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.

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:

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.

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!

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. "

Later in the article, Mr. Klein talks about Obama's response to the recent financial crisis:

"...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.