… now I remember why I loved and hated this song in 7th grade.
Last music note... I found a song I shouldn't like, but like... and this too feels good. It's "Hamoa Beach" by Gomez if you give a flying Frenchman's arse.
It’s Divisional Playoff weekend which is usually the peak of the NFL season since you’ve got four games over two days, and often times the four games feature something that is sort of interesting. And this year might even be better than previous years since the least interesting game is the Bears/Seahawks… and that game has, at the very least, potential.
2001:
Divisional Playoff: Oakland Raiders 13, New England Patriots 16 (OT)
Divisional Playoff: Baltimore Ravens 10, Pittsburgh Steelers 27
Divisional Playoff: Philadelphia Eagles 33, Chicago Bears 19
Divisional Playoff: Green Bay Packers 17, St. Louis Rams 45
2002:
Divisional Playoff: Pittsburgh Steelers 31, Tennessee Titans 34 (OT)
Divisional Playoff: New York Jets 10, Oakland Raiders 30
Divisional Playoff: Atlanta Falcons 6, Philadelphia Eagles 20
Divisional Playoff: San Francisco 49ers 6, Tampa Bay Buccaneers 31
2003:
Divisional Playoff: Tennessee Titans 14, New England Patriots 17
Divisional Playoff: Indianapolis Colts 38, Kansas City Chiefs 31
Divisional Playoff: Carolina Panthers 29, St. Louis Rams 23 (2OT)
Divisional Playoff: Green Bay Packers 17, Philadelphia Eagles 20 (OT)
2004:
Divisional Playoff: New York Jets 17, Pittsburgh Steelers 20 (OT)
Divisional Playoff: Indianapolis Colts 3, New England Patriots 20
Divisional Playoff: St. Louis Rams 17, Atlanta Falcons 47
Divisional Playoff: Minnesota Vikings 14, Philadelphia Eagles 27
2005:
Divisional Playoff: Washington Redskins 10, Seattle Seahawks 20
Divisional Playoff: New England Patriots 13, Denver Broncos 27
Divisional Playoff: Pittsburgh Steelers 21, Indianapolis Colts 18
Divisional Playoff: Carolina Panthers 29, Chicago Bears 21
2005: Favorites were 2-2 (the favorites either one or out right lost)
2004: Favorites were 3-1 (only the Steelers didn't cover)
2003: Favorites were 0-4 (this will probably never happen again)
2002: Favorites were 3-1 (Titans were giving 4)
2001: Favorites were 2-1-1 (Bears were giving 3, Pats also)
So what does this all mean? I’m not sure. I’m sure there’s a trend there some where… the home team has always been the favorite. The smaller the spread, the better it is to take the underdog.
Over all, home teams are 15-5 over the last five years. With that in mind… I’ll stand by my picks that I made this week. I like the Ravens, Eagles, Bears, and Patriots. I’m not going to go on, that’s just some food for thought.
I’m not here to give you NFL insite, I’m just here to help you remember what it was like way back when in 2001.
Okay I’m out of here… have a good one peeps.
These UPS commercials with that guy that sort of looks like a TV dad while the Postal Service is playing in the background… weird. Totally weird. I feel like I should be taking notes. Dead serious. I feel like I’m class and he’s some how going to link UPS shipping to the median voter theorem (grad school jokes are hilarious!) Anyway, I’m totally memorized by this guy. I love these ads. I want more. I should hate this ads. I don't. I love.
Things I’m not making up, the color announcer on ESPN is a female… and I’m watching the Hornets and the Wizards. And the area in Oklahoma City keeps playing the “oooo-bop!” from No Digity. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.
In case you missed it, the war on terror reached its third country this week as the US bombed Somalia. Islamic ‘rebels’ need to be taken care of… honestly, I know next to nothing. Just bits and pieces from the Economist on the entire situation (though someone I know who did the Peace Corps in Kenya actually was in support of the Islamic rebels saying that they bring stability; in other words if we weren’t fighting terror, we would give a rats ass).
But I think the bigger issue here is this: are Somali Muslims really that big of a threat to this country? I don’t recall any of the highjackers on 9/11 being Somali. I find it hard to believe that any sort of “Islamic” government in Somalia could be a real threat to US national security. And before you say ‘safe haven’ think about this for a second… how does this look in the Islamic world? How does this look in the Middle East? How does us bombing Somalia look in Iraq. We’re preaching peace and freedom and all that Utah Jazz, and then turn around and bomb an Islamic country that’s of no real threat to us. Does that appear to be the work of a ‘holy war’? Can’t it be viewed, if one was a Muslim, as an attack on Islam for being Islamic?
No matter, this is not my war. Yay Slings and Arrows.
Thanks to Canada (or Candian friends), I finally got my hands on Amy Winehouse’s album “Back to Black”. And “Rehab” is every bit as good as it is on youtube. The album comes out here in the States in March…
Do yourself a favor and get your hands on The Presidents of the Unite States of America “Peaces”… good times. Awesome times in fact… now I remember why I loved and hated this song in 7th grade.
Last music note... I found a song I shouldn't like, but like... and this too feels good. It's "Hamoa Beach" by Gomez if you give a flying Frenchman's arse.
It’s Divisional Playoff weekend which is usually the peak of the NFL season since you’ve got four games over two days, and often times the four games feature something that is sort of interesting. And this year might even be better than previous years since the least interesting game is the Bears/Seahawks… and that game has, at the very least, potential.
2001:
Divisional Playoff: Oakland Raiders 13, New England Patriots 16 (OT)
Divisional Playoff: Baltimore Ravens 10, Pittsburgh Steelers 27
Divisional Playoff: Philadelphia Eagles 33, Chicago Bears 19
Divisional Playoff: Green Bay Packers 17, St. Louis Rams 45
2002:
Divisional Playoff: Pittsburgh Steelers 31, Tennessee Titans 34 (OT)
Divisional Playoff: New York Jets 10, Oakland Raiders 30
Divisional Playoff: Atlanta Falcons 6, Philadelphia Eagles 20
Divisional Playoff: San Francisco 49ers 6, Tampa Bay Buccaneers 31
2003:
Divisional Playoff: Tennessee Titans 14, New England Patriots 17
Divisional Playoff: Indianapolis Colts 38, Kansas City Chiefs 31
Divisional Playoff: Carolina Panthers 29, St. Louis Rams 23 (2OT)
Divisional Playoff: Green Bay Packers 17, Philadelphia Eagles 20 (OT)
2004:
Divisional Playoff: New York Jets 17, Pittsburgh Steelers 20 (OT)
Divisional Playoff: Indianapolis Colts 3, New England Patriots 20
Divisional Playoff: St. Louis Rams 17, Atlanta Falcons 47
Divisional Playoff: Minnesota Vikings 14, Philadelphia Eagles 27
2005:
Divisional Playoff: Washington Redskins 10, Seattle Seahawks 20
Divisional Playoff: New England Patriots 13, Denver Broncos 27
Divisional Playoff: Pittsburgh Steelers 21, Indianapolis Colts 18
Divisional Playoff: Carolina Panthers 29, Chicago Bears 21
2005: Favorites were 2-2 (the favorites either one or out right lost)
2004: Favorites were 3-1 (only the Steelers didn't cover)
2003: Favorites were 0-4 (this will probably never happen again)
2002: Favorites were 3-1 (Titans were giving 4)
2001: Favorites were 2-1-1 (Bears were giving 3, Pats also)
So what does this all mean? I’m not sure. I’m sure there’s a trend there some where… the home team has always been the favorite. The smaller the spread, the better it is to take the underdog.
Over all, home teams are 15-5 over the last five years. With that in mind… I’ll stand by my picks that I made this week. I like the Ravens, Eagles, Bears, and Patriots. I’m not going to go on, that’s just some food for thought.
I’m not here to give you NFL insite, I’m just here to help you remember what it was like way back when in 2001.
Okay I’m out of here… have a good one peeps.
11.1.07
He can kick a soccer ball and he's like totally hot too
BECKHAM IS COMING TO AMERICA! IT’S LIKE THE BEATLES ALL OVER AGAIN!Then again maybe not.
ANYWAYS, what’s amazing is the amount of money Becks will be making. A cool, A-Rodisque, 250 million bucks over five years. That’s right, 50 million a year! Then again, that’s peanuts compared to shitty Home Depot CEO’s.
I can’t figure out where LA is going to make the money to pay Beckham that much money. They do aiight at the gate (25,000 a game in 2005), but this is the MLS not the NBA, ticket prices are pretty cheap. And this will be the first year that the MLS will be receiving money for the games being on TV… so it’s not like they’ve got an NFL type TV deal here. I guess MLS figures they’ll be able to sell a few hundred million LA Galaxy Beckham 7 shirts in Asia. Considering how big Becks is in Asia, maybe they will. But 50 million dollars worth of shirts?
I can’t believe he’s going to be making A-Rod money for half the time. This is just mind boggling… this is the biggest sports contract ever. (BTW, the ten biggest sport contracts are all American contracts… insane; also check out how weak the dollar is right now!).
No matter, Beckham coming to the MLS is pretty cool even if he is 31 and can’t run fast. He’ll be one of the better players in the MLS (and I’ll say this about Becks, he always gives his all, don’t expect him to be counting his money in LA). It will be fun. The MLS will be the talk of US sports come the Dog Days (perfect timing if you ask me since August is to the summer as February is to the winter).
But I’ll do the dirty work for everyone and link just about everything and anything. This isn’t sexy, but hey, what’s sexier than David and Victoria?Guardian blog - Check's out the impact this will have on the MLS
Guardian story - Blah
That's On Point
Deadspin
Fox Sports
ESPN - Blah
ESPN story that’s old and we already linked back in November, but ESPN is lazy and posted this story again.
After, all this was Beckham’s only real (no pun intended) choice unless he found the suburbs of Manchester lovely, then again considering how much money he’s getting, this was his only choice.
WHY ISN’T ANYONE IN AMERICA TALKING ABOUT THE MONEY? This contract is crazy.
I guess this makes Beckham the biggest sports star in LA after Kobe right? I mean who cares about hockey (God Bless Teemu though), the Dodgers don't have a big star (NOMAR isn't the same outside of Boston, trust me, I suffered though him in Chicago), there's no NFL, and Leinart's too busy chasing after Brittney (so 1999 btw, Matt) in 'Zona. So that sort of makes Beckham bigger than Odom right?
Finally, I can’t wait to see Landon Donovan crap the bed every time Beckham sends him a perfect pass. Then again, maybe Landon will learn a little something called determination and passion from Beckham. Lord knows Landon, and US soccer, needs it.
If We Don't Win the War In Three Months...
So Bush didn’t say that he was going to shave his head… but it was damn close.
(Btw, the clip above is former science partner and friend, John Mulaney who we’ve pimped before. This clip seems appropriate today. This clip is also the reason why we’re not reading right now. Damn that Mulaney).
So, what to say? Too little, too late. That’s for starters. But let’s check out the notes:
All said, Bush didn’t do that bad of a job. I mean, he basically was out there to say mistakes were made, and considering that nothing even close to that has come from the White House in the last six years, it’s a huge thing. Bush saying that he might have been wrong at times is, well, it makes him a bit more human. Despite what every head whose ever set foot in the fantasy land called Washington DC says, this is probably a good thing. No, Bush doesn’t look ‘great’ right now, but he also doesn’t look foolish continuing to say that things are going great. He’s finally faced the music.
And his answer to this music is to send more troops. 20,000 to be exact. But I’ve got to wonder, will that be enough? I mean, if you look carefully, the US sent 500,000 troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 for Operation: Desert Strom (note: this was not a video game). In this Iraq War, the US sent like half that in the beginning. And right now, I think about 120,000 troops are in Iraq. This is obviously not enough. And I highly doubt that 20,000 will turn the tide there. Bush said, “This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared” which is sort of a weird statement because if all we need was 20,000 troops two years ago… why didn’t we have the extra 20,000 troops in Iraq two years ago? Seems to me that this won’t be enough. I’m sure it will have an impact, but realistically, I don’t see the Iraqis deciding to put down their guns and decide to become active in camel futures.
I should also say, when Bush said that there weren’t enough troops, is he blaming himself since he sent the number of troops that are there in the first place? I don’t want to split hairs about what the DOD said, Bush is the Commander and Chief. Him saying that there aren’t enough troops is quite odd.
Like all Bush, and politicians, addresses this was unbelievably vague at times.
The other big chance that came from Bush’s mouth was that this was not an open ended engagement. Of course, this isn’t a timetable, but it was a warning to the Iraqis to get their shit together. I guess that’s only fair since the Iraqi politicians have been taking shots at Bush and the US. It’s also about an eighth of a bone being thrown to the US public.
And as for Bush’s little, I’m willing to work will others… what a weak attempt to say that he’s willing to listen to others in government. Joe Liberman, who Bush named as someone he’d work with, is an independent… he isn’t even a Democrat. So what exactly was Bush saying when he said that he was going to work with others? Is he only going to work with Liberman? And has he not noticed that everyone is jumping off his Iraq bandwagon? Brownback was the latest. No one wants any part of this Iraq mess. And weak attempts to sound like one who’s willing to reach out and work with others is lame. Because well, you never did it until right now… and it has half assed anyway.
I hate to be a cynic (even though I’m using cynic incorrectly) but whenever Bush talks about the chaos in Iraq, I can’t help but think “But you created this chaos by invading! You created this chaos by not sending enough troops! You created this chaos by not having a firm plan in place after the war to create stability and peace in the country! You created this chaos, Mr. President!”
Also when Bush was telling the Iraqi government what it had to do… ummm is that democracy in action?
And what about those WMDs?
And bin Laden?
And why do you keep telling us that the terrorists don’t like us… we all know this.
But all in all, Bush did finally do something that we’ve been bitching about for a while now, he finally said that the Buck Stops Here. Of course, it was too little, too late.
Eh… maybe war is like modern art and we just don’t get it. And we’re not suppose to get it.
10.1.07
Beckham all but moving to LA
Real Madrid said that they would not renew David Beckham's contract today. That means he's going to leave Madrid in the summer, if not sooner (since the Janurary transfer window is open at the moment). And LA has to be the favorite as to where he'll end up. Going back to Manchester United and Liverpool are out of the question. Chelesa doesn't need him and the Gunners probably don't want him. Beckham in Bolton? Blackburn? Reading? Fat chance. A move to Italy isn't out of the question, but once again, I don't see it happening.
Beckham's coming... feel it in the air.
Beckham's coming... feel it in the air.
9.1.07
Chances Are...
With 8 teams left in these so called playoffs, why not run them down? It’s the middle of the week; it seems like the right thing to do. Instead of doing the ‘best teams’ I’ll run down each teams chances to WIN the Super Bowl. (Yep, you guessed it, the #1 and #2 teams will be the two teams I think who are going to play in the Super Bowl!)
8) Seattle Seahawks – In the ‘I’d rather be lucky than good’ theory, the Seahawks might have proved that this past weekend. Romo dropping that ball is one of the biggest ‘bone headed’ plays you’ll ever see. Now the Seahawks have to go to Chicago. And if they win there, then they’ll either have to go to Philly or New Orleans. I don’t like their chances considering their D isn’t that good.
7) Indianapolis Colts – They have to go to Baltimore and then either San Diego or get the Patriots at home. First things first, the good people of Baltimore would like nothing more than to end the Colts as a franchise… and they’ll get their chance this weekend. If the Colts some how win that game, then they’ve got to go to San Diego and try and figure out how to stop LT… or the Patriots come to Indy. And you know what… I like the Pats chances in that game.
6) New Orleans – At some point we all forgot that this is a really young team. And we also forgot that we’re talking about the Saints. This will be the second time the Saints have gone this far in the playoffs (the NFC Division Playoffs). That’s right, the Saints haven’t even made it to a NFC Championship game… and the one time they did make it to the Divisional game they lost. This is a franchise that has done absolutely nothing historically. I know, history is just that in the playoffs, but they’re too young and have too many question marks on defense - I can’t see them getting a much needed stop. Plus, they’re not going to Chicago and beating them. That’s just not happening no matter what the heads say. All that said, I think they’re the team to beat next year in the NFC.
5) San Diego – Two things to remember:
a) Phillip Rivers is going to see things that he’s never seen before this weekend. In a way this will sort of be like Rivers first time he watched a porno flick or something. Belichick is going to be doing things with that defense that Rivers and Marty can’t even dream of. And I don’t see Rivers being able to ‘figure it out’.
b) There are coached by Marty Schottenheimer. Marty finds ways to lose playoff games.
I know they have Tomlinson and he might be able to will the Chargers to victory. But I don’t see it. And if they do win? Then the Colts or Ravens come to San Diego… and the Chargers have whatever the opposite of homefield advantage is. It’s too nice there… too warm… to not mean enough. And the Ravens D… have you seen it recently? Ouch.
4) Philly – Getting out of New Orleans will be hard enough. Then having to go to Chicago will be really hard. I know the Bears go into the playoffs with more questions than answers, but part of that is because the media likes to make things up. Things by no means are perfect with the Bears, but they’re not nearly as bad as the ESPN and Chicago heads like to make it.
And let’s remember, Jeff Garcia is the quaterback here. The Birds do not match up well with the Bears cover two and speed. They don’t have a receiver that could break the Bears backs and they probably don’t have a powerful enough running game to ‘beat up’ the Bears.
Plus the city of Philadelphia is waiting for something bad to happen.
3) New England Patriots – They get it done, that’s for sure. Tom Brady is something else and then some. But I can’t see them beating both the Chargers and Ravens. That’s just too much.
2) Bears – I could probably write 8,000 words on the Bears season. It’s been that crazy. But I think, and call me crazy, that they’re still the most likely team to end up in the Super Bowl from the NFC. I don’t like their chances there, but Seattle isn’t that good and will be on the road (plus early weather reports are calling for snow on Sunday). Then they’ll either get the Saints or Philly. The Saints have a questionable D, in the cold, and will be the further the team had ever advanced in franchise history. Meanwhile, the Eagles, don’t match up well with the Bears cover two. Westbrook is a stud, but he’ll have to run for 175 yards to give the Birds a chance since none of their wide outs should be able to burn the Bears secondary like Steve Smith did last year. I don’t know, I like the Bears chances.
1) Ravens – This team was built for January. They’ve got a little bit of everything. And that D is killer. A trip to San Diego would be tough, as would a visit from the Patriots, but no one is peaking at a better time… and still it’s hard to find the heads on ESPN say much of anything about the Ravens. Baltimore might be the most underrated city in America, and the Ravens might just be the most underrated team in the NFL.
8) Seattle Seahawks – In the ‘I’d rather be lucky than good’ theory, the Seahawks might have proved that this past weekend. Romo dropping that ball is one of the biggest ‘bone headed’ plays you’ll ever see. Now the Seahawks have to go to Chicago. And if they win there, then they’ll either have to go to Philly or New Orleans. I don’t like their chances considering their D isn’t that good.
7) Indianapolis Colts – They have to go to Baltimore and then either San Diego or get the Patriots at home. First things first, the good people of Baltimore would like nothing more than to end the Colts as a franchise… and they’ll get their chance this weekend. If the Colts some how win that game, then they’ve got to go to San Diego and try and figure out how to stop LT… or the Patriots come to Indy. And you know what… I like the Pats chances in that game.
6) New Orleans – At some point we all forgot that this is a really young team. And we also forgot that we’re talking about the Saints. This will be the second time the Saints have gone this far in the playoffs (the NFC Division Playoffs). That’s right, the Saints haven’t even made it to a NFC Championship game… and the one time they did make it to the Divisional game they lost. This is a franchise that has done absolutely nothing historically. I know, history is just that in the playoffs, but they’re too young and have too many question marks on defense - I can’t see them getting a much needed stop. Plus, they’re not going to Chicago and beating them. That’s just not happening no matter what the heads say. All that said, I think they’re the team to beat next year in the NFC.
5) San Diego – Two things to remember:
a) Phillip Rivers is going to see things that he’s never seen before this weekend. In a way this will sort of be like Rivers first time he watched a porno flick or something. Belichick is going to be doing things with that defense that Rivers and Marty can’t even dream of. And I don’t see Rivers being able to ‘figure it out’.
b) There are coached by Marty Schottenheimer. Marty finds ways to lose playoff games.
I know they have Tomlinson and he might be able to will the Chargers to victory. But I don’t see it. And if they do win? Then the Colts or Ravens come to San Diego… and the Chargers have whatever the opposite of homefield advantage is. It’s too nice there… too warm… to not mean enough. And the Ravens D… have you seen it recently? Ouch.
4) Philly – Getting out of New Orleans will be hard enough. Then having to go to Chicago will be really hard. I know the Bears go into the playoffs with more questions than answers, but part of that is because the media likes to make things up. Things by no means are perfect with the Bears, but they’re not nearly as bad as the ESPN and Chicago heads like to make it.
And let’s remember, Jeff Garcia is the quaterback here. The Birds do not match up well with the Bears cover two and speed. They don’t have a receiver that could break the Bears backs and they probably don’t have a powerful enough running game to ‘beat up’ the Bears.
Plus the city of Philadelphia is waiting for something bad to happen.
3) New England Patriots – They get it done, that’s for sure. Tom Brady is something else and then some. But I can’t see them beating both the Chargers and Ravens. That’s just too much.
2) Bears – I could probably write 8,000 words on the Bears season. It’s been that crazy. But I think, and call me crazy, that they’re still the most likely team to end up in the Super Bowl from the NFC. I don’t like their chances there, but Seattle isn’t that good and will be on the road (plus early weather reports are calling for snow on Sunday). Then they’ll either get the Saints or Philly. The Saints have a questionable D, in the cold, and will be the further the team had ever advanced in franchise history. Meanwhile, the Eagles, don’t match up well with the Bears cover two. Westbrook is a stud, but he’ll have to run for 175 yards to give the Birds a chance since none of their wide outs should be able to burn the Bears secondary like Steve Smith did last year. I don’t know, I like the Bears chances.
1) Ravens – This team was built for January. They’ve got a little bit of everything. And that D is killer. A trip to San Diego would be tough, as would a visit from the Patriots, but no one is peaking at a better time… and still it’s hard to find the heads on ESPN say much of anything about the Ravens. Baltimore might be the most underrated city in America, and the Ravens might just be the most underrated team in the NFL.
8.1.07
More of this list
5) Joe Biden is running for President? Hasn’t he been running for President since 2002 or something? This is the most unshocking news since, well until Hilary announces she’s running. McCain too.
6) When I wake up on a Saturday morning knowing there is a night football game, the last thing that goes through my mind is “hey I should totally stay home and follow the game on Deadspin” but apparently there are over 200 reasons to do so. I love Deadspin - it’s funny and informative, but is there anything more worthless than the Deadspin comments? For every fifty comments, four might be funny and two might be somewhat interesting/though provoking, and about 25 of ‘em are inappropriate or ignorant. I know the Internets has become and excuse to tell the world the blatantly obvious, but seriously these Deadspin comments are embarrassing. I’ve got to stop reading them.
7) It’s old news, but if you go down far enough, you’ll find our President in his head cheerleader garb back in high school. Our President, Our Cheerleader. I know, it isn’t that too interesting, but it sort of funny (the article itself isn’t worth the read even if you dislike Bush). I’ll never understand why Kerry didn’t do a split screen ad where he was in his Navy dress and Bush was in his cheerleading outfit. I mean, isn’t that what politics is all about… nothing that has to do with policy or government?
8) This just hit me… but the Eagles are playing well without McNabb partly because they’re running ball. Now, can you imagine how good the Eagles would be if they ran the ball when McNabb was healthy? You think they would have won a Super Bowl by now? I mean, if Mike Martz is going to get ripped for throwing too much, it’s only fair to point out that Andy Reid has never ran the ball enough.
9) Well we fan finally put this conspiracy to rest… cuz it’s actually a conspiracy. Maybe, well at least half of it. Gas prices.
Here’s the deal from NPR. We’ve heard it before, oil companies will cut the price of gas as elections near. The price of gas, for example, fell in the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections. Since then they have risen a bit. Why?:
By the second week in October, gasoline prices fell 70 cents from summer's record highs. Refineries were running full throttle and America's gasoline inventories were up nearly 7 percent from the three previous Octobers…
Now, the oil industry claimed pump prices fell because crude oil prices dropped.
But gas prices dropped far more steeply than crude oil. Crude oil comes in barrels. There are 42 gallons in a barrel and the price of each gallon was down 10 cents this October over last. But gas prices fell 61 cents a gallon over the same time last year.
In other words, in the run-up to the election, oil companies cut gasoline prices 500 percent more than their raw material cost fell. And it wasn't because refining and distribution costs rose. They're relatively stable.
So the oil companies cut the price of gas and took less of a profit. But why? Now you could argue that they did this to keep the GOP in power, and this does look like the obvious reason. But of course we won’t know for sure why they cut the price of gas.
Hopefully the new Democratic lead Congress will attempt to do something about this because we’re all losers when something like this takes place (well all of us besides the oil companies and the GOPers who get money from the oil companies). While the oil companies in this country don’t appear to be a monopoly, it looks like collusion takes place in some way, shape or form.
10) I know some of us have our doubts about the Democratic Congress, but you know what… Pelosi at the very least is going to make Bush do some explaining and work with Congress. No more rubber stamp and this is a good thing no matter what side of the aisle you sit on. The last few years have been an utter disaster since Congress has neglected to check Bush in pretty much any way, shape or form (didn’t think we could use that cliché twice in a post did you? EH!) But now the Democrats have a chance to do that, and if they do, we should be better off as a country.
11) Finally, Ohio State wins and covers and all that stuff. I know we ‘stopped’ doing that (for reasons you won’t find interesting), but we were doing pretty well. I’ll lay the 7 and take the Buckeyes. They’re the best team in college football.
6) When I wake up on a Saturday morning knowing there is a night football game, the last thing that goes through my mind is “hey I should totally stay home and follow the game on Deadspin” but apparently there are over 200 reasons to do so. I love Deadspin - it’s funny and informative, but is there anything more worthless than the Deadspin comments? For every fifty comments, four might be funny and two might be somewhat interesting/though provoking, and about 25 of ‘em are inappropriate or ignorant. I know the Internets has become and excuse to tell the world the blatantly obvious, but seriously these Deadspin comments are embarrassing. I’ve got to stop reading them.
7) It’s old news, but if you go down far enough, you’ll find our President in his head cheerleader garb back in high school. Our President, Our Cheerleader. I know, it isn’t that too interesting, but it sort of funny (the article itself isn’t worth the read even if you dislike Bush). I’ll never understand why Kerry didn’t do a split screen ad where he was in his Navy dress and Bush was in his cheerleading outfit. I mean, isn’t that what politics is all about… nothing that has to do with policy or government?
8) This just hit me… but the Eagles are playing well without McNabb partly because they’re running ball. Now, can you imagine how good the Eagles would be if they ran the ball when McNabb was healthy? You think they would have won a Super Bowl by now? I mean, if Mike Martz is going to get ripped for throwing too much, it’s only fair to point out that Andy Reid has never ran the ball enough.
9) Well we fan finally put this conspiracy to rest… cuz it’s actually a conspiracy. Maybe, well at least half of it. Gas prices.
Here’s the deal from NPR. We’ve heard it before, oil companies will cut the price of gas as elections near. The price of gas, for example, fell in the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections. Since then they have risen a bit. Why?:
By the second week in October, gasoline prices fell 70 cents from summer's record highs. Refineries were running full throttle and America's gasoline inventories were up nearly 7 percent from the three previous Octobers…
Now, the oil industry claimed pump prices fell because crude oil prices dropped.
But gas prices dropped far more steeply than crude oil. Crude oil comes in barrels. There are 42 gallons in a barrel and the price of each gallon was down 10 cents this October over last. But gas prices fell 61 cents a gallon over the same time last year.
In other words, in the run-up to the election, oil companies cut gasoline prices 500 percent more than their raw material cost fell. And it wasn't because refining and distribution costs rose. They're relatively stable.
So the oil companies cut the price of gas and took less of a profit. But why? Now you could argue that they did this to keep the GOP in power, and this does look like the obvious reason. But of course we won’t know for sure why they cut the price of gas.
Hopefully the new Democratic lead Congress will attempt to do something about this because we’re all losers when something like this takes place (well all of us besides the oil companies and the GOPers who get money from the oil companies). While the oil companies in this country don’t appear to be a monopoly, it looks like collusion takes place in some way, shape or form.
10) I know some of us have our doubts about the Democratic Congress, but you know what… Pelosi at the very least is going to make Bush do some explaining and work with Congress. No more rubber stamp and this is a good thing no matter what side of the aisle you sit on. The last few years have been an utter disaster since Congress has neglected to check Bush in pretty much any way, shape or form (didn’t think we could use that cliché twice in a post did you? EH!) But now the Democrats have a chance to do that, and if they do, we should be better off as a country.
11) Finally, Ohio State wins and covers and all that stuff. I know we ‘stopped’ doing that (for reasons you won’t find interesting), but we were doing pretty well. I’ll lay the 7 and take the Buckeyes. They’re the best team in college football.
7.1.07
Waiting until now
So we took a week off… sorry to all those who may actually read this (and apparently it’s more than me so that’s cool). I guess we’ve got about 900 things that we’d like to ‘comment’ on so why not just make a list? Lists are fun. Random lists are more fun. Let’s roll.
1) I don’t want to bust on Alando Tucker, cuz he seems like a cool dude and he’s got his head on straight, so let’s make it clear. We’re ripping the media here. SI did a profile piece on Tucker this week writing, “Maybe it’s that the BMOC of Playboy’s No. 1 party school is a State Street [in Madison, WI] regular who says he has kept a decadelong vow never to drink alcohol, smoke or get a tattoo.” Not drinking. Good. Not smoking. Good. Not having a tattoo? Who cares. I know Tucker made the vow, and that’s cool. But SI is glorifying this non-tat vow… which is silly. Who gives a flying Bush if he’s got one tat or 100 tats on his body?
Oh yes, it all goes back to the media’s pretrial of black basketball players. Tattoos are bad. This means you are a thug. Thugs are bad. Allen Iverson is the devil. This of course is not only unfair, but racist. I’m not sure if these 50somethings realize that half the women in their 20s have tattoos some where on their body (maybe not half, but a lot). Just about every meathead I’ve ever had the pleasure meeting will show me his tat within five minutes of meeting him. The entire hipster movement in the last five to ten years has been based somewhat on tattoos. Can we please, PLEASE, stop talking about tattoos as if they’re some sort of sign of gangsters? Thank you.
2) Since we’re ripping the media… TIME in it’s write up of the year in review, wrote this about Pinochet’s death: “After ousting Marxist President Salvador Allende in a bloody 1973 coup, the cunning, right-wing Pinochet banned political parties but also instituted free-market policies that stabilized Chile's economy.” This is completely, and totally, written for the American audience… and even worse, it’s not true. Allende was a socialist, not a Marxist (and if you want to say that’s ‘splitting hairs’ it isn’t. It’d be like calling Bush a facist). Secondly, the coup was encouraged, supported, and partly financed by the US government (thank YOU, CIA). And Pinochet was supported by Presidents Nixon and Ford.
I fully realize that the world was a different place in 1973. But at least get your facts right, TIME. This is just sloppy, in fact, horrendous journalism.
3) I love the Hold Steady. And I really love the Hold Steady after 10:00 pm.
4) Tony Romo… I feel like the smartest person in the room for calling that implosion. The guy just dropped the ball on the field goal. Amazing. Now the question is… is Romo’s career over? I hate to bring up Mitch Williams, Brad Lidge, and even Donnie Moore, but Romo’s ‘drop’ ranks right up there right? His career is probably over right? We’ll have to suffer though those “Romo’s put it behind him” crap next summer and then watch him throw 2.5 picks a game for the first 9 games next year. I can’t see him becoming anything other than a back up now. And I sort of had high hopes for his future.
And more latter...
1) I don’t want to bust on Alando Tucker, cuz he seems like a cool dude and he’s got his head on straight, so let’s make it clear. We’re ripping the media here. SI did a profile piece on Tucker this week writing, “Maybe it’s that the BMOC of Playboy’s No. 1 party school is a State Street [in Madison, WI] regular who says he has kept a decadelong vow never to drink alcohol, smoke or get a tattoo.” Not drinking. Good. Not smoking. Good. Not having a tattoo? Who cares. I know Tucker made the vow, and that’s cool. But SI is glorifying this non-tat vow… which is silly. Who gives a flying Bush if he’s got one tat or 100 tats on his body?
Oh yes, it all goes back to the media’s pretrial of black basketball players. Tattoos are bad. This means you are a thug. Thugs are bad. Allen Iverson is the devil. This of course is not only unfair, but racist. I’m not sure if these 50somethings realize that half the women in their 20s have tattoos some where on their body (maybe not half, but a lot). Just about every meathead I’ve ever had the pleasure meeting will show me his tat within five minutes of meeting him. The entire hipster movement in the last five to ten years has been based somewhat on tattoos. Can we please, PLEASE, stop talking about tattoos as if they’re some sort of sign of gangsters? Thank you.
2) Since we’re ripping the media… TIME in it’s write up of the year in review, wrote this about Pinochet’s death: “After ousting Marxist President Salvador Allende in a bloody 1973 coup, the cunning, right-wing Pinochet banned political parties but also instituted free-market policies that stabilized Chile's economy.” This is completely, and totally, written for the American audience… and even worse, it’s not true. Allende was a socialist, not a Marxist (and if you want to say that’s ‘splitting hairs’ it isn’t. It’d be like calling Bush a facist). Secondly, the coup was encouraged, supported, and partly financed by the US government (thank YOU, CIA). And Pinochet was supported by Presidents Nixon and Ford.
I fully realize that the world was a different place in 1973. But at least get your facts right, TIME. This is just sloppy, in fact, horrendous journalism.
3) I love the Hold Steady. And I really love the Hold Steady after 10:00 pm.
4) Tony Romo… I feel like the smartest person in the room for calling that implosion. The guy just dropped the ball on the field goal. Amazing. Now the question is… is Romo’s career over? I hate to bring up Mitch Williams, Brad Lidge, and even Donnie Moore, but Romo’s ‘drop’ ranks right up there right? His career is probably over right? We’ll have to suffer though those “Romo’s put it behind him” crap next summer and then watch him throw 2.5 picks a game for the first 9 games next year. I can’t see him becoming anything other than a back up now. And I sort of had high hopes for his future.
And more latter...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)