He dreams love-requited
and twice unknown.
All of a(n)ever lasting kind.
Drowning in knots,
he slumbs in wisps.
Drip...drop.
Drips and drops.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
AND WHY DO WE FALL?
"So we can learn how to get back up!"
-Alfred Pennyworth
Hello, football fans!
Great to have you back for another week of handicapping.
Last week was a bit of a duck.
I went 6-7-2 with my picks, which isn't terrible considering, except that I put an extra large bet on the Ravens-Steleers game after tanking on so many of the early games. Obviously that didn't work out well and I added injury to insult by breaking my cardinal rule of not laying money on Giants games. Without going into too many specifics let's just say that by the time Monday night rolled around I was in some dire financial straits. So much so that I started laying my last few nickels and dimes on some NBA games in an attempt to get back on my feet.
Gambling problem, anyone?
Eh. Perhaps.
But you'll be happy to know that thanks to the Warriors, Sixers, Mavs and Celtics, The Prince of Parlay is back in the game with a renewed commitment to getting these calls right.
Now remember, the points listed are for the home team and the pick, in CAPS, is against the spread unless otherwise noted.
So let's get right to it.
THURSDAY NIGHT
COLTS @ Jacksonville +6
The Colts are locked into their wild card slot and they have a history of taking late season games lightly when there isn't much to play for. Still, they could miss the playoffs entirely if the Ravens and 2 AFC East teams win out. They won't have the luxury of playing after any of these potential spoilers. So look for them to take this one seriously and treat it as their last playoff tune-up.
SATURDAY NIGHT
Ravens @ COWBOYS -4
Don't you just love this time of the year? The air is crisp. The hearth is warm. Johnny Mathis is crooning away and football is on 4 nights out of 7. And this is no turd of a matchup! Both teams are on the playoff bubble and need to win this week to stay alive.
The Ravens defense let me down against the Steelers. And that challenge "uphold" robbed us of a climactic 4th and inches play at the goal-line. The Cowboys on the other hand played inspired defense, albeit against a Giants team missing their two biggest offensive weapons. Bottom line, The Cowboy D will keep Joe Flacco and the Raven rbs in check while Romo and co. scare up enough tds to win.
SUNDAY EARLY AFTERNOON
STEELERS @ Music City -2
I hope you guys appreciated my call on that Texan victory over the Titans last week. The Titans are flawed and, oddly enough, the Steelers are better equipped to beat the them in Nashville than they are in the slop that is Heinz Field. Plus, the Titan DTs are out. Meanwhile, Dick LeBeau will crowd the box and force Kerry to beat his secondary. This time he won't. (This also is a great game to take the under)
Dolphins @ ARROWHEAD +4
Shame on me for picking against the Chiefs at home. I won't make that mistake again. The South Beach Wildcats play good defense but Thigpen has been making things happen for KC. Conversely, The Dolphins might have to contend with near freezing temperatures on Sunday. It's about time for Pennington to turn back into a pumpkin.
CARDINALS @ New England -8
This is a pick ATS. The Pats are banged up. Matt Light is out and so might be his backup. Their secondary is also dealing with injuries. But even were they healthy, the Arizona wideouts would have been a handful. Take the Cards.
BENGALS @ Cleveland -3
ugh. This game should be flexed out of ALL timeslots.
NINERS @ St. Louis +5.5
Riding with Mike Singletary has served me pretty well. I rooted for SF to win against Miama last week but they played tough and still covered. They'll do the same, if not more, versus the Rams.
SAINTS @ Detroit +7
This line SHOULD be bigger but I think Vegas is setting the line against the odds of a team losing 15 straight in one season. I don't care. A healthy Pierre Thomas gives Drew Brees enough of a run game to keep Detroit's lack of a defense honest.
CHARGERS @ Tampa -3.5
This one gives me a little agida. The Chargers put up one helluva comeback (though it was against the Chiefs). The Bucs D has been more 'myth' than 'mythical' lately. Both of these teams need this game. I'm not sure who's gonna win but I'm confident the Chargers will keep themselves in it.
SUNDAY LATE AFTERNOON
Jets @ SEATTLE +5
Ooooooh. Is this one gonna hurt! Sorry, Jets fans. That was a great steal against the Bills but you're gonna hafta pay that one back. Hopefully, Holmgren wakes up in time to realise this is the last home game he'll ever coach.
TEXANS @ Oakland +7
C'mon. You know what it is.
Bills @ DENVER -7
Boy, was Marshawn Lynch going bananas before JP decided to take the game into (and then out of) his own hands. Throw the Champ Clamp on Lee Evans and do your best to contain Lynch and this game shouldn't be a problem. But here are a couple things to watch out for...
1. Trent Edwards will probably get the start. But if HE can't go, neither will Losman who's now 3rd on the depth chart.
2. If the Chargers lose against Tampa this game becomes meaningless for Denver since the winner of this division is locked in at the 4 seed.
IGGIES @ Chocolate City +5
Philly is playing good ball again. They're desperate for a chance to control their destiny versus the Cowboys in week 17. The Redskins on the other hand have quietly become more unstable than any of the other NFC East teams....okay, maybe not. But they've finally returned to a state of stink, and that's good enough for me.
Falcons @ Minnesota -3 OVR 43
Your classic "evenly matched teams" line. One of the Williams twins is out and Tarvaris Jackson will probably throw 4 picks instead of TDs in this game. But it's tough to bet against AP. Let's just assume that BOTH backs will have big days and make our money that way.
SUNDAY NIGHT SACROSANCT
Panthers @ The Meadowlands -3
Your classic "evenly matched teams" line, "part deux." I'm not gonna make a pick but I will say this. The 2008 Panthers look a helluva lot like the 2007 New York Football Giants. Game managing QB benefitting from a strong running game and a WR who commands double teams along with a solid defense that can get after the opposing QB.
Spags is gonna hafta find a way to account for both offensive poisons. Those running backs can kill a defense and so can Steve Smith. Time for Corey Webster to earn that contract extension. The Giants, on the other hand, need to get Ahmad Bradshaw more involved in the game and set Eli up so he can start slinging that rock.
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL
Packers @ CHICAGO -4
I gave you my heart...over and over again. I'd be a fool to get back with you now (though the prospect of Charles Woodson moving back to CB and shutting down Hester is making me waiver). Well, listen. These Bears were able to contain Brees and his Brave 300. I gotta roll with them.
THE PRINCE OF PARLAY'S "PARLAY OF THE WEEK":
BENGALS, TEXANS, STEELERS, COWBOYS & COLTS all straight up (10.85:1)
All right, folks. That's my time.
Apologies to those of you who lost money last week but it's just like something my old man used to always tell me.
He'd say, "Son...I'm not your real daddy."
Laaaaaaaaaaaaate!
-Alfred Pennyworth
Hello, football fans!
Great to have you back for another week of handicapping.
Last week was a bit of a duck.
I went 6-7-2 with my picks, which isn't terrible considering, except that I put an extra large bet on the Ravens-Steleers game after tanking on so many of the early games. Obviously that didn't work out well and I added injury to insult by breaking my cardinal rule of not laying money on Giants games. Without going into too many specifics let's just say that by the time Monday night rolled around I was in some dire financial straits. So much so that I started laying my last few nickels and dimes on some NBA games in an attempt to get back on my feet.
Gambling problem, anyone?
Eh. Perhaps.
But you'll be happy to know that thanks to the Warriors, Sixers, Mavs and Celtics, The Prince of Parlay is back in the game with a renewed commitment to getting these calls right.
Now remember, the points listed are for the home team and the pick, in CAPS, is against the spread unless otherwise noted.
So let's get right to it.
THURSDAY NIGHT
COLTS @ Jacksonville +6
The Colts are locked into their wild card slot and they have a history of taking late season games lightly when there isn't much to play for. Still, they could miss the playoffs entirely if the Ravens and 2 AFC East teams win out. They won't have the luxury of playing after any of these potential spoilers. So look for them to take this one seriously and treat it as their last playoff tune-up.
SATURDAY NIGHT
Ravens @ COWBOYS -4
Don't you just love this time of the year? The air is crisp. The hearth is warm. Johnny Mathis is crooning away and football is on 4 nights out of 7. And this is no turd of a matchup! Both teams are on the playoff bubble and need to win this week to stay alive.
The Ravens defense let me down against the Steelers. And that challenge "uphold" robbed us of a climactic 4th and inches play at the goal-line. The Cowboys on the other hand played inspired defense, albeit against a Giants team missing their two biggest offensive weapons. Bottom line, The Cowboy D will keep Joe Flacco and the Raven rbs in check while Romo and co. scare up enough tds to win.
SUNDAY EARLY AFTERNOON
STEELERS @ Music City -2
I hope you guys appreciated my call on that Texan victory over the Titans last week. The Titans are flawed and, oddly enough, the Steelers are better equipped to beat the them in Nashville than they are in the slop that is Heinz Field. Plus, the Titan DTs are out. Meanwhile, Dick LeBeau will crowd the box and force Kerry to beat his secondary. This time he won't. (This also is a great game to take the under)
Dolphins @ ARROWHEAD +4
Shame on me for picking against the Chiefs at home. I won't make that mistake again. The South Beach Wildcats play good defense but Thigpen has been making things happen for KC. Conversely, The Dolphins might have to contend with near freezing temperatures on Sunday. It's about time for Pennington to turn back into a pumpkin.
CARDINALS @ New England -8
This is a pick ATS. The Pats are banged up. Matt Light is out and so might be his backup. Their secondary is also dealing with injuries. But even were they healthy, the Arizona wideouts would have been a handful. Take the Cards.
BENGALS @ Cleveland -3
ugh. This game should be flexed out of ALL timeslots.
NINERS @ St. Louis +5.5
Riding with Mike Singletary has served me pretty well. I rooted for SF to win against Miama last week but they played tough and still covered. They'll do the same, if not more, versus the Rams.
SAINTS @ Detroit +7
This line SHOULD be bigger but I think Vegas is setting the line against the odds of a team losing 15 straight in one season. I don't care. A healthy Pierre Thomas gives Drew Brees enough of a run game to keep Detroit's lack of a defense honest.
CHARGERS @ Tampa -3.5
This one gives me a little agida. The Chargers put up one helluva comeback (though it was against the Chiefs). The Bucs D has been more 'myth' than 'mythical' lately. Both of these teams need this game. I'm not sure who's gonna win but I'm confident the Chargers will keep themselves in it.
SUNDAY LATE AFTERNOON
Jets @ SEATTLE +5
Ooooooh. Is this one gonna hurt! Sorry, Jets fans. That was a great steal against the Bills but you're gonna hafta pay that one back. Hopefully, Holmgren wakes up in time to realise this is the last home game he'll ever coach.
TEXANS @ Oakland +7
C'mon. You know what it is.
Bills @ DENVER -7
Boy, was Marshawn Lynch going bananas before JP decided to take the game into (and then out of) his own hands. Throw the Champ Clamp on Lee Evans and do your best to contain Lynch and this game shouldn't be a problem. But here are a couple things to watch out for...
1. Trent Edwards will probably get the start. But if HE can't go, neither will Losman who's now 3rd on the depth chart.
2. If the Chargers lose against Tampa this game becomes meaningless for Denver since the winner of this division is locked in at the 4 seed.
IGGIES @ Chocolate City +5
Philly is playing good ball again. They're desperate for a chance to control their destiny versus the Cowboys in week 17. The Redskins on the other hand have quietly become more unstable than any of the other NFC East teams....okay, maybe not. But they've finally returned to a state of stink, and that's good enough for me.
Falcons @ Minnesota -3 OVR 43
Your classic "evenly matched teams" line. One of the Williams twins is out and Tarvaris Jackson will probably throw 4 picks instead of TDs in this game. But it's tough to bet against AP. Let's just assume that BOTH backs will have big days and make our money that way.
SUNDAY NIGHT SACROSANCT
Panthers @ The Meadowlands -3
Your classic "evenly matched teams" line, "part deux." I'm not gonna make a pick but I will say this. The 2008 Panthers look a helluva lot like the 2007 New York Football Giants. Game managing QB benefitting from a strong running game and a WR who commands double teams along with a solid defense that can get after the opposing QB.
Spags is gonna hafta find a way to account for both offensive poisons. Those running backs can kill a defense and so can Steve Smith. Time for Corey Webster to earn that contract extension. The Giants, on the other hand, need to get Ahmad Bradshaw more involved in the game and set Eli up so he can start slinging that rock.
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL
Packers @ CHICAGO -4
I gave you my heart...over and over again. I'd be a fool to get back with you now (though the prospect of Charles Woodson moving back to CB and shutting down Hester is making me waiver). Well, listen. These Bears were able to contain Brees and his Brave 300. I gotta roll with them.
THE PRINCE OF PARLAY'S "PARLAY OF THE WEEK":
BENGALS, TEXANS, STEELERS, COWBOYS & COLTS all straight up (10.85:1)
All right, folks. That's my time.
Apologies to those of you who lost money last week but it's just like something my old man used to always tell me.
He'd say, "Son...I'm not your real daddy."
Laaaaaaaaaaaaate!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
DON'T THINK! JUST DO!
Hello Ladies and Gentlemen!
Great to have you back for another round of handicapping!
The NFL regular season nears its end and with it come those all important late-season divisional matchups as well as teams jockeying for playoff positions. But more relevant to our endeavor is the fact that lines get REAL tight in the late season. I'm not talking about low spreads. I'm talking about Vegas getting real good at setting their lines. This will make my job a little bit more difficult.
Last week was a little tough but
we were still able to go 8-6 on the games we picked giving us an overall record of 43-29 over the last month or so of betting. That's about a 15% return on your money. Not too many investments giving you that these days!
I'm just saying...
THURSDAY NIGHT
SAINTS @ Chicago -3
Wonderful. The first of the foul lines. To be fair, this is one of your standard "evenly-matched-home-team-getting-3" lines. But still, what do you do with it? You could play it conservatively and just take the home team. But part of you feels like Drew Brees can pull this out with all his weapons back at his disposal. You don't wanna take the over because it's a cold Chicago night game. But taking the under (44.5) seems silly. I'm gonna make this my first upset/road pick. BREES!
SUNDAY EARLY GAMES
PACKERS @ Jacksonville +1
The Packers have been doing a great job of disappointing me lately. I'd take the over (44.5) had I faith the Jags could hold up there end of the bargain. Shuffling their defensive backfield did not work for Green Bay. Neither did moving Poppinga to DE. On the other hand, Jacksonville is more one-dimensional than a Texans team with Matt Schaub. Let's give the Pack one last chance.
Megatron @ Indy -17 OVR 44.5
Biggest spread of the week. The Colts had no problem covering 2 tds against the Bengals, so this line makes sense. But jaysis. You wouldn't be human if a near-20-pt-spread didn't make you a little nervous. Detroit has weapons on offense. and by "weapons" I do mean Kevin Smith and Calvin "Megatron" Johnson. Poor guys need a quarterback and a defense.
I'm not thinking twice about taking this over.
'Skins @ Cincinatti +7 OVR 36.5
Here are a few words from Clinton Portis after last week's loss to the Ravens:
"I guarantee you I know our system better than anybody else, I guarantee when we go over blitz pickups I don't miss my man. I don't know what it is, bro. If anybody got a problem with me, they need to talk to me. I don't know whats going on."
"If my man ain't coming, I ain't chipping nobody, I ain't doing nothing I ain't supposed to do. I'm gonna get out in my pass route and that's where I'll be. If somebody else give up a sack or anything else, that's on
them."
"What I need to be around for is Sundays and that's what I try to be around for. So I mean, if you've got a problem with me not practicing and can't do it that way, maybe you feel like you need to sever ties, split ties with me? Split ties with me. But don't sit here and throw me out like I don't pay attention, like I don't know what's going on, like I'm making mistakes, I'm the problem. You know, so, it is what it is, bro."
"You know, one day it's chip on your way out, then if you don't chip and you get out and the quarterback gets sacked it's like, 'Oh, you need to help this man out.' So they don't know what they want. They want you to chip, they want you to block, Jason's on his ass all game long, you're trying to stay in and help, and then it's, 'Oh, you should have gone out, they was coming to you."
"Hey, bro, it ain't rocket science how to use me. They can figure that out. If they want to put the ball in my hands I can try to help the team win. They don't I'll try to do whatever I can. If I need to cheer Ladell on, I'll cheer Ladell on. I'm not gonna be bitter about the situation."
What does all it all mean? It means I'm betting all the clowns in this circus ass-back each other into covering the points. That's what it means.
Pirates @ HOTLANTA -3
This NFC South is turning into a slugfest. The Bucs betrayed me last Monday. The Panthers exposed that defense.
Fool me twice and you're not gonna fool me again!
NINERS @ Miama -6.5
WHOAH! The DOLPHINS are getting a touchdown spread? Lookit them all grown up, forming full sentences and everything!
Great win up in Toronto, but that was against the Bills. What more does Mike Singletary have to do to prove to you that he's not dickin' around?
Defeat the Wildcat? YOU GOT IT!!!
Bills @ The Meadowlands -8 OVR 41
ugh. Speaking of the Bills, they've inexplicably forgotten how to score touchdowns.
The Jets, on the other hand, simply are who I think they are.
Buffalo should be able to APPROACH twenty points (perhaps by way of Roscoe Parrishy antics) and therefore contribute their share of the OVER.
Oilers @ HOUSTON +3
Holee Shinola!!! Tennessee is 12-1 and they're only getting a FG against the Texans! By the end of this game Jeff Fisher's gonna be singing, "OH HOUSTON, LOVE DON'T LIVE HERE NO MORE!!!"
CHARGERS @ Arrowhead +5
There once was a time when a smart bettor would NEVER put money against the Chiefs at home. Well, either times have changed or I'm dumber than a bag of wooden hammers.
HAWKS @ St. Louis +3
Oh! If Georgia Frontiere was alive to see this Rams mess. Every week it's a shitshow. I thought it couldn't get worse than that debacle against the Jets in week 10 but it did.
Down 17, with the line set at 14, Marc Bulger faced a 1st and 10 @ the Arizona 10 yd line with 3
minutes to play.
ANY SCORE AND YOUR RAMS MONEY IS SAFE!!!
What does this donut do? He throws a pick-6 to Rodgers-Cromartie. 99 fuckin' yd return. Unbelievable.
SUNDAY LATE GAMES
Steelers @ CHARM CITY -1
What a game! This is what NFL football is all about folks. Steelers-Ravens, week 15, in a game that could decide the division. Ed Reed put on quite the performance last week. GOTTA love Ed Reed. GOTTA put your money in his hands.
B-MORE STAND UP!!!
BRONCOS @ Carolina -7.5
Steve Smith is an animal but he's actually not hard to cover. He basically runs posts and deep outs all day. I think Champ is up to it. The Panthers will rack up yards on the ground but if Garcia can go for 300+, I think Jay Cutler can keep it close.
PATS @ Oakland +7
I gotta be honest with you good people. I don't know what I was thinking with that Oakland pick last week. My disgust with the Chargers clouded my perception of the Raiders' ineptitude.
The Pats did me no better last week. Sure they got what THEY wanted out of week 14, but what about me?
What about us?
What about love?
Vikes @ ARIZONA -3
I don't like the Cardinals. They don't run the ball. They don't play defense. That kinda nonsense don't play come January. But then again, this ain't January and the 'kings are susceptible through the air.
So i'll take Arizona to cover at home in that big beautiful stadium of theirs.
SUNDAY NIGHT SACROSANCT
The New York Football Giants @ Dallas -3
I hate the fuckin' Cowboys.
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL
Browns @ PHILLY -14
ESPN has GOT to negotiate flexible scheduling rights.
PARLAY OF WEEK:
NINERS, JETS, CHARGERS & PATS (8.37:1)
Great to have you back for another round of handicapping!
The NFL regular season nears its end and with it come those all important late-season divisional matchups as well as teams jockeying for playoff positions. But more relevant to our endeavor is the fact that lines get REAL tight in the late season. I'm not talking about low spreads. I'm talking about Vegas getting real good at setting their lines. This will make my job a little bit more difficult.
Last week was a little tough but
we were still able to go 8-6 on the games we picked giving us an overall record of 43-29 over the last month or so of betting. That's about a 15% return on your money. Not too many investments giving you that these days!
I'm just saying...
THURSDAY NIGHT
SAINTS @ Chicago -3
Wonderful. The first of the foul lines. To be fair, this is one of your standard "evenly-matched-home-team-getting-3" lines. But still, what do you do with it? You could play it conservatively and just take the home team. But part of you feels like Drew Brees can pull this out with all his weapons back at his disposal. You don't wanna take the over because it's a cold Chicago night game. But taking the under (44.5) seems silly. I'm gonna make this my first upset/road pick. BREES!
SUNDAY EARLY GAMES
PACKERS @ Jacksonville +1
The Packers have been doing a great job of disappointing me lately. I'd take the over (44.5) had I faith the Jags could hold up there end of the bargain. Shuffling their defensive backfield did not work for Green Bay. Neither did moving Poppinga to DE. On the other hand, Jacksonville is more one-dimensional than a Texans team with Matt Schaub. Let's give the Pack one last chance.
Megatron @ Indy -17 OVR 44.5
Biggest spread of the week. The Colts had no problem covering 2 tds against the Bengals, so this line makes sense. But jaysis. You wouldn't be human if a near-20-pt-spread didn't make you a little nervous. Detroit has weapons on offense. and by "weapons" I do mean Kevin Smith and Calvin "Megatron" Johnson. Poor guys need a quarterback and a defense.
I'm not thinking twice about taking this over.
'Skins @ Cincinatti +7 OVR 36.5
Here are a few words from Clinton Portis after last week's loss to the Ravens:
"I guarantee you I know our system better than anybody else, I guarantee when we go over blitz pickups I don't miss my man. I don't know what it is, bro. If anybody got a problem with me, they need to talk to me. I don't know whats going on."
"If my man ain't coming, I ain't chipping nobody, I ain't doing nothing I ain't supposed to do. I'm gonna get out in my pass route and that's where I'll be. If somebody else give up a sack or anything else, that's on
them." "What I need to be around for is Sundays and that's what I try to be around for. So I mean, if you've got a problem with me not practicing and can't do it that way, maybe you feel like you need to sever ties, split ties with me? Split ties with me. But don't sit here and throw me out like I don't pay attention, like I don't know what's going on, like I'm making mistakes, I'm the problem. You know, so, it is what it is, bro."
"You know, one day it's chip on your way out, then if you don't chip and you get out and the quarterback gets sacked it's like, 'Oh, you need to help this man out.' So they don't know what they want. They want you to chip, they want you to block, Jason's on his ass all game long, you're trying to stay in and help, and then it's, 'Oh, you should have gone out, they was coming to you."
"Hey, bro, it ain't rocket science how to use me. They can figure that out. If they want to put the ball in my hands I can try to help the team win. They don't I'll try to do whatever I can. If I need to cheer Ladell on, I'll cheer Ladell on. I'm not gonna be bitter about the situation."
What does all it all mean? It means I'm betting all the clowns in this circus ass-back each other into covering the points. That's what it means.
Pirates @ HOTLANTA -3
This NFC South is turning into a slugfest. The Bucs betrayed me last Monday. The Panthers exposed that defense.
Fool me twice and you're not gonna fool me again!
NINERS @ Miama -6.5
WHOAH! The DOLPHINS are getting a touchdown spread? Lookit them all grown up, forming full sentences and everything!
Great win up in Toronto, but that was against the Bills. What more does Mike Singletary have to do to prove to you that he's not dickin' around?
Defeat the Wildcat? YOU GOT IT!!!
Bills @ The Meadowlands -8 OVR 41
ugh. Speaking of the Bills, they've inexplicably forgotten how to score touchdowns.
The Jets, on the other hand, simply are who I think they are.
Buffalo should be able to APPROACH twenty points (perhaps by way of Roscoe Parrishy antics) and therefore contribute their share of the OVER.
Oilers @ HOUSTON +3
Holee Shinola!!! Tennessee is 12-1 and they're only getting a FG against the Texans! By the end of this game Jeff Fisher's gonna be singing, "OH HOUSTON, LOVE DON'T LIVE HERE NO MORE!!!"
CHARGERS @ Arrowhead +5
There once was a time when a smart bettor would NEVER put money against the Chiefs at home. Well, either times have changed or I'm dumber than a bag of wooden hammers.
HAWKS @ St. Louis +3
Oh! If Georgia Frontiere was alive to see this Rams mess. Every week it's a shitshow. I thought it couldn't get worse than that debacle against the Jets in week 10 but it did.
Down 17, with the line set at 14, Marc Bulger faced a 1st and 10 @ the Arizona 10 yd line with 3
minutes to play.ANY SCORE AND YOUR RAMS MONEY IS SAFE!!!
What does this donut do? He throws a pick-6 to Rodgers-Cromartie. 99 fuckin' yd return. Unbelievable.
SUNDAY LATE GAMES
Steelers @ CHARM CITY -1
What a game! This is what NFL football is all about folks. Steelers-Ravens, week 15, in a game that could decide the division. Ed Reed put on quite the performance last week. GOTTA love Ed Reed. GOTTA put your money in his hands.
B-MORE STAND UP!!!
BRONCOS @ Carolina -7.5
Steve Smith is an animal but he's actually not hard to cover. He basically runs posts and deep outs all day. I think Champ is up to it. The Panthers will rack up yards on the ground but if Garcia can go for 300+, I think Jay Cutler can keep it close.
PATS @ Oakland +7
I gotta be honest with you good people. I don't know what I was thinking with that Oakland pick last week. My disgust with the Chargers clouded my perception of the Raiders' ineptitude.
The Pats did me no better last week. Sure they got what THEY wanted out of week 14, but what about me?
What about us?
What about love?
Vikes @ ARIZONA -3
I don't like the Cardinals. They don't run the ball. They don't play defense. That kinda nonsense don't play come January. But then again, this ain't January and the 'kings are susceptible through the air.
So i'll take Arizona to cover at home in that big beautiful stadium of theirs.
SUNDAY NIGHT SACROSANCT
The New York Football Giants @ Dallas -3
I hate the fuckin' Cowboys.
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL
Browns @ PHILLY -14
ESPN has GOT to negotiate flexible scheduling rights.
PARLAY OF WEEK:
NINERS, JETS, CHARGERS & PATS (8.37:1)
Thursday, December 4, 2008
GAMBLE GAMBLE GAMBLE
I hope everyone enjoyed their Thanksgiving holiday. Plenty of turkeys to go around this year, and I’m not just talking about the Colts, Packers, Cardinals and Seahawks covers (7-7 last week...thanks guys.)
No, for some reason TWO birds were roasted in the Armand home last weekend. Didn’t really know why. Didn’t really care. They were delicious.
But this is a new week and with it comes a fresh opportunity to make back some of that lost dough. So let’s get right to it…
THURSDAY PRIMETIME
RAIDERS @ San Diego -9.5
Speaking of 2 turkeys!
Something about this Charger team just isn’t right. Eli knew it 4 years ago and everyone thought he was crazy. All the talent in the world but no heart. I can’t see them covering this spread.
SUNDAY EARLY GAMES
Tigers @ INDY -13.5
Boy, did the COLTS lay an egg last week. I warned some of you fantasy footballers about owning Peyton Manning this year. To be fair, T.J. Hoosh is screwing me over just as badly. Not a single offensive TD was scored by either of these teams last week. Taking the over (41.5) isn’t a terrible idea, but I’m gonna trust the Indy defense to keep the spread safe.
Jaguars @ CHICAGO -6.5
There’s only one thing I like about cold weather and that’s the opportunity to see Jack Del Rio in that black leather jacket. I’m a big fan of head coaches looking spiffy on the sideline. (I rooted for Mike Nolan to be successful just for that reason!) That said, I feel like this line is too high. It really shouldn’t be more than a FG, but it’s hard to take the Jaguars when Fred Taylor is on record as saying that this is the worst team he’s ever played on. Yikes!
Texans @ GREEN BAY -6
The Packers are on the outside looking in on the playoff picture and for no good reason...besides an inability to play defense, that is.
Isn’t this supposed to be a solid unit? Hawk...Barnett...Harris...Woodson?
Matt Schaub should be back this week which is tempting me to take the over, but something tells me the Packers find a way to keep this thing under 50. Take the Pack.
Browns @ Music City -13.5 OVR 37.5
I’m not gonna sit here and say the Titans aren’t a good team.
Dirty Birds @ NO -3
I’m strongly considering taking the under (51) in this one. There’s no reason to believe that these two QBs can’t do some serious damage on the fast track in Nawlins. But I feel like this line is set to entice us into taking the over. Which means that Vegas knows something we don’t…but I could just be over-thinking this. I’ll just take the home team to cover.
SUNDAY AFTERNOON GAMES
Jets @ SANFRISCO +3.5
Speaking of lines I don’t trust! Why is a team, considered by many to be one of the top 3 in their conference, only giving 3.5 to a 4-8 team? Perhaps Vegas believes in Mike Singletary as much as I do. In any case, I hope he can figure out a way to neutralize all of those offensive weapons. Niners.
DOLPHINS @ Toronto -1
The South Beach Wildcats will play an international game for the second straight year. I predict a very similar result. I like the Bills.
(By the way, does anyone know what stadium they’re playing in? Is it where the Argonauts play? WAIT! Didn’t Ricky Williams play for them while he was suspended from the NFL?)
Forget what I said before. Something tells me the crowd’s gonna be split in this one. I’ll take the Dolphins.
Chiefs @ Broncos -9.5 OVR 49
With these two defenses you have to take the over. Not because the scoring will be so high, which it will, but because you can’t trust either team to cover the spread. A final score of 35-24 is infinitely conceivable, I'm just not sure in which direction.
PATS @ Seattle -4.5
Seattle and San Diego have a lot in common. Both are west coast cities I would enjoy visiting. Both have underachieving teams with inexplicably impotent offenses. Both have coaches that won’t be around next year (their raps are too severe).
RAMS @ Arizona -14
I bet the Cards are happy to be back in their own division. What a tough week. This is a large spread partly because the Cards are coming off half a bye and the Rams are just not scoring. Still, 2 TDs is a lot for a team that doesn’t really play great defense.
Cowboys @ SCHLITZBURG -3
That ol’ Superbowl rivalry renewed. Both these lines are SPOT ON. Three pts to the home team and 39 total points. I don’t know what to think of either of these teams, but I can see the Steeler D holding the Cowboys to less than 3 TDs. I guess it all comes down to whether Big Ben can come up with more than that. I’ll roll the dice.
SUNDAY PRIMETIME
Skins @ CHARM CITY -5
Is that nickname supposed to be ironic? I've been to Baltimore. There's very little that's "charming" about it. Also, before the Ravens came to town, wasn’t everyone there forced to become a Redskins fan? Shouldn’t this game be something akin Yankees/Mets or Raiders/Niners?
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL
BUCS @ Carolina -3
I know I’m picking a lot of road teams but what do you want? I call ‘em like I see ‘em. As for the Panthers, all their costumes and super-powers ain’t shit! It’s time for their reign of lick and truckery...uh...trick and luckery...err...luck and trickery...to...um...come to...an end...yeah.
SACROSANCT
Iggies @ The Meadowlands, Home of The NY Football Giants -7
Ohhh! Look who’s finally coming around? Undefeated at home and 11-1 overall and we finally get a TD spread.
I’ll say this much…if Tom Coughlin finds a way to outcoach “Big Pun” Andy Reid again, I wanna hear less about running Donovan F. McNabb out of Philly and more about getting rid of their pork-chop of a coach!
Alright. Should be another great week of football. Good luck and good cheer!
PARLAY OF THE WEEK:
Colts, Packers, Pats, Ravens & Bucs (8.5:1)
No, for some reason TWO birds were roasted in the Armand home last weekend. Didn’t really know why. Didn’t really care. They were delicious.
But this is a new week and with it comes a fresh opportunity to make back some of that lost dough. So let’s get right to it…
THURSDAY PRIMETIME
RAIDERS @ San Diego -9.5
Speaking of 2 turkeys!
Something about this Charger team just isn’t right. Eli knew it 4 years ago and everyone thought he was crazy. All the talent in the world but no heart. I can’t see them covering this spread.
SUNDAY EARLY GAMES
Tigers @ INDY -13.5
Boy, did the COLTS lay an egg last week. I warned some of you fantasy footballers about owning Peyton Manning this year. To be fair, T.J. Hoosh is screwing me over just as badly. Not a single offensive TD was scored by either of these teams last week. Taking the over (41.5) isn’t a terrible idea, but I’m gonna trust the Indy defense to keep the spread safe.
Jaguars @ CHICAGO -6.5
There’s only one thing I like about cold weather and that’s the opportunity to see Jack Del Rio in that black leather jacket. I’m a big fan of head coaches looking spiffy on the sideline. (I rooted for Mike Nolan to be successful just for that reason!) That said, I feel like this line is too high. It really shouldn’t be more than a FG, but it’s hard to take the Jaguars when Fred Taylor is on record as saying that this is the worst team he’s ever played on. Yikes!
Texans @ GREEN BAY -6
The Packers are on the outside looking in on the playoff picture and for no good reason...besides an inability to play defense, that is.
Isn’t this supposed to be a solid unit? Hawk...Barnett...Harris...Woodson?
Matt Schaub should be back this week which is tempting me to take the over, but something tells me the Packers find a way to keep this thing under 50. Take the Pack.
Browns @ Music City -13.5 OVR 37.5
I’m not gonna sit here and say the Titans aren’t a good team.
Dirty Birds @ NO -3
I’m strongly considering taking the under (51) in this one. There’s no reason to believe that these two QBs can’t do some serious damage on the fast track in Nawlins. But I feel like this line is set to entice us into taking the over. Which means that Vegas knows something we don’t…but I could just be over-thinking this. I’ll just take the home team to cover.
SUNDAY AFTERNOON GAMES
Jets @ SANFRISCO +3.5
Speaking of lines I don’t trust! Why is a team, considered by many to be one of the top 3 in their conference, only giving 3.5 to a 4-8 team? Perhaps Vegas believes in Mike Singletary as much as I do. In any case, I hope he can figure out a way to neutralize all of those offensive weapons. Niners.
DOLPHINS @ Toronto -1
The South Beach Wildcats will play an international game for the second straight year. I predict a very similar result. I like the Bills.
(By the way, does anyone know what stadium they’re playing in? Is it where the Argonauts play? WAIT! Didn’t Ricky Williams play for them while he was suspended from the NFL?)
Forget what I said before. Something tells me the crowd’s gonna be split in this one. I’ll take the Dolphins.
Chiefs @ Broncos -9.5 OVR 49
With these two defenses you have to take the over. Not because the scoring will be so high, which it will, but because you can’t trust either team to cover the spread. A final score of 35-24 is infinitely conceivable, I'm just not sure in which direction.
PATS @ Seattle -4.5
Seattle and San Diego have a lot in common. Both are west coast cities I would enjoy visiting. Both have underachieving teams with inexplicably impotent offenses. Both have coaches that won’t be around next year (their raps are too severe).
RAMS @ Arizona -14
I bet the Cards are happy to be back in their own division. What a tough week. This is a large spread partly because the Cards are coming off half a bye and the Rams are just not scoring. Still, 2 TDs is a lot for a team that doesn’t really play great defense.
Cowboys @ SCHLITZBURG -3
That ol’ Superbowl rivalry renewed. Both these lines are SPOT ON. Three pts to the home team and 39 total points. I don’t know what to think of either of these teams, but I can see the Steeler D holding the Cowboys to less than 3 TDs. I guess it all comes down to whether Big Ben can come up with more than that. I’ll roll the dice.
SUNDAY PRIMETIME
Skins @ CHARM CITY -5
Is that nickname supposed to be ironic? I've been to Baltimore. There's very little that's "charming" about it. Also, before the Ravens came to town, wasn’t everyone there forced to become a Redskins fan? Shouldn’t this game be something akin Yankees/Mets or Raiders/Niners?
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL
BUCS @ Carolina -3
I know I’m picking a lot of road teams but what do you want? I call ‘em like I see ‘em. As for the Panthers, all their costumes and super-powers ain’t shit! It’s time for their reign of lick and truckery...uh...trick and luckery...err...luck and trickery...to...um...come to...an end...yeah.
SACROSANCT
Iggies @ The Meadowlands, Home of The NY Football Giants -7
Ohhh! Look who’s finally coming around? Undefeated at home and 11-1 overall and we finally get a TD spread.
I’ll say this much…if Tom Coughlin finds a way to outcoach “Big Pun” Andy Reid again, I wanna hear less about running Donovan F. McNabb out of Philly and more about getting rid of their pork-chop of a coach!
Alright. Should be another great week of football. Good luck and good cheer!
PARLAY OF THE WEEK:
Colts, Packers, Pats, Ravens & Bucs (8.5:1)
Sunday, November 30, 2008
PEANUTS
Lemme preface this by saying this the following is completely raw and unfiltered, for better or for worse.
Life is a funny thing. Mine is no exception.
Conventional wisdom says that life is best lived when you understand the story of you life is not a book to be read but a tale to be written, and most importantly, that you are the author.
I can agree with that to a certain extent. I do believe that it is each of our tasks to "make your life!"
It's a creative endeavor. Every moment of our life is an exercise in fabrication. The greater extent we take to accept control over that continuing creative fabrication, the better our life will be.
But I am coming to believe that there is also "super-arch" to the story of our lives that is, in some ways, beyond our control. And i don't mean to contradict myself.
Firstly, I accept that what i am trying to describe is some phenomenal fact that many believe is God or some other supernatural universal force. But what i'm trying to describe is less determinative and also supremely within our control.
This "arc" (and i concede that for now i have no better way to describe it) is inherently unique to each person. It is, to use a common phrase, "who we are." But I believe it is also something that is uniquely each of our task to discover understand and accomodate in the process of our own creative fabrication of our lives, and in this way we exercise a great measure of control over it.
I hope to elaborate on this thought in time.
Part of me doubts I will. But i've recorded it here for some measure of posterity.
I guess what i'm saying that at some point charlie brown must come to understand that it is not
for him to ever "kick the ball."
And ironically, once he comes to this deep understanding of his lot in life, he will find that it is infinitely within his power to exercise his command over that ball, regardless of the machinations and/or intentions of a Lucy.
Life is a funny thing. Mine is no exception.
Conventional wisdom says that life is best lived when you understand the story of you life is not a book to be read but a tale to be written, and most importantly, that you are the author.
I can agree with that to a certain extent. I do believe that it is each of our tasks to "make your life!"
It's a creative endeavor. Every moment of our life is an exercise in fabrication. The greater extent we take to accept control over that continuing creative fabrication, the better our life will be.
But I am coming to believe that there is also "super-arch" to the story of our lives that is, in some ways, beyond our control. And i don't mean to contradict myself.
Firstly, I accept that what i am trying to describe is some phenomenal fact that many believe is God or some other supernatural universal force. But what i'm trying to describe is less determinative and also supremely within our control.
This "arc" (and i concede that for now i have no better way to describe it) is inherently unique to each person. It is, to use a common phrase, "who we are." But I believe it is also something that is uniquely each of our task to discover understand and accomodate in the process of our own creative fabrication of our lives, and in this way we exercise a great measure of control over it.
I hope to elaborate on this thought in time.
Part of me doubts I will. But i've recorded it here for some measure of posterity.
I guess what i'm saying that at some point charlie brown must come to understand that it is not
for him to ever "kick the ball."And ironically, once he comes to this deep understanding of his lot in life, he will find that it is infinitely within his power to exercise his command over that ball, regardless of the machinations and/or intentions of a Lucy.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
BIG BAD OLIPHANT
For those of you sporadic readers, web-trippers, happenstancers, lemme tell you a little something about the author of this blog.
Is that an appropriate term, "author"? I feel like that's a tad too...heh...AUTHORATIVE.
That's hilariously ironic for reasons that may or may not not become evident in the near future of this blog. I'll try my best, in any case.
What I wanted to tell you (reader) is something I've recently argued, with some success, with my younger brother (of whom I could not think more highly. He is, quite simply, his sire's best, and his brethren's most beloved);
"I might not always be RIGHT. But I'm NEVER WRONG."
This is something I often proclaim sometimes in jest, mostly with complete sincerity, but ultimately with a genuine belief.
And it's not arrogance.
No way.
I've had more than my share of mistakes.
I live a life of regrets, though fewer than people who know me would think.
I can count count on ONE hand the number of things I would do differently had I the chance.
Most of them before I went turned 18.
But that's another post.
The point of THIS write-up is to introduce to vices...two characteristic qualities (or qualitative characteristics) that have, in many ways, defined my adult life:
Oh! I have so much to say about both these enriching activities.
No glorifications, mind you. Heaven forbid.
But...eh...you know what...let's start things off this way.
I am a jinn. You are gonna follow me on a magic carpet ride.
WTF is ruff talking about?
*************************
BETTING, MOODA-SOKAH!!!
I’m talking FOOSBALL!!!
This ain’t the UNITED states.
This is GAMBLING STATE!
And ain’t no drumline gonna make it worth your while at half-time so you better lissen to Papa Ruff’s words of wisdom!
Let’s start with the sacred. The Saracen. Da Ting I Don’t Likes 2 Touch...
THE NY FOOTBALL GIANTS @ PHILLY - 3
Hoooleeee Crap!!! A 7-1 DEFENDING SB team with a perfect conf record and an insane road record is a 3pt dog against a team winless in the division?!!?
Alright, lemme let you neophytes in on a lil’ secret. Vegas LOVES giving The Philadelphia Eagles an extra 3 pts when setting their lines. I’ve noticed this phenomenon for about 2 years but I’m sure it predates my own gambling history (what up coo!).
Don't know why, don't know when but whatever it is…know it and make your bets accordingly.
I don’t bet on Giants games for personal reasons but still I’m insulted. That said, this line should at least be a pickem. Taking the home team discount of 3 pts into account that means the experts TRULY believe the boys barely survive a slugfest by a score...
BUT WAIT…THEEERE’S MORE...
BOTH teams have high powered offenses that LOVE playing their rivals. The Giant O is superior but is coming off a tough game and Philly’s D ain’t what it used ta be.
THEREFORE: disregard everything I said save for this:
Take the OVER (preferably as part of a tease)
OK…had to get that off my chest. I’ll run through the rest quickly (bettor's pick in CAPS).
DREW’S CREW in Hotlanta - 3
This is a one o’clock game. Do yourself a favor. Turn off Fox’s pregame about 5 minutes before gametime…turn it back on once the games have commenced and relax in the knowledge that Big Daddy Brees will deliver unto you. Trust me.
Jax on CYBERTRON +6.5
Yeah, this line definitely had to come down, but not enuff. And this has nothing to do with me owning Megatron. Pick against him this week at your own peril (chocolate-covered…yellow…whatever)!
Kerry’s Kids @ CHICAGO +3
Sigh. There are certain teams I don’t mess with. The Titans and the Bears are TWO of them!
Here are my predictions: Kerry Collins (don't be fooled. he's a gunslinger) will hook up with SOMEBODY for a long TD. That might make it close, but Wrecks and this D find a way to cover.
Seagoils @ MIAMA -8
FAVORED BY A TD!?!? Eh. They should be. Remember Holmgren is gone after this year and a lot of their starters are more stop-gaps than anything. Tell Fudd it’s LAME-duck season so we can move on.
GBP @ Minny -2
The GBP (in honor of the release of KGB) just played a more complete version of the Vikings last week. They outplayed them. This WOULD qualify as a letdown game except for the fact that these teams hate each other. Think Giants playing the Cowboys (won or loss) after having played the Steelers. I’ll take Aaron over Frot.
WINGS @ Pats -3.5
Somewhat corny name for Buffalo’s team but one I’m at peace with, partly because it was either that or the “OJ’s”. By the way, THIS is the letdown game we talked about in the last paragraff. Buffalo covers.
RAMS @ Jets – 9
Word?!!? The Rams getting 9 while playing for the rights to their own unis back?!!? Take either the Rams or the UNDER…but not both. (?)
Ravens @ HOUSTON (pick)
All I gotta do is PICK huh? Well, fuckit. I say some crazy shit happens and Baltimore loses. How’s that?!
PANTHERS @ Oakland +9.5
This line moved 2 pts and with good reason. JMR STINKS and I can’t confirm that DMC has played a single game.
BTW, I have a question. Explain to me why it’s ok for the Al Davis to screw Reebok out of revenue from the sale of DeAngelo Hall's Raider jersey’s while Chad in Cincy is not allowed to display his legal name on his work uniform for, ostensibly, the same reason?
Gotta love the NFL.
Indy in the Pitts (doesn’t matter)
Ugh. I don’t care about this game, monetarily. The irony is (and perhaps not) this might be the most entertaining game this Sunday. Of course, few of us will get to see it but there’s always gamecast…which reminds me.* Take the OVER.
Kansassssity @ SANDIEGO -15
Step 1: Go to your nearest BestBuy/CircuitCity
Step 2: Purchase 'Blazin' Saddles' on dvd.
Step 3: Watch repeatedly.
Step 4: Stop sweating this massive line…Superman returns.
MNF: IKE SINGLETARY @ ‘zona -9.5
Fuck what you heard. This man will NOT let himself get embarrassed on live tv!
Sorry, Kurt.
**********************
Whooo!
Ok. The carpet rid is over.
That was ALL imaginary.
But imagine, for second, that it wasn't.
Imagine that somehow, someway, you found a rarely read site that told you to put...I DUNNO...5 BUCKS on every game mentioned.
And let's assume that for every successful $5 bet you win $4!
How would you feel about me come Monday morning?
just asking?
* Oh yeah, (wow that lil' reminder worked during reread)
FYI: you can watch all sunday night or NFL Network games online. You know how NBC always promotes their ENHANCED online coverage? well that's the NFL feed. I used it to catch the cleveleand/dnever game this past thurs.
Just go to NFL and click whatever looks promising.
BTW: You're welcome.
Is that an appropriate term, "author"? I feel like that's a tad too...heh...AUTHORATIVE.
That's hilariously ironic for reasons that may or may not not become evident in the near future of this blog. I'll try my best, in any case.
What I wanted to tell you (reader) is something I've recently argued, with some success, with my younger brother (of whom I could not think more highly. He is, quite simply, his sire's best, and his brethren's most beloved);
"I might not always be RIGHT. But I'm NEVER WRONG."
This is something I often proclaim sometimes in jest, mostly with complete sincerity, but ultimately with a genuine belief.
And it's not arrogance.
No way.
I've had more than my share of mistakes.
I live a life of regrets, though fewer than people who know me would think.
I can count count on ONE hand the number of things I would do differently had I the chance.
Most of them before I went turned 18.
But that's another post.
The point of THIS write-up is to introduce to vices...two characteristic qualities (or qualitative characteristics) that have, in many ways, defined my adult life:
DING!
DING!
Oh! I have so much to say about both these enriching activities.
No glorifications, mind you. Heaven forbid.
But...eh...you know what...let's start things off this way.
I am a jinn. You are gonna follow me on a magic carpet ride.
WTF is ruff talking about?
*************************
BETTING, MOODA-SOKAH!!!
I’m talking FOOSBALL!!!
This ain’t the UNITED states.
This is GAMBLING STATE!
And ain’t no drumline gonna make it worth your while at half-time so you better lissen to Papa Ruff’s words of wisdom!
Let’s start with the sacred. The Saracen. Da Ting I Don’t Likes 2 Touch...
THE NY FOOTBALL GIANTS @ PHILLY - 3
Hoooleeee Crap!!! A 7-1 DEFENDING SB team with a perfect conf record and an insane road record is a 3pt dog against a team winless in the division?!!?
Alright, lemme let you neophytes in on a lil’ secret. Vegas LOVES giving The Philadelphia Eagles an extra 3 pts when setting their lines. I’ve noticed this phenomenon for about 2 years but I’m sure it predates my own gambling history (what up coo!).
Don't know why, don't know when but whatever it is…know it and make your bets accordingly.
I don’t bet on Giants games for personal reasons but still I’m insulted. That said, this line should at least be a pickem. Taking the home team discount of 3 pts into account that means the experts TRULY believe the boys barely survive a slugfest by a score...
BUT WAIT…THEEERE’S MORE...
BOTH teams have high powered offenses that LOVE playing their rivals. The Giant O is superior but is coming off a tough game and Philly’s D ain’t what it used ta be.
THEREFORE: disregard everything I said save for this:
Take the OVER (preferably as part of a tease)
OK…had to get that off my chest. I’ll run through the rest quickly (bettor's pick in CAPS).
DREW’S CREW in Hotlanta - 3
This is a one o’clock game. Do yourself a favor. Turn off Fox’s pregame about 5 minutes before gametime…turn it back on once the games have commenced and relax in the knowledge that Big Daddy Brees will deliver unto you. Trust me.
Jax on CYBERTRON +6.5
Yeah, this line definitely had to come down, but not enuff. And this has nothing to do with me owning Megatron. Pick against him this week at your own peril (chocolate-covered…yellow…whatever)!
Kerry’s Kids @ CHICAGO +3
Sigh. There are certain teams I don’t mess with. The Titans and the Bears are TWO of them!
Here are my predictions: Kerry Collins (don't be fooled. he's a gunslinger) will hook up with SOMEBODY for a long TD. That might make it close, but Wrecks and this D find a way to cover.
Seagoils @ MIAMA -8
FAVORED BY A TD!?!? Eh. They should be. Remember Holmgren is gone after this year and a lot of their starters are more stop-gaps than anything. Tell Fudd it’s LAME-duck season so we can move on.
GBP @ Minny -2
The GBP (in honor of the release of KGB) just played a more complete version of the Vikings last week. They outplayed them. This WOULD qualify as a letdown game except for the fact that these teams hate each other. Think Giants playing the Cowboys (won or loss) after having played the Steelers. I’ll take Aaron over Frot.
WINGS @ Pats -3.5
Somewhat corny name for Buffalo’s team but one I’m at peace with, partly because it was either that or the “OJ’s”. By the way, THIS is the letdown game we talked about in the last paragraff. Buffalo covers.
RAMS @ Jets – 9
Word?!!? The Rams getting 9 while playing for the rights to their own unis back?!!? Take either the Rams or the UNDER…but not both. (?)
Ravens @ HOUSTON (pick)
All I gotta do is PICK huh? Well, fuckit. I say some crazy shit happens and Baltimore loses. How’s that?!
PANTHERS @ Oakland +9.5
This line moved 2 pts and with good reason. JMR STINKS and I can’t confirm that DMC has played a single game.
BTW, I have a question. Explain to me why it’s ok for the Al Davis to screw Reebok out of revenue from the sale of DeAngelo Hall's Raider jersey’s while Chad in Cincy is not allowed to display his legal name on his work uniform for, ostensibly, the same reason?
Gotta love the NFL.
Indy in the Pitts (doesn’t matter)
Ugh. I don’t care about this game, monetarily. The irony is (and perhaps not) this might be the most entertaining game this Sunday. Of course, few of us will get to see it but there’s always gamecast…which reminds me.* Take the OVER.
Kansassssity @ SANDIEGO -15
Step 1: Go to your nearest BestBuy/CircuitCity
Step 2: Purchase 'Blazin' Saddles' on dvd.
Step 3: Watch repeatedly.
Step 4: Stop sweating this massive line…Superman returns.
MNF: IKE SINGLETARY @ ‘zona -9.5
Fuck what you heard. This man will NOT let himself get embarrassed on live tv!
Sorry, Kurt.
**********************
Whooo!
Ok. The carpet rid is over.
That was ALL imaginary.
But imagine, for second, that it wasn't.
Imagine that somehow, someway, you found a rarely read site that told you to put...I DUNNO...5 BUCKS on every game mentioned.
And let's assume that for every successful $5 bet you win $4!
How would you feel about me come Monday morning?
just asking?
* Oh yeah, (wow that lil' reminder worked during reread)
FYI: you can watch all sunday night or NFL Network games online. You know how NBC always promotes their ENHANCED online coverage? well that's the NFL feed. I used it to catch the cleveleand/dnever game this past thurs.
Just go to NFL and click whatever looks promising.
BTW: You're welcome.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
MY ARGUMENT (vis-a-vis The Economist)
The following is an endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy for President from the editors of 'The Economist.' I chose to post this particular endorsement because it best reflects my personal opinions about the candidates, their campaigns and their possible prospective presidencies. This article also does a fairly good job of acknowledging the risks of choosing Obama for president but lays out a good argument as to why the potential benefis outweigh those risks.
It's Time
The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.
Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.
At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal
conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic
world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.
So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furor about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of
Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.
Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfill his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
*****
I couldn't have said it better myself (which is why i didn't).
Obama '08!
p.s. I recently posted a clip of John McCain yukking it up at the Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner. Here's Barack Obama's set. Funny stuff, (again) especially if you've been following the election. Enjoy!
It's Time
The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.
Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal
conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic
world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furor about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of
Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfill his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
*****
I couldn't have said it better myself (which is why i didn't).
Obama '08!
p.s. I recently posted a clip of John McCain yukking it up at the Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner. Here's Barack Obama's set. Funny stuff, (again) especially if you've been following the election. Enjoy!
OBAMA'S JUDICIOUS TEMPERAMENT
Hello, dear readers!
As some of you may or may not know, I am supporting Barack Obama for president. Whoop-di-doo! But I thought it necessary to clearly enunciate the case for Sen. Obama. Gen. Colin Powell did a very good job of this during his "Meet the Press" appearance 2 weeks ago. One of Obama's qualities mentioned by him and many others was a judicious temperament. I recently read an article from Time magazine that discussed this very same quality. I'd like to share it with you. The following are a series of excerpts from "Why Barack Obama is Winning", by Joe Klein.
"Barack Obama has prospered in this presidential campaign because of the steadiness of his temperament and the judicious quality of his decision-making. They are his best-known qualities. The most important 
decision he has made — the selection of a running mate — was done carefully, with an exhaustive attention to detail and contemplation of all the possible angles. Two months later, as John McCain's peremptory selection of Governor Sarah Palin has come to seem a liability, it could be argued that Obama's quiet selection of Joe Biden defined the public's choice in the general-election campaign. But not every decision can be made so carefully. There are a thousand instinctive, instantaneous decisions that a presidential candidate has to make in the course of a campaign — like whether to speak his mind to a General Petraeus — and this has been a more difficult journey for Obama, since he's far more comfortable when he's able to think things through. "He has learned to trust his gut," an Obama adviser told me. "He wasn't so confident in his instincts last year. It's been the biggest change I've seen in him."
I asked Obama about gut decisions, in an interview on his plane 17 days before the election. It was late on a Saturday night, and he looked pretty tired, riddled with gray hair and not nearly as young as when I'd first met him four years earlier. He had drawn 175,000 people to two events in Missouri that day, larger crowds than I'd ever seen at a campaign event, and he would be endorsed by Colin Powell the next morning. He seemed as relaxed as ever, though, unfazed by the hoopla or the imminence of the election. Our conversation was informal but intense. He seemed to be thinking in my presence, rather than just reciting talking points, and it took him some time to think through my question about gut decisions. He said the first really big one was how to react when incendiary videos of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's black-nationalist sermons surfaced 
last spring. "The decision to make it big as opposed to make it small," Obama said of the landmark speech on race relations he delivered in Philadelphia. "My gut was telling me that this was a teachable moment and that if I tried to do the usual political damage control instead of talking to the American people like ... they were adults and could understand the complexities of race, I would be not only doing damage to the campaign but missing an important opportunity for leadership."
...and speaking of 'leadership'...
"General David Petraeus deployed overwhelming force when he briefed Barack Obama and two other Senators in Baghdad last July. He knew Obama favored a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, and he wanted to make the strongest possible case against it. And so, after he had presented an array of maps and charts and PowerPoint slides describing the current situation on the ground in great detail, Petraeus closed with a vigorous plea for "maximum flexibility" going forward.
Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views "under advisement." Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in 
Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.
A "spirited" conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. "It wasn't a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way." The other two Senators — Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed — told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama's perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible. But the Senator from Illinois had laid down his marker: if elected President, he would be in charge. Unlike George W. Bush, who had given Petraeus complete authority over the war — an unprecedented abdication of presidential responsibility (and unlike John McCain, whose hero worship of Petraeus bordered on the unseemly) — Obama would insist on a rigorous chain of command. "
"...it was Obama's gut steadiness that won the public's trust, and quite possibly the election. On the afternoon when McCain suspended his campaign, threatened to scuttle the Sept. 26 debate and hopped a plane back to Washington to try to resolve the crisis, Obama was in Florida doing debate prep with his top advisers. When he was told about McCain's maneuvers, Obama's first reaction — according to an aide — was, "You gotta be kidding. I'm going to debate. A President has to be able to do more than one thing at a time." But there was a storm brewing among Obama's supporters in Congress and the Beltway establishment. "My BlackBerry was exploding," said an Obama aide. "They were saying we had to suspend. McCain was going to look more like a statesman, above the fray."
"I didn't believe it," Obama told me. "I have to tell you, one of the benefits of running this 22-month gauntlet is that ... you start realizing that what seems important or clever or in need of some dramatic moment a lot of times just needs reflection and care. And I think that was an example of where my style at least worked." Obama realized that he and McCain could be little more than creative bystanders — and one prominent Republican told me that McCain was "the least creative person in the room at the President's White House meeting. He simply had no ideas. He didn't even have any good questions." Obama had questions for the 
Treasury Secretary and the Fed chairman, but he was under no illusions: he didn't have the power to influence the final outcome, so it was best to stay calm and not oversell his role. It was an easy call, his natural bias. But, Obama acknowledged, "There are going to be some times where ... I won't have the luxury of thinking through all the angles."
One of my arguments for Obama has been my belief, however much unsubstantiated, that he is NOT overly passive and that his governance will be more moderate than his legislative record might indicate. Mr. Klein picks up on part of that argument here:
"Which is why the Petraeus moment is so interesting. Obama's gut reaction was to go against his normal palliative impulse and to challenge the general instead. "I felt it was necessary to make that point ... precisely because I respect Petraeus and [Ambassador Ryan] Crocker," Obama said, after he reluctantly acknowledged that my reporting of the meeting was correct. "Precisely because they've been doing a good job ... And I want them to understand that I'm taking their arguments seriously." Obama endorses Petraeus' new post, as the commanding general at Central Command, with responsibility for overseeing both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. "He's somebody who cares about facts and cares about the reality on the ground. I don't think he comes at this with an ideological predisposition. That's one of the reasons why I think he's been successful in moving the ball forward in Iraq. And I hope that he's applying that same perspective to what's happening in Afghanistan."
On Monday I will be posting what I have found to be the most exhaustive and well developed arguments in support of Barack Obama's presidency.
Until then, good luck and good cheer!
p.s. Here's a clip of John McCain's roast of Barack Obama during the Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner that took place in NYC a few weeks back. It's about 10 minutes long but very funny, especially if you've been following the election. Enjoy.
Friday, October 24, 2008
NOONAN ON PALIN
Here's a great Peggy Noonan article from the Wall Street Journal. It came out a day before Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama. Peggy Noonan is a conservative columnist (former Reagan speechwriter). This article underscores one of Powell's arguments against supporting John McCain for President.
Palin's Failin'
By Peggy Noonan
"Sometimes the leak is so bad that even a plumber can't fix it." This was the concise summation of a cable political strategist the other day, after the third and final presidential debate. That sounds about right, and yet the race in its final days retains a feeling of dynamism. I think it is going to burst open or tighten, not just mosey along. I can well imagine hearing, the day after Election Day, a lot of "You won't believe it but I was literally in line at the polling station when I decided."
John McCain won the debate, and he did it by making the case more effectively than he has in the past that Barack Obama will raise taxes, when "now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes." He also scored Mr. Obama on his eloquence, using it against him more effectively than Hillary Clinton ever did. When she said he was "just words," it sounded like a bitter complaint. Mr. McCain made it a charge: Young man, you attempt to obscure truth with the mellifluous power of your words. From Mrs. Clinton it sounded jealous, but when Mr. McCain said it, you looked at Mr. Obama and wondered if you'd just heard something that was true. For the first time, Mr. Obama's unruffled demeanor didn't really work for him. His cool made him seem hidden.
There is now something infantilizing about this election. Mr. Obama continued to claim he will remove wasteful spending by sitting down with the federal budget and going through it "line by line." This is absurd, and he must know it. Mr. McCain continued to vow he will "balance the budget" in the next four years. Who believes that? Does even he?
More than ever on the campaign trail, the candidates are dropping their G's. Hardworkin' families are strainin' and tryin'a get ahead. It's not only Sarah Palin but Mr. McCain, too, 
occasionally Mr. Obama, and, of course, George W. Bush when he darts out like the bird in a cuckoo clock to tell us we are in crisis. All of the candidates say "mom and dad": "our moms and dads who are struggling." This is Mr. Bush's former communications adviser Karen Hughes's contribution to our democratic life, that you cannot speak like an adult in politics now, that's too austere and detached, snobby. No one can say mothers and fathers, it's all now the faux down-home, patronizing—and infantilizing—moms and dads. Do politicians ever remember that in a nation obsessed with politics, our children—sorry, our kids—look to political figures for a model as to how adults sound?
There has never been a second's debate among liberals, to use an old-fashioned word that may yet return to vogue, over Mrs. Palin: She was a dope and unqualified from the start. Conservatives and Republicans, on the other hand, continue to battle it out: Was her choice a success or a disaster? And if one holds negative views, should one say so? For conservatives in general, but certainly for writers, the answer is a variation on Edmund Burke: You owe your readers not your industry only but your judgment, and you betray instead of serve them if you sacrifice it to what may or may not be their opinion.
Here is a fact of life that is also a fact of politics: You have to hold open the possibility of magic. People can come from nowhere, with modest backgrounds and short résumés, and yet be individuals of real gifts, gifts that had previously been unseen, that had been gleaming quietly 
under a bushel, and are suddenly revealed. Mrs. Palin came, essentially, from nowhere. But there was a man who came from nowhere, the seeming tool of a political machine, a tidy, narrow, unsophisticated senator appointed to high office and then thrust into power by a careless Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose vanity told him he would live forever. And yet that limited little man was Harry S. Truman. Of the Marshall Plan, of containment. Little Harry was big. He had magic. You have to give people time to show what they have. Because maybe they have magic too.
But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.
But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.
Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.
No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.
In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.
I gather this week from conservative publications that those whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives. In one now-famous case, Christopher Buckley was shooed from the great magazine his father invented. In all this, the conservative intelligentsia are doing what they have done for five years. They bitterly attacked those who came to stand against the Bush administration. This was destructive. If they had stood for conservative principle and the full expression of views, instead of attempting to silence those who opposed mere party, their movement, and the party, would be in a better, and healthier, position.
Peggy Noonan is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal whose work appears weekly in the Journal's Weekend Edition and on OpinionJournal.com.
BTW. Here's a funny clip of McCain pulling a Bill Buckner on what should have been an easy crowd pleasing line. The best part is that instead of just admitting he misspoke, he tries to dig himself out of it with even more disastrous results.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Great Society Redux?
To any of my regular readers, especially those of you whose loyalty has been severely tested by my lack of production over the past few months, let me apologize.
To put it simply, I get lazy. However, with the heat that this upcoming fortnight promises to give in this electoral season I find myself rejuvenated...somewhat.
Over the course of the next two weeks I will be posting various articles from some of my favoured publications and occasionally offering some commentary on them as well as on the presidential campaign at large. My choice in articles will have less to do with personal politics and more to do with what I think are cogent, intelligent and relevant social, economic and political arguments. My personal commentary will of course represent my own views. I strongly encourage you to read, ponder and comment. Feed back is always welcome. I hope you enjoy!
"Great Society Redux?"
By James C. Capretta
Senator Barack Obama is clearly benefiting from voter anxiety associated with turmoil in
worldwide financial markets. Confronted with daily reminders that the economy has slowed down considerably, many voters are instinctively moving toward the candidate whom they and the media associate with “change.”
Ironically, though, Senator Obama really does not represent change on economic matters — or at least not a change toward something that hasn’t already been tried before, and that might have a chance of improving our economy. Indeed, Senator Obama’s economic ideas and outlook — large expansions of federal entitlements and explicit efforts to redistribute income — look little different from the failed liberal policies of the 1960s.
In the aftermath of President Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory in 1964, Congress embarked on a period of unprecedented governmental activism. A flurry of new laws expanded welfare benefits, created two health-care entitlement programs, thrust the federal government into education financing and policy — and much, much more. To pay for these initiatives, Congress increased federal taxes substantially, including payroll taxes. Between 1965 and 1969, federal taxes increased from 17.0 to 19.7 percent of GDP.
Senator Obama’s economic plan is remarkably similar to those Johnson-era efforts in terms of
its goals, even if the legislative tactics are somewhat different. Senator Obama promises to expand welfare benefits to many more households, although he would do so mainly with a series of expensive, refundable tax credits. He has proposed an unprecedented increase in federal spending on K-12 education programs. And his health-care plan would offer publicly funded insurance to nearly 50 million more people — at a time when the federal budget is already groaning under the weight of existing health-care entitlements.
Senator Obama would pay for this expansion of government with a massive tax increase. He is promising to raise the top marginal income-tax rate to nearly 40 percent. He wants to increase payroll taxes on high-income earners as well to pay for an unreformed Social Security program that will have fewer workers paying the benefits of growing numbers of baby-boomer retirees. And, according to an analysis from the independent Tax Policy Center, his plan depends on somehow finding nearly $1 trillion in revenue over ten years from as-yet-unspecified sources.
Americans are not averse to paying for government programs that genuinely help people. Indeed, many Americans would have concluded that 60s government activism was worth the cost — if it had actually worked to bring about prosperity and equality. But no reasonable observer could conclude that it did — and frequently enough, it made matters worse.
Instead of ending poverty, the Great Society ushered in an era of deepening welfare dependency
and inner-city cultural decline. Well-intentioned support for single mothers and their children enabled an epidemic of fatherless families, with disastrous results. Family breakdown accelerated, and out-of-wedlock births soared. Moreover — with taxes and spending rising, the national economy fell into a decade-long period of sluggish economic growth, with high inflation and high unemployment. American businesses became less competitive. Confidence in our future fell.
Were Senator Obama’s program to be adopted, expect unintended consequences. Alex Brill and Alan Viand of the American Enterprise Institute have shown that his lavish new refundable tax credits would have the perverse effect of increasing the tax rate faced by many low-wage workers looking for better-paying jobs. The more these households earn, the less they would get from Senator Obama’s program of government-engineered financial assistance.
Similarly, Senator Obama’s plan for improving education would backfire. Increasing federal spending for K-12 education would simply allow state and local governments to cut back on their own funding commitments. The net financial gain to schools would be minimal at best. Moreover, with more federal funds comes muddled political accountability: No matter how much money is provided, it won’t stop local school administrators from claiming that their problems are due to insufficient federal support.
In addition, Senator Obama’s health-care plan would stifle job creation. Employers would be required to “pay or play,” meaning they would either have to offer government-approved insurance, or pay a new payroll tax. Such a mandate would make it more expensive for firms to hire low-wage workers. Unemployment would rise.
Moreover, many businesses that sponsor insurance for their workers today would stop doing so when faced with Obama’s expensive insurance mandates. Millions of workers and their dependents currently in private insurance would therefore end up in a government-run plan, with price controls and other regulatory red-tape. In time, increased government dominance in the health sector would undermine quality and stifle investments in those new drugs and devices which might provide breakthrough improvements in patients’ health.
And of course, Senator Obama’s marginal income-tax rate increases would reduce incentives for
work and entrepreneurial activity at a time when our global competitors are moving in the opposite direction.
It took the presidency of Ronald Reagan to get things back on track after the decade-long malaise of the 1970s. Reagan understood that broad-based prosperity comes not from the government trying to engineer economic results but from the accumulated efforts of millions of individuals striving to improve their standards of living with hard work. Given the right incentives — and it’s the government’s job to get the incentives right in tax and spending policy — businesses and households will find ways to improve productivity and bring valuable innovations to the marketplace.
— James C. Capretta is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a health policy and research consultant, and the author of the health care policy blog “Diagnosis.”
(Speaking of Reagan, click here to listen my favorite Reagan quote ever.)
To put it simply, I get lazy. However, with the heat that this upcoming fortnight promises to give in this electoral season I find myself rejuvenated...somewhat.
Over the course of the next two weeks I will be posting various articles from some of my favoured publications and occasionally offering some commentary on them as well as on the presidential campaign at large. My choice in articles will have less to do with personal politics and more to do with what I think are cogent, intelligent and relevant social, economic and political arguments. My personal commentary will of course represent my own views. I strongly encourage you to read, ponder and comment. Feed back is always welcome. I hope you enjoy!
"Great Society Redux?"
By James C. Capretta
Senator Barack Obama is clearly benefiting from voter anxiety associated with turmoil in
worldwide financial markets. Confronted with daily reminders that the economy has slowed down considerably, many voters are instinctively moving toward the candidate whom they and the media associate with “change.”Ironically, though, Senator Obama really does not represent change on economic matters — or at least not a change toward something that hasn’t already been tried before, and that might have a chance of improving our economy. Indeed, Senator Obama’s economic ideas and outlook — large expansions of federal entitlements and explicit efforts to redistribute income — look little different from the failed liberal policies of the 1960s.
In the aftermath of President Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory in 1964, Congress embarked on a period of unprecedented governmental activism. A flurry of new laws expanded welfare benefits, created two health-care entitlement programs, thrust the federal government into education financing and policy — and much, much more. To pay for these initiatives, Congress increased federal taxes substantially, including payroll taxes. Between 1965 and 1969, federal taxes increased from 17.0 to 19.7 percent of GDP.
Senator Obama’s economic plan is remarkably similar to those Johnson-era efforts in terms of
its goals, even if the legislative tactics are somewhat different. Senator Obama promises to expand welfare benefits to many more households, although he would do so mainly with a series of expensive, refundable tax credits. He has proposed an unprecedented increase in federal spending on K-12 education programs. And his health-care plan would offer publicly funded insurance to nearly 50 million more people — at a time when the federal budget is already groaning under the weight of existing health-care entitlements.Senator Obama would pay for this expansion of government with a massive tax increase. He is promising to raise the top marginal income-tax rate to nearly 40 percent. He wants to increase payroll taxes on high-income earners as well to pay for an unreformed Social Security program that will have fewer workers paying the benefits of growing numbers of baby-boomer retirees. And, according to an analysis from the independent Tax Policy Center, his plan depends on somehow finding nearly $1 trillion in revenue over ten years from as-yet-unspecified sources.
Americans are not averse to paying for government programs that genuinely help people. Indeed, many Americans would have concluded that 60s government activism was worth the cost — if it had actually worked to bring about prosperity and equality. But no reasonable observer could conclude that it did — and frequently enough, it made matters worse.
Instead of ending poverty, the Great Society ushered in an era of deepening welfare dependency
and inner-city cultural decline. Well-intentioned support for single mothers and their children enabled an epidemic of fatherless families, with disastrous results. Family breakdown accelerated, and out-of-wedlock births soared. Moreover — with taxes and spending rising, the national economy fell into a decade-long period of sluggish economic growth, with high inflation and high unemployment. American businesses became less competitive. Confidence in our future fell.Were Senator Obama’s program to be adopted, expect unintended consequences. Alex Brill and Alan Viand of the American Enterprise Institute have shown that his lavish new refundable tax credits would have the perverse effect of increasing the tax rate faced by many low-wage workers looking for better-paying jobs. The more these households earn, the less they would get from Senator Obama’s program of government-engineered financial assistance.
Similarly, Senator Obama’s plan for improving education would backfire. Increasing federal spending for K-12 education would simply allow state and local governments to cut back on their own funding commitments. The net financial gain to schools would be minimal at best. Moreover, with more federal funds comes muddled political accountability: No matter how much money is provided, it won’t stop local school administrators from claiming that their problems are due to insufficient federal support.
In addition, Senator Obama’s health-care plan would stifle job creation. Employers would be required to “pay or play,” meaning they would either have to offer government-approved insurance, or pay a new payroll tax. Such a mandate would make it more expensive for firms to hire low-wage workers. Unemployment would rise.
Moreover, many businesses that sponsor insurance for their workers today would stop doing so when faced with Obama’s expensive insurance mandates. Millions of workers and their dependents currently in private insurance would therefore end up in a government-run plan, with price controls and other regulatory red-tape. In time, increased government dominance in the health sector would undermine quality and stifle investments in those new drugs and devices which might provide breakthrough improvements in patients’ health.
And of course, Senator Obama’s marginal income-tax rate increases would reduce incentives for
work and entrepreneurial activity at a time when our global competitors are moving in the opposite direction.It took the presidency of Ronald Reagan to get things back on track after the decade-long malaise of the 1970s. Reagan understood that broad-based prosperity comes not from the government trying to engineer economic results but from the accumulated efforts of millions of individuals striving to improve their standards of living with hard work. Given the right incentives — and it’s the government’s job to get the incentives right in tax and spending policy — businesses and households will find ways to improve productivity and bring valuable innovations to the marketplace.
— James C. Capretta is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a health policy and research consultant, and the author of the health care policy blog “Diagnosis.”
(Speaking of Reagan, click here to listen my favorite Reagan quote ever.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)