I've always had the theory that someone's professional life can be separated from his or her personal life. For example, I love the music of Rage Against the Machine, but hate their politics. So, when someone asks me if I like Rage, I say... "They are fantastic." Which leads me to Iverson. I may not agree with his domestic disputes, but I think he's the toughest and most talented basketball player I have ever seen.
"But Nick, what about Jordan?" I never saw Jordan play, plus, pound for pound, Iverson is better than Jordan ever was. Witnesseth... Iverson made the finals with Dikembe Mutumbo, Eric Snow, and Aaron McKie and guys whose names I do not recall. Jordan made the finals with Scottie Pippen and other very good role players. Iverson has consistently carried the team. When the Sixers refused to surround Iverson with good players in their prime (sorry, Glenn Robinson, Keith Van Horn, Mutumbo, Chris Webber, et al.) or good role players (sorry Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Sam Dalembert, Kyle Korver, et al.), they said to Iverson, "screw you." So, when Iverson left it was a bittersweet moment for me. I loved watching him play (I saw the playoff game where he received the MVP trophy; I saw him single-handedly beat the Raptors in the playoffs with a 50+ point game... both live). He embodied what Philadelphia wants its sports heroes to be... tough, no complaints, angry, plays hard. He lived near the city, he went to bars in town, he ate at TGI Fridays. He's a good guy at heart. But, when he's surrounded by the drek of the NBA, it's time for him to leave.
I'm sad because Iverson won't be on my team anymore. I'm happy because he has a better chance to win a championship in Denver than here. I'm sad because it was not an amicable parting (if the Sixers don't retire his number, I'm done with them). I'm happy because the Sixers can now honestly say they are rebuilding.
So, while Iverson might be the bad guy in some peoples' books, I loved him. Good luck to him.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Scary Scary Stuff
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/20/061220094102.ixs3bo81.html
What is in the link above scares the crap out of me. And it's not because the crazy Iranian president wants to kill everyone in the US, Europe, and Israel. It's because no one other than me seems to care. Do you care? Do you care that he's going to have nuclear weapons soon? Do you care that the UN is trying to negotiate with him?
What is in the link above scares the crap out of me. And it's not because the crazy Iranian president wants to kill everyone in the US, Europe, and Israel. It's because no one other than me seems to care. Do you care? Do you care that he's going to have nuclear weapons soon? Do you care that the UN is trying to negotiate with him?
Monday, December 18, 2006
Baby Time!
My best friend from high school, Andrew, and his wife, Ashley, just had a baby girl today (or perhaps yesterday... I got the text message this morning). This is an exciting time for them, no doubt, and a sign of all of us growing up. My wife and I will have kids eventually, but we want to establish ourselves from a professional standpoint before that happens. And, I'm not sure if I'm ready for that responsibility, although I'm sure no one thinks they are, really. It's not like I'm not used to people I know that are my age having kids. My cousin Alex has a son. My wife's friend from high school has a son and another child on the way. And it's not like I don't like kids. I love kids! It's just the responsibility of it all I guess.
So, congrats to Andrew and Ashley! Couldn't happen to better people.
So, congrats to Andrew and Ashley! Couldn't happen to better people.
Friday, November 17, 2006
The Philadelphia Smoking Ban
So, I said I would talk about this. I used to smoke from about junior year in college until right before I met Jenn. I have no problem with smokers (unlike my mom who flips out anytime a smoker is in her vicinity) and I'm not like my DAD (who recently quit and, if he sees a smoker, follows that person around, and taking deep breaths). Anyway, Philadelphia joined a bunch of other cities by banning smoking in any restaurant. If something like 10% or more of the business's receipts are generated by food sales, that particular establishment must abide by the smoking ban or face stiff penalties. Presumbly, the law came about for two reasons (1) some concerned citizens complained that it was not fair (emphasis on the word fair) that they had to breathe in smoke everytime they went out to eat and (2) the passage of this law makes Philadelphia a more sophisticated city. That's all I know of the particular facts, and that's all I think I need to know.
I am ardently against the smoking ban (for the same reason I'm against laws requiring me to wear my seatbelt... although I do everytime I get into the car). This country was based on a free market economic system, which may or may not work depending on one's point of view. In any case, the free market system has, as one of its tennets, that competition is a good thing. In light of those assumptions, here is my critique:
First, if people want to avoid smokers in restaurants they should go to restaurants without smokers. If those restaurants do not exist, some entrepeneurial soul should create non-smoking restaurants. I happen to know for a fact, that there were many non-smoking restaurants in Philadelphia before the smoking ban. The ability for entrepeneurs to start non-smoking restaurants is part of the free market economy idea that the US is supposed to embody. "But Nick, couldn't some entrepeneurs make smoking restaurants?" you may be asking. Well, no, I would answer, because you can no longer smoke inside of a restaurant in Philadelphia. The point is that legislating non-smoking restaurants is not in accordance with the tenets of free choice that this society lives by (presumably). I mean, we can do a lot of things that other people of other countries can't do. That's why people come to this country. When we start legislating against freedom, it's a bad move.
Second, regarding the idea that Philadelphia is trying to make itself a more respectable city (in line with New York, San Fransisco, et. al.)... this step is too little too late. I love Philadelphia. I think it's a great city - small town atmosphere, the comforts and opportunities of a big city. However, there are MAJOR problems with Philadelphia far beyond people smoking in restaurants: taxes that are WAY to high (I do state and local tax... I know this stuff), a murder rate that is just insane (we'll break our record this year), major corruption in the city government, and so many depressed areas of the city it is sickening. So, legislating against smoking in restaurants makes Philadelphia more respectable? Maybe an ounce more respectable. But it doesn't make it respectable enough to be considered a "great" city in a national sense.
The bottom line is that the smoking-ban is a political move by the mayor and his cronies that does virtually nothing for the city while impinging on the creedos upon which this nation was founded.
I am ardently against the smoking ban (for the same reason I'm against laws requiring me to wear my seatbelt... although I do everytime I get into the car). This country was based on a free market economic system, which may or may not work depending on one's point of view. In any case, the free market system has, as one of its tennets, that competition is a good thing. In light of those assumptions, here is my critique:
First, if people want to avoid smokers in restaurants they should go to restaurants without smokers. If those restaurants do not exist, some entrepeneurial soul should create non-smoking restaurants. I happen to know for a fact, that there were many non-smoking restaurants in Philadelphia before the smoking ban. The ability for entrepeneurs to start non-smoking restaurants is part of the free market economy idea that the US is supposed to embody. "But Nick, couldn't some entrepeneurs make smoking restaurants?" you may be asking. Well, no, I would answer, because you can no longer smoke inside of a restaurant in Philadelphia. The point is that legislating non-smoking restaurants is not in accordance with the tenets of free choice that this society lives by (presumably). I mean, we can do a lot of things that other people of other countries can't do. That's why people come to this country. When we start legislating against freedom, it's a bad move.
Second, regarding the idea that Philadelphia is trying to make itself a more respectable city (in line with New York, San Fransisco, et. al.)... this step is too little too late. I love Philadelphia. I think it's a great city - small town atmosphere, the comforts and opportunities of a big city. However, there are MAJOR problems with Philadelphia far beyond people smoking in restaurants: taxes that are WAY to high (I do state and local tax... I know this stuff), a murder rate that is just insane (we'll break our record this year), major corruption in the city government, and so many depressed areas of the city it is sickening. So, legislating against smoking in restaurants makes Philadelphia more respectable? Maybe an ounce more respectable. But it doesn't make it respectable enough to be considered a "great" city in a national sense.
The bottom line is that the smoking-ban is a political move by the mayor and his cronies that does virtually nothing for the city while impinging on the creedos upon which this nation was founded.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Democrats in Office
So, the Dems won. Now they're "running" the government. I guess they ran on the following issues:
(1) Anti-Iraq war... specifically pulling out of Iraq.
(2) Rolling back the Bush tax cuts.
(3) Cleaning up the corrupt Republican government.
(4) Impeaching Bush.
Mainly, the Dems ran on the "Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican" issue as I've indicated before; mainly because they do not want to stand up for something themselves because they may get criticized. Anyway, since they've been elected (granted, it's only been a little over a week), they have since reneged on their promises to the liberal and moderate voters. They are no longer for pulling troops out of Iraq, they don't want to raise taxes, they're not going to try to impeach Bush, and Pelosi is putting up as her second a guy that is about as corrupt as you get (albeit, he doesn't resign... only Republicans resign... Dems stay in office). Anyway, all their voter-promises are fornaught.
My point is, are the people that voted these guys into office going to be pissed? Not sure. But it proves that they ran only to win... only to get into office... only for the power... That's pretty much what politicians are about.
(1) Anti-Iraq war... specifically pulling out of Iraq.
(2) Rolling back the Bush tax cuts.
(3) Cleaning up the corrupt Republican government.
(4) Impeaching Bush.
Mainly, the Dems ran on the "Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican" issue as I've indicated before; mainly because they do not want to stand up for something themselves because they may get criticized. Anyway, since they've been elected (granted, it's only been a little over a week), they have since reneged on their promises to the liberal and moderate voters. They are no longer for pulling troops out of Iraq, they don't want to raise taxes, they're not going to try to impeach Bush, and Pelosi is putting up as her second a guy that is about as corrupt as you get (albeit, he doesn't resign... only Republicans resign... Dems stay in office). Anyway, all their voter-promises are fornaught.
My point is, are the people that voted these guys into office going to be pissed? Not sure. But it proves that they ran only to win... only to get into office... only for the power... That's pretty much what politicians are about.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Scare Tactics?
After speaking with a number of anti-Bush personages, I've come to the impression that many* people think that Bush is making up stuff in his speeches to scare people. To this many* people, please read this... http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/10/D8LAC4OG1.html
Thanks.
* Many does not necessarily mean many, but that was the only word I could use in those two places.
Thanks.
* Many does not necessarily mean many, but that was the only word I could use in those two places.
Music and the Gym
I would like to send a big thank you out to Yahoo. At www.music.yahoo.com one can create and listen to one's own radio station. For example, I like a mix of rap, hard rock/metal, grunge, punk, and classic rock. So I picked like 10-15 artists (The Notorious BIG, Tool, Pearl Jam, The Who, etc.) and Yahoo plays songs from those groups/people and also picks songs from other groups that match a profile of a group I picked. So, I picked Pearl Jam, but Soundgarden was not an option. However, Yahoo played Soundgarden because I picked Pearl Jam. Additionally, you can rate the artist, song, and album on the radio itself, thereby narrowing and/or expanding what music is played on your radio. It's ingenious and I can play it at work while I'm working. I would also like to note that I can turn off the explicit lyrics filter... it allows for a much greater variety of songs. So, I recommend it.
Regarding the gym: I always hate going. I wake up at 6 and I'm like, "damn, I'm sore from yesterday at the gym, and tired, I don't want to go." Two things make me go: (1) I get to see Jenn (which when we work all the time, is no mean feat) and (2) I feel 100 times better during the day. Trust me, it definitely makes a difference.
Regarding the gym: I always hate going. I wake up at 6 and I'm like, "damn, I'm sore from yesterday at the gym, and tired, I don't want to go." Two things make me go: (1) I get to see Jenn (which when we work all the time, is no mean feat) and (2) I feel 100 times better during the day. Trust me, it definitely makes a difference.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Election Smelection
So, Bob Casey will probably win the senate race in Pennsylvania over Rick Santorum. "Why?" one might ask. And I would say, "Well, people are stupid." Here's why. Bob and Rick have the same views on a number of "hot-button" issues: abortion, guns, the war in Iraq (I culled this information from conservative talk radio... but, in the event that someone woud like some backup, I'll find it).
"So, are there differences, Nick?"
Yes there are. Bobert is a Democrat. Slick Rick is a Republican. And as we all know from the transitive property --> Republican = Bush and Bush = bad, therefore Republican = bad. Nevermind that they have the same views on important issues. Nevermind that Santorum has 12 years of experience and brings the bacon back to PA. Nevermind that Casey is going from relative obscurity as daddy's little boy to the Senate. Let's vote for Bob!
In other political-type news, I got into an argument with a co-worker (friendly argument of course) about Santorum's statement on homosexuality (wherein he made reference to bestaliaty and polygamy). Personally, I think people should do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (within reason). However, the senator's point was not that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and polygamy. Santorum is too intelligent a person to make that statement. He is the senator of Pennsylvania, not Alabama. It's not going to ingratiate him to the voters. Anyway, Santorum's point was that why is homosexuality blessed by the Supreme Court and the U.S. government, but polygamy is not? About 100 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy was NOT protected by freedom of religion. Why not? Well, the harm that polygamy would inflict on society outweighs the need for religious freedom... so says the Court.
My whole point here is not that I think homosexuality and polygamy are the same. It's simply this: I need people to report on what someone actually says, not what is politically sexy for them to say (i.e. don't take someone's words out of context.... see also John Kerry recently). My other point is that Santorum had a good point: why homosexuality and not polygamy? Seriously, I want an answer to this question.
"So, are there differences, Nick?"
Yes there are. Bobert is a Democrat. Slick Rick is a Republican. And as we all know from the transitive property --> Republican = Bush and Bush = bad, therefore Republican = bad. Nevermind that they have the same views on important issues. Nevermind that Santorum has 12 years of experience and brings the bacon back to PA. Nevermind that Casey is going from relative obscurity as daddy's little boy to the Senate. Let's vote for Bob!
In other political-type news, I got into an argument with a co-worker (friendly argument of course) about Santorum's statement on homosexuality (wherein he made reference to bestaliaty and polygamy). Personally, I think people should do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (within reason). However, the senator's point was not that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and polygamy. Santorum is too intelligent a person to make that statement. He is the senator of Pennsylvania, not Alabama. It's not going to ingratiate him to the voters. Anyway, Santorum's point was that why is homosexuality blessed by the Supreme Court and the U.S. government, but polygamy is not? About 100 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy was NOT protected by freedom of religion. Why not? Well, the harm that polygamy would inflict on society outweighs the need for religious freedom... so says the Court.
My whole point here is not that I think homosexuality and polygamy are the same. It's simply this: I need people to report on what someone actually says, not what is politically sexy for them to say (i.e. don't take someone's words out of context.... see also John Kerry recently). My other point is that Santorum had a good point: why homosexuality and not polygamy? Seriously, I want an answer to this question.
Funniest Political Ads Ever
This is courtesy of Greg Easterbrook who write for Page 2 on ESPN.com. He's extremely funny and knows just about all there is to know about football.
REPUBLICAN ATTACK AD
Soft, lilting female voice. Because voters worry that Republicans are too right-wing, the voice-over in Republican attack ads is always a sweet, reasonable-sounding woman.
"Did you know that Jim Webb reads novels? That he thinks about sex? Jim Webb has never denied thinking about sex! Jim Webb has been known to receive money. The exact amount of money he has received has never been disclosed! Many drug dealers drive their cars on highways, and Jim Webb drives his car on highways. So what's the difference between Jim Webb and a drug dealer? While serving in the Vietnam War, Webb frequently used profanity, and is rumored to have thought about sex. When five brave firefighters died trying to stop the California wildfire, Jim Webb did nothing to rescue them -- nothing! As a Democrat, Jim Webb advocates mandatory homosexuality, tax-funded Cadillacs for welfare recipients, the abolition of religion, surrendering our country to the United Nations and letting Saddam Hussein out of jail on a technicality. If Jim Webb is elected, Osama bin Laden will be placed in control of the United States military. Why won't Jim Webb release the details of his thoughts?"
DEMOCRATIC ATTACK AD
Booming, macho voice. Because voters worry that Democrats are too squishy, the voice-over in Democratic attack ads always sounds like a steroid-swilling bodybuilder.
"Maybe George Allen is no longer a Satan-worshipper, but many Satan-worshippers are skilled at hiding their true allegiance. The postman, the school principal -- can you be sure they are not Satan worshippers? Can you be sure George Allen is not? As a Republican, George Allen favors mandatory pregnancy, nuclear war against Canada, and the resumption of the Atlantic slave trade. George Allen never has explained adequately where he was on May 23, 1983. Investigators have found many documents related to George Allen. George Allen has been observed leaving meetings. Some of these meetings occurred in private! If George Allen is re-elected, major oil companies will charge for gasoline. George Allen has never denied that George W. Bush is President of the United States. George Allen, George Bush. Powerful insiders don't want you to know that both have the same first name!"
REPUBLICAN ATTACK AD
Soft, lilting female voice. Because voters worry that Republicans are too right-wing, the voice-over in Republican attack ads is always a sweet, reasonable-sounding woman.
"Did you know that Jim Webb reads novels? That he thinks about sex? Jim Webb has never denied thinking about sex! Jim Webb has been known to receive money. The exact amount of money he has received has never been disclosed! Many drug dealers drive their cars on highways, and Jim Webb drives his car on highways. So what's the difference between Jim Webb and a drug dealer? While serving in the Vietnam War, Webb frequently used profanity, and is rumored to have thought about sex. When five brave firefighters died trying to stop the California wildfire, Jim Webb did nothing to rescue them -- nothing! As a Democrat, Jim Webb advocates mandatory homosexuality, tax-funded Cadillacs for welfare recipients, the abolition of religion, surrendering our country to the United Nations and letting Saddam Hussein out of jail on a technicality. If Jim Webb is elected, Osama bin Laden will be placed in control of the United States military. Why won't Jim Webb release the details of his thoughts?"
DEMOCRATIC ATTACK AD
Booming, macho voice. Because voters worry that Democrats are too squishy, the voice-over in Democratic attack ads always sounds like a steroid-swilling bodybuilder.
"Maybe George Allen is no longer a Satan-worshipper, but many Satan-worshippers are skilled at hiding their true allegiance. The postman, the school principal -- can you be sure they are not Satan worshippers? Can you be sure George Allen is not? As a Republican, George Allen favors mandatory pregnancy, nuclear war against Canada, and the resumption of the Atlantic slave trade. George Allen never has explained adequately where he was on May 23, 1983. Investigators have found many documents related to George Allen. George Allen has been observed leaving meetings. Some of these meetings occurred in private! If George Allen is re-elected, major oil companies will charge for gasoline. George Allen has never denied that George W. Bush is President of the United States. George Allen, George Bush. Powerful insiders don't want you to know that both have the same first name!"
Monday, November 06, 2006
News and Explanations
I have decided to forgo ever doing NFL picks again in my life. Here is the chain of events leaning up to this decision:
(1) I am extremely superstitious. For example, I try to watch Eagles games by myself and I do not wear Eagles paraphenalia on Sunday unless I'm going to the game. As a non-Eagles related example: I wore white shoelaces on my left cleat and black shoelaces on my right cleat when I played rugby... I don't know why.
(2) I thought I could predict games with an unbiased eye (regarding the Eagles).
(3) I noticed that since I've been picking games the Eagles have lost those games.
(4) Being superstitious, number 3 is clearly a result of my picking games (and not a result of, say, the Eagles sucking).
Therefore, I will no longer pick games. It also takes too much time.
My friend Joe, with the kick-ass blog, queried whether losing an election is grounds for complaining about the voting process (or searching for a conspiracy). I think (a) this will definitely be the case in the future, especially in close elections and (b) is a sign of what is wrong with some people in this country. I'll elaborate on (b)... people tend to shy away from taking personal responsibility when they do something bad or fail at something. For example, if Al Gore or John Kerry loses an election, it is clearly not their own fault. Clearly, it is because the voting process is rigged. I also think that complaining about elections being rigged is a sexy sort of topic and keeps that particular person, just as an example, Al Gore or John Kerry, on TV. Therefore, I see a wave of these sorts of complaints in the future... by both parties, except that it is cache for Democrats to wave the conspiracy flag at Republicans considering, you know, Republicans control everything with their evil, fascist president.
I've had enough of the sarcasm for now. I would also like to point out the parallel in my two topics today which I did not intend. I am blaming the Eagles losses (sarcastically) on my predicting games, while at the same time lambasting people for making excuses for their own failings. Just thought I'd mention that.
(1) I am extremely superstitious. For example, I try to watch Eagles games by myself and I do not wear Eagles paraphenalia on Sunday unless I'm going to the game. As a non-Eagles related example: I wore white shoelaces on my left cleat and black shoelaces on my right cleat when I played rugby... I don't know why.
(2) I thought I could predict games with an unbiased eye (regarding the Eagles).
(3) I noticed that since I've been picking games the Eagles have lost those games.
(4) Being superstitious, number 3 is clearly a result of my picking games (and not a result of, say, the Eagles sucking).
Therefore, I will no longer pick games. It also takes too much time.
My friend Joe, with the kick-ass blog, queried whether losing an election is grounds for complaining about the voting process (or searching for a conspiracy). I think (a) this will definitely be the case in the future, especially in close elections and (b) is a sign of what is wrong with some people in this country. I'll elaborate on (b)... people tend to shy away from taking personal responsibility when they do something bad or fail at something. For example, if Al Gore or John Kerry loses an election, it is clearly not their own fault. Clearly, it is because the voting process is rigged. I also think that complaining about elections being rigged is a sexy sort of topic and keeps that particular person, just as an example, Al Gore or John Kerry, on TV. Therefore, I see a wave of these sorts of complaints in the future... by both parties, except that it is cache for Democrats to wave the conspiracy flag at Republicans considering, you know, Republicans control everything with their evil, fascist president.
I've had enough of the sarcasm for now. I would also like to point out the parallel in my two topics today which I did not intend. I am blaming the Eagles losses (sarcastically) on my predicting games, while at the same time lambasting people for making excuses for their own failings. Just thought I'd mention that.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Future Topics to Write About
In an effort to get myself to write more meaningful posts, I have created a list of future topics.
(1) The Philadelphia Smoking Ban - I don't smoke any more, but I have some strong opinions on this.
(2) Comic Books, Video Games, and the modern American Male - self-explanatory, right?
(3) The Curse of Philadelphia - what is it about the city that makes sports reporters crazy? We're not that bad (as compared to other cities). I actually have to do some research on this.
(4) My Horrible Music Tastes - I like a variety of music, including, but not limited to some sucky "hard" rock that's played lately. Why?
(1) The Philadelphia Smoking Ban - I don't smoke any more, but I have some strong opinions on this.
(2) Comic Books, Video Games, and the modern American Male - self-explanatory, right?
(3) The Curse of Philadelphia - what is it about the city that makes sports reporters crazy? We're not that bad (as compared to other cities). I actually have to do some research on this.
(4) My Horrible Music Tastes - I like a variety of music, including, but not limited to some sucky "hard" rock that's played lately. Why?
Week 8 Picks
Ha. I had the same record as stupid Bill Simmons last week. Can he love the Patriots any more than he does now? He has them as the third best team in the NFL. Seriously? Who have the Pats beaten? Oh, wait the Jets. I can't be too hard on Simmons because he's finally acknolwedged that Philadelphia fans are in much more pain than fans of any other city. Here are my picks for Week 8:
Texans at Titans (Titans by 3) - Hmm. I'm not sure about this game except that the Titans are pretty bad and the Texans can do a couple of things. This could be a pretty cool game to watch actually. I'll take... Houston 20 - Tennessee 14.
Jaguars at Eagles (Eagles by 7) - That's a big line. Supposedly 50 mile per hour winds on Sunday too. That means no McNabb deep passes. And David Garrard is starting for the Jags (and he can run). I'll pick the Eagles, but by a FG (which is stupid because how can you kick a field goal in 50 mph winds). Philadelphia 13 - Jacksonville 10
Falcons at Bengals (Bengals by 3.5) - I think the Bengals will win this game only because the Falcons will be exhausted after the big overtime win over the Super Bowl champs. Bengals won't cover though. Bengals 27 - Falcons 24
Bucs at Giants (Giants by 9) - Yes, the Giants will win by nine or more. Giants 30 - Bucs 10
49ers at Bears (Bears by 16) - Nah. I don't think 16 is a good line. Bears 24 - 49ers 10
Cardinals at Packers (Packers by 4) - Who wants to watch this game? Blech. Cardinals 21 - Packers 20
Seahawks at Chiefs (Chiefs by 6) - Seahawks can't stop the run. Chiefs can run. I picked the wrong team last week. Won't make that mistake again. Chiefs 28 - Seahawks 7
Ravens at Saints (Saints by 2) - Saints will win at home all freaking year. I'm sick of them. SO of course I pick them to cover Saints 17 - Ravens 10
Rams at Chargers (Chargers by 9.5) - Chargers will win, but won't cover. Chargers 28 - Rams 24
Steelers at Raiders (Steelers by 9) - The Raiders just suck. Steelers 34 - Raiders 10 (maybe 10)
Jets at Browns (Browns by 1.5) - I made a friendly bet on this game. I win. Browns 13 - Jets 10
Colts at Broncos (Broncos by 3) - Simmons has the Colts here. I'm taking the Broncos and their super defense. The Colts can't run the ball this year which will be why they lose. Broncos 28- Colts 21
Cowboys at Panthers (Panthers by 5.5) - Simmons has the Cowgirls here. What the heck is wrong with him? Romo is the starting QB. Panthers 24 - Cowgirls 6
Patriots at Vikings (Patriots by 2) - Welcome to the Dome Pats. Vikes 17 - Pats 14
That's all for now.
Texans at Titans (Titans by 3) - Hmm. I'm not sure about this game except that the Titans are pretty bad and the Texans can do a couple of things. This could be a pretty cool game to watch actually. I'll take... Houston 20 - Tennessee 14.
Jaguars at Eagles (Eagles by 7) - That's a big line. Supposedly 50 mile per hour winds on Sunday too. That means no McNabb deep passes. And David Garrard is starting for the Jags (and he can run). I'll pick the Eagles, but by a FG (which is stupid because how can you kick a field goal in 50 mph winds). Philadelphia 13 - Jacksonville 10
Falcons at Bengals (Bengals by 3.5) - I think the Bengals will win this game only because the Falcons will be exhausted after the big overtime win over the Super Bowl champs. Bengals won't cover though. Bengals 27 - Falcons 24
Bucs at Giants (Giants by 9) - Yes, the Giants will win by nine or more. Giants 30 - Bucs 10
49ers at Bears (Bears by 16) - Nah. I don't think 16 is a good line. Bears 24 - 49ers 10
Cardinals at Packers (Packers by 4) - Who wants to watch this game? Blech. Cardinals 21 - Packers 20
Seahawks at Chiefs (Chiefs by 6) - Seahawks can't stop the run. Chiefs can run. I picked the wrong team last week. Won't make that mistake again. Chiefs 28 - Seahawks 7
Ravens at Saints (Saints by 2) - Saints will win at home all freaking year. I'm sick of them. SO of course I pick them to cover Saints 17 - Ravens 10
Rams at Chargers (Chargers by 9.5) - Chargers will win, but won't cover. Chargers 28 - Rams 24
Steelers at Raiders (Steelers by 9) - The Raiders just suck. Steelers 34 - Raiders 10 (maybe 10)
Jets at Browns (Browns by 1.5) - I made a friendly bet on this game. I win. Browns 13 - Jets 10
Colts at Broncos (Broncos by 3) - Simmons has the Colts here. I'm taking the Broncos and their super defense. The Colts can't run the ball this year which will be why they lose. Broncos 28- Colts 21
Cowboys at Panthers (Panthers by 5.5) - Simmons has the Cowgirls here. What the heck is wrong with him? Romo is the starting QB. Panthers 24 - Cowgirls 6
Patriots at Vikings (Patriots by 2) - Welcome to the Dome Pats. Vikes 17 - Pats 14
That's all for now.
Week 7 Results
Panthers at Bengals (Bengals by 3.5) - I picked Carolina to win outright. They lost, but covered the spread. --> Win
Patriots at Bills (Patriots by 5.5) - I picked the Bills to cover. Patriots covered instead. --> Loss
Chargers at Chiefs (Chargers by 5.5) - I picked the Chargers to win and cover. Chiefs won outright --> Loss
Steelers at Falcons (Steelers by 2.5) - I picked the Falcons to win outright. They did. --> Win
Eagles at Bucs (Eagles by 5.5) - Ugh. Stupid plays. Stupid penalties. Stupid game. I picked the Eagles to win and cover. Bucs won (ugh I say!). --> Loss
Lions at Jets (Jets by 3.5) - I picked the Lions to win outright. Jets won and covered --> Loss
Packers at Dolphins (Dolphins by 5) - This was a stupid pick by me. I picked the Dolphins to win and cover. Pack won the game outright --> Loss
Jaguars at Texans (Jaguars by 9.5) - This was a good pick by me. I had Houston to cover the spread, but they won outright --> Win
Giants at Cowboys (Cowboys by 3) - Another good pick by me. I had the Giants winning outright, they won outright --> Win
Broncos at Browns (Broncos by 4.5) - Broncos cover and win. I had them covering and winning --> Win
Redskins at Colts (Colts by 9) - I had the Redskins covering. Colts won and covered. --> Loss
Vikings at Seahawks (Seahawks by6.5) - I had the Vikes covering. They won outright --> Win
Cardinals at Raiders (Cardinals by 3) - I had the Cardinals winning because Denny Green is a good coach. Turns out he's a bad coach and the Raiders win --> Loss
This week - 6 wins, 7 losses (like last week)
For the year - 12-14
Patriots at Bills (Patriots by 5.5) - I picked the Bills to cover. Patriots covered instead. --> Loss
Chargers at Chiefs (Chargers by 5.5) - I picked the Chargers to win and cover. Chiefs won outright --> Loss
Steelers at Falcons (Steelers by 2.5) - I picked the Falcons to win outright. They did. --> Win
Eagles at Bucs (Eagles by 5.5) - Ugh. Stupid plays. Stupid penalties. Stupid game. I picked the Eagles to win and cover. Bucs won (ugh I say!). --> Loss
Lions at Jets (Jets by 3.5) - I picked the Lions to win outright. Jets won and covered --> Loss
Packers at Dolphins (Dolphins by 5) - This was a stupid pick by me. I picked the Dolphins to win and cover. Pack won the game outright --> Loss
Jaguars at Texans (Jaguars by 9.5) - This was a good pick by me. I had Houston to cover the spread, but they won outright --> Win
Giants at Cowboys (Cowboys by 3) - Another good pick by me. I had the Giants winning outright, they won outright --> Win
Broncos at Browns (Broncos by 4.5) - Broncos cover and win. I had them covering and winning --> Win
Redskins at Colts (Colts by 9) - I had the Redskins covering. Colts won and covered. --> Loss
Vikings at Seahawks (Seahawks by6.5) - I had the Vikes covering. They won outright --> Win
Cardinals at Raiders (Cardinals by 3) - I had the Cardinals winning because Denny Green is a good coach. Turns out he's a bad coach and the Raiders win --> Loss
This week - 6 wins, 7 losses (like last week)
For the year - 12-14
Monday, October 23, 2006
Olbermann's Rant
I finally got around to listening to Olbermann's dissertation and history lesson. Please see it here - http://blogsplotation.blogspot.com/ at my friend Joe's awesome blog from 10-20-06.
Very entertaining stuff. He's quite the public TV speaker. He's horribly wrong, and, unfortunately, horribly convincing in his wrongness.
He likens Bush's signing of the Military Commissions Act ("MCA") to: (1) John Adam's Sedition Act, (2) Woodrow Wilson's attacking of peace advocates, (3) FDR's internment of the Japanese Americans, and most heinously (4) the terrorists themselves.
First, Adams' Sedition Act was meant to imprison newspaper reporters and editors who criticized Adams. The Act was struck down by the Supreme Court about 3 years after it was passed. As far as I know, the MCA does not grant anyone the right to arrest and imprison newpaper editors who criticize the Bush administration... else Olbermann would be in prison right now, being tortured (according to him) as I write.
Second, Wilson's attacking of peace advocates was (a) an attack on Communists and (b) political suicide. Eugene Debs ran as a Communist, which Olbey fails to mention. I'm not advocating attacking Communists. The attack was against Americans. Again, Bush is not trying to take out peace advocates or the American public. Peace advocates piss him off, but he's not trying to imprison them.
Third, the internment. For Olbermann to make such an analogy is despicable and he should be ashamed of himself.
Finally, the worst... the terrorists themselves. I won't even say anything more, except that Abu Grhaib was the work of individual soldiers, not the government.
Olbermann's rhetoric was just that... rhetoric. It's meant to empassion and enflame the Democrats to go to the polls in November and next year. It's meant to make everyone fear the government and distrust President Bush. Needless to say, it will probably work. Most Americans will gladly follow Olbey on his rant and be impressed with his speaking ability and conviction without listening to what he's actually saying. How many NBC viewers actually know anything about history or know enough to know that Olbermann was taking great liberties with his analogies... but that's what it's all about for him. He will say what he needs to to show Americans how bad Bush is.
My last point is this: when he says that someone is going to pick you up off the street as an illegal immigrant and not give you a trial, Olbermann is flat out lying and he's pushing his "fearmonger" agenda. It's sad and irresponsible.
While I appreciate his speaking voice and his acting ability, I do not appreciate his lies and his spreading of fear. As I said before, he should be ashamed of himself. Read the law, read your history, and don't listen to Olbermann because he's a respected journalist and because he sounds smarter than you are. Think for yourself. If you disagree with Bush's policies, please listen to the president and read the laws yourself. Don't just listen to some talking head determine what he thinks the law or the president says. This goes for members of both parties. Think for yourself.
Very entertaining stuff. He's quite the public TV speaker. He's horribly wrong, and, unfortunately, horribly convincing in his wrongness.
He likens Bush's signing of the Military Commissions Act ("MCA") to: (1) John Adam's Sedition Act, (2) Woodrow Wilson's attacking of peace advocates, (3) FDR's internment of the Japanese Americans, and most heinously (4) the terrorists themselves.
First, Adams' Sedition Act was meant to imprison newspaper reporters and editors who criticized Adams. The Act was struck down by the Supreme Court about 3 years after it was passed. As far as I know, the MCA does not grant anyone the right to arrest and imprison newpaper editors who criticize the Bush administration... else Olbermann would be in prison right now, being tortured (according to him) as I write.
Second, Wilson's attacking of peace advocates was (a) an attack on Communists and (b) political suicide. Eugene Debs ran as a Communist, which Olbey fails to mention. I'm not advocating attacking Communists. The attack was against Americans. Again, Bush is not trying to take out peace advocates or the American public. Peace advocates piss him off, but he's not trying to imprison them.
Third, the internment. For Olbermann to make such an analogy is despicable and he should be ashamed of himself.
Finally, the worst... the terrorists themselves. I won't even say anything more, except that Abu Grhaib was the work of individual soldiers, not the government.
Olbermann's rhetoric was just that... rhetoric. It's meant to empassion and enflame the Democrats to go to the polls in November and next year. It's meant to make everyone fear the government and distrust President Bush. Needless to say, it will probably work. Most Americans will gladly follow Olbey on his rant and be impressed with his speaking ability and conviction without listening to what he's actually saying. How many NBC viewers actually know anything about history or know enough to know that Olbermann was taking great liberties with his analogies... but that's what it's all about for him. He will say what he needs to to show Americans how bad Bush is.
My last point is this: when he says that someone is going to pick you up off the street as an illegal immigrant and not give you a trial, Olbermann is flat out lying and he's pushing his "fearmonger" agenda. It's sad and irresponsible.
While I appreciate his speaking voice and his acting ability, I do not appreciate his lies and his spreading of fear. As I said before, he should be ashamed of himself. Read the law, read your history, and don't listen to Olbermann because he's a respected journalist and because he sounds smarter than you are. Think for yourself. If you disagree with Bush's policies, please listen to the president and read the laws yourself. Don't just listen to some talking head determine what he thinks the law or the president says. This goes for members of both parties. Think for yourself.
It's Politics Stupid
Here is an interesting article. The tagline seems to indicate how the Democrats will run things once they win (and they will win)... "How the Party Would Rule if it Retakes the House". Read the article. There is no description of how the Democrats would "rule" if they retake the house. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The Big Donut. Is this a misleading article title? Yes. Is this article and its title indicative of the problem with the Democratic party? Yes. They have no clue what they would do. They only want to get in there. And they say, "hey, we don't know what we'll do, but we'll be better than the Republicans." Okay. So I'm trusting a politician now? Wow. The link to the article is below. If anyone reads this, can you please let me know what the Democrats' plans are (apart from trying to win the presidency in 2008)? Thanks.
Oh, and I leave you with this: By not putting out their own ideas, are the Democrats saying they have no ideas or that they think having an idea would cause them to lose in November? Either way, it's VERY scary.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15365610/site/newsweek/
Oh, and I leave you with this: By not putting out their own ideas, are the Democrats saying they have no ideas or that they think having an idea would cause them to lose in November? Either way, it's VERY scary.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15365610/site/newsweek/
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Week 7 NFL Picks
I'm 6-7 currently. I'm going to try to write more at home after work instead of writing on the weekends (and more general stuff as opposed to just football nonsense). Also, if the lines look unfamiliar (or perhaps familiar) it's because I take them from Bill Simmons' ESPN article. I'm trying to beat that snide S.O.B. for the year. He has his moments in terms of being funny and being knowledgeable about sprots, but generally speaking he is a blowhard. So am I (a blowhard), but at least I admit it. By the way, I'll start picking teams to cover the spread (or beat the spread), and/or win outright. My picks are in bold. Anyway, here are the picks:
Panthers at Bengals (Line - Bengals by 3.5) - The Panthers are better. Much better. There is no way the Bengals (1) stop Steve Smith and (2) stop Julius Peppers. Therefore... Panthers 30 - Bengals 10
Patriots at Bills (Line - Patriots by 5.5) - The Bills are a little underrated and I think they can do some things here. I think they can stop the Pats receivers (such as they are). The key will be stopping the Pats running game. I think Losman can throw deep on them as well. I'll pick the Bills to lose the game, but keep it close until the end. Patrios 17 - Bills 14
Chargers at Chiefs (Line - Chargers by 5.5) - I love the Chargers. I think they kill the Chiefs in this game, despite having to play at Arrowhead. Chargers 34 - Chiefs 10
Steelers at Falcons (Line - Steelers by 2.5) - Yeah, the Steelers killed the Chiefs last week. I think that's more a product of the Chiefs not being able to tackle the past four or five years than anything else. I don't think the Falcons make the same mistake. Plus, the Falcons just got destroyed at home by the Giants last week. This will be a close game, but I think the Falcons win outright. Falcons 20 - Steelers 14
Eagles at Bucs (Line - Eagles by 5.5) - Hmm. I was wrong last week. Dreadfully wrong about the Eagles. The Eagles should win the game here going away. So I'll take the Eagles and Jim Johnson's defense against a rookie QB (I found out today on 610 WIP that Jim Johnson is 16-1 against rookie QBs). Eagles 21 - Bucs 6
Lions at Jets (Line - Jets by 3.5) - The line is too high here. Plus I think the Lions win outright. They are a better team than the Jets. Simple as that. Lions 20 - Jets 13
Packers at Dolphins (Line - Dolpins by 5) - I watched the Eagles-Packers game. The Packers can't cover the pass. This could be a coming out party for Joey Harrington. And the Dolphins defense is good enough to handle whoever GB puts at RB. I think the Dolphins cover. Dolphins 27 - Packers 17
Jaguars at Texans (Line - Jaguars by 9.5) - The Jaguars are a better team, but the Texans are playing at home. And Carr won't have two horrible games in a row. The Texans won't even hand the ball off close to 15-20 times this game. I think the Jag-offs win, but in a closer game. Jaguars 24 - Texans 17
Giants at Cowboys (Line - Cowboys by 3) - Guess what? I need the Cowboys to win this game. It helps the Eagles. Unfortunately, I think the Giants pass rush is too good for the Cowboys and they will destroy Bledsoe. I guarantee TO goes off after this game. Giants 28 - Cowboys 10 (in a laugher)
Broncos at Browns (Line - Broncos by 4.5) - Why? Why 4.5? I don't understand. The Broncos are probably the best team in the AFC and the Browns suck. Oh well. I'll pick the Broncos. Broncos 35 - Browns 14
Redskins at Colts (Line - Colts by 9) - Am I missing something here too? Are the Colts tearing up the league this year? No. So, I'll go with the Colts, but in a MUCH closer game. Colts 20 - Redskins 14
Vikings at Seahawks (Line - Seahawks by 6.5) - This is a hard game. The Vikings are underrated. The Seahawks are overrated. They're playing in Seattle. But the line seems high. I think... Seahawks 20 - Vikings 14
Cardinals at Raiders (Line - Cardinals by 3) - Ha. Revenge against the Raiders. The Cardinals got shell-shocked last week. Although, the Cardinals could still be shell-shocked. If Denny Green is a good coach, the Cards win big. I think he's a good coach (despite playing conservative against the Bears). Cardinals 34 - Raiders 20
Okay, that's all for now. I'll check back in Monday night.
Panthers at Bengals (Line - Bengals by 3.5) - The Panthers are better. Much better. There is no way the Bengals (1) stop Steve Smith and (2) stop Julius Peppers. Therefore... Panthers 30 - Bengals 10
Patriots at Bills (Line - Patriots by 5.5) - The Bills are a little underrated and I think they can do some things here. I think they can stop the Pats receivers (such as they are). The key will be stopping the Pats running game. I think Losman can throw deep on them as well. I'll pick the Bills to lose the game, but keep it close until the end. Patrios 17 - Bills 14
Chargers at Chiefs (Line - Chargers by 5.5) - I love the Chargers. I think they kill the Chiefs in this game, despite having to play at Arrowhead. Chargers 34 - Chiefs 10
Steelers at Falcons (Line - Steelers by 2.5) - Yeah, the Steelers killed the Chiefs last week. I think that's more a product of the Chiefs not being able to tackle the past four or five years than anything else. I don't think the Falcons make the same mistake. Plus, the Falcons just got destroyed at home by the Giants last week. This will be a close game, but I think the Falcons win outright. Falcons 20 - Steelers 14
Eagles at Bucs (Line - Eagles by 5.5) - Hmm. I was wrong last week. Dreadfully wrong about the Eagles. The Eagles should win the game here going away. So I'll take the Eagles and Jim Johnson's defense against a rookie QB (I found out today on 610 WIP that Jim Johnson is 16-1 against rookie QBs). Eagles 21 - Bucs 6
Lions at Jets (Line - Jets by 3.5) - The line is too high here. Plus I think the Lions win outright. They are a better team than the Jets. Simple as that. Lions 20 - Jets 13
Packers at Dolphins (Line - Dolpins by 5) - I watched the Eagles-Packers game. The Packers can't cover the pass. This could be a coming out party for Joey Harrington. And the Dolphins defense is good enough to handle whoever GB puts at RB. I think the Dolphins cover. Dolphins 27 - Packers 17
Jaguars at Texans (Line - Jaguars by 9.5) - The Jaguars are a better team, but the Texans are playing at home. And Carr won't have two horrible games in a row. The Texans won't even hand the ball off close to 15-20 times this game. I think the Jag-offs win, but in a closer game. Jaguars 24 - Texans 17
Giants at Cowboys (Line - Cowboys by 3) - Guess what? I need the Cowboys to win this game. It helps the Eagles. Unfortunately, I think the Giants pass rush is too good for the Cowboys and they will destroy Bledsoe. I guarantee TO goes off after this game. Giants 28 - Cowboys 10 (in a laugher)
Broncos at Browns (Line - Broncos by 4.5) - Why? Why 4.5? I don't understand. The Broncos are probably the best team in the AFC and the Browns suck. Oh well. I'll pick the Broncos. Broncos 35 - Browns 14
Redskins at Colts (Line - Colts by 9) - Am I missing something here too? Are the Colts tearing up the league this year? No. So, I'll go with the Colts, but in a MUCH closer game. Colts 20 - Redskins 14
Vikings at Seahawks (Line - Seahawks by 6.5) - This is a hard game. The Vikings are underrated. The Seahawks are overrated. They're playing in Seattle. But the line seems high. I think... Seahawks 20 - Vikings 14
Cardinals at Raiders (Line - Cardinals by 3) - Ha. Revenge against the Raiders. The Cardinals got shell-shocked last week. Although, the Cardinals could still be shell-shocked. If Denny Green is a good coach, the Cards win big. I think he's a good coach (despite playing conservative against the Bears). Cardinals 34 - Raiders 20
Okay, that's all for now. I'll check back in Monday night.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Week 6 Results
Boo hiss on this week. The Eagles-Saints game was very good except that the Eagles lost. My only beef was how the Eagles had no timeouts at the end of the game. Reid needs to eliminate the middleman on the playcalling. Anyway, on to my pick results (with my winner in bold and the winner to the right of the arrow):
Texans at Cowboys
- Nick's Pick - Cowboys 35 - Houston 14
- Result - Cowboys 34 - Houston 6
Titans at Redskins
- Nick's Pick - Redskins 30 - Titans 10
- Result - Titans 25 - Redksins 22
Bengals at Bucs
- Nick's Pick - Bengals 24 - Bucs 10
- Result - Bucs 14 - Bengals 13
Bills at Lions
- Nick's Pick - Lions 14 - Bills 13
- Result - Lions 20 - Bills 17
Seahawks at Rams
- Nick's Pick - Rams 21 - Seahawks 17
- Result - Seahawks 30 - Rams 28
Eagles at Saints
- Nick's Pick - Eagles 35 - Saints 10
- Result - Saints 27 - Eagles 24
Panthers at Ravens
- Nick's Pick - Ravens 14 - Panthers 10
- Result - Panthers 23 - Ravens 21
Dolphins at Jets
- Nick's Pick - Dolphins 17 - Jets 13
- Result - Jets 20 - Dolphins 17
Giants at Falcons
- Nick's Pick - Falcons 20 - Giants 17
- Result - Giants 27 - Falcons 14
Chargers at 49ers
- Nick's Pick - Chargers 24 - 49ers 3
- Result - Chargers 48 - 49ers 19
Chiefs at Steelers
- Nick's Pick - Steelers 17 - Chiefs 14
- Result - Steelers 45 - Chiefs 7
Raiders at Broncos
- Nick's Pick - Broncos 42 - Raiders 10
- Result - Broncos 13 - Raiders 3
Bears at Cardinals
- Nick's Pick - Bears 14 - Cardinals 3
- Result - Bears 24 - Cardinals 23
Nick's Record for the Week - 6-7
Nick's Record for the Year - 6-7
Reminder: This is not against the spread. That's too hard to calculate and takes too much time.
Texans at Cowboys
- Nick's Pick - Cowboys 35 - Houston 14
- Result - Cowboys 34 - Houston 6
Titans at Redskins
- Nick's Pick - Redskins 30 - Titans 10
- Result - Titans 25 - Redksins 22
Bengals at Bucs
- Nick's Pick - Bengals 24 - Bucs 10
- Result - Bucs 14 - Bengals 13
Bills at Lions
- Nick's Pick - Lions 14 - Bills 13
- Result - Lions 20 - Bills 17
Seahawks at Rams
- Nick's Pick - Rams 21 - Seahawks 17
- Result - Seahawks 30 - Rams 28
Eagles at Saints
- Nick's Pick - Eagles 35 - Saints 10
- Result - Saints 27 - Eagles 24
Panthers at Ravens
- Nick's Pick - Ravens 14 - Panthers 10
- Result - Panthers 23 - Ravens 21
Dolphins at Jets
- Nick's Pick - Dolphins 17 - Jets 13
- Result - Jets 20 - Dolphins 17
Giants at Falcons
- Nick's Pick - Falcons 20 - Giants 17
- Result - Giants 27 - Falcons 14
Chargers at 49ers
- Nick's Pick - Chargers 24 - 49ers 3
- Result - Chargers 48 - 49ers 19
Chiefs at Steelers
- Nick's Pick - Steelers 17 - Chiefs 14
- Result - Steelers 45 - Chiefs 7
Raiders at Broncos
- Nick's Pick - Broncos 42 - Raiders 10
- Result - Broncos 13 - Raiders 3
Bears at Cardinals
- Nick's Pick - Bears 14 - Cardinals 3
- Result - Bears 24 - Cardinals 23
Nick's Record for the Week - 6-7
Nick's Record for the Year - 6-7
Reminder: This is not against the spread. That's too hard to calculate and takes too much time.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Week 6 Picks
I decided to take a crack at predicting NFL games. I don't gamble on this kind of stuff, because I like enjoying football for football. I play fantasy and that's enough for me.
Texans at Cowboys (Line - Cowboys by 13) - The Cowgirls kill a Houston team that sucks against the pass. Revenge game for the Cowboys... but against the wrong team. Cowboys 35 - Texans 14
Titans at Redskins (Line - Redskins by 10.5) - Another revenge game. Another game that shows the NFC East is the best division in football. Redskins 30 - Titans 10
Bengals at Buccaneers (Line - Bengals by 5.5) - The Bengals had a bad game. So what? They bounce back big and Bruce Gradkowski proves he's just a rookie. Bengals 24 - Bucs 10
Bills at Lions (Line - Bills by 1) - Both teams are horrible. For some reason I think the Lions get the win here. I love the Bills defense and running game. I don't know. Here goes. Lions 14 - Bills 13
Seahawks at Rams (Line - Seahawks by 3) - The Rams are Bill Simmons' sleeper team. Too bad they don't play anyone good. The Hawks don't have the running game going and Bulger always does well. I'll take the Rams, but I still don't believe in them over the whole season. Rams 21 - Seahawks 17
Eagles at Saints (Line - Eagles by 3) - A lot of people are predicting let-down game for the Eagles. I predict let-down game for the Saints who will finally realize there are better teams than those in the NFC South. Eagles 35 - Saints 10
Panthers at Ravens (Line - Ravens by 3) - This game is a bear. Steve Smith versus the Ravens secondary. I REALLY want to watch this game, but it's on at the same time as the Eagles. Oh well. Ravens 14 - Panthers 10
Dolphins at Jets (Line - Jets by 2) - Upset of the week. Joey Harrington can definitely beat the Jets. The Dolphins used to be overrated, now they are underrated. Dolphins 17 - Jets 13
Giants at Falcons (Line - Falcons by 3) - The Giants won big against a division rival and, unlike the Eagles, are playing a playoff-caliber team. I think it's close though. Falcons 20 - Giants 14
Chargers at 49ers (Line - Chargers by 10) - I don't know if this is a home game for the 49ers. I think the Chargers defense handles Alex Smith and the rest. Chargers 24 - 49ers 3
Chiefs at Steelers (Line - Steelers by 6.5) - Again, this is a bear of a game. The Steeler should shut down the Chiefs offense and the Steelers offense should get back on track. However, who knows when you have LJ on your team (and that offensive line). Steelers 17 - Chiefs 14
Raiders at Broncos (Line - Broncos by 15) - BY FIFTEEN! Yeah, they cover easily. Broncos 42 - Raiders 10
Bears at Cardinals (Line - Bears by 10.5) - The Bears are the best team in football, NFC or AFC. They beat the Cards on the defensive side of the ball in a low scorer. Bears 14 - Cardinals 3
Texans at Cowboys (Line - Cowboys by 13) - The Cowgirls kill a Houston team that sucks against the pass. Revenge game for the Cowboys... but against the wrong team. Cowboys 35 - Texans 14
Titans at Redskins (Line - Redskins by 10.5) - Another revenge game. Another game that shows the NFC East is the best division in football. Redskins 30 - Titans 10
Bengals at Buccaneers (Line - Bengals by 5.5) - The Bengals had a bad game. So what? They bounce back big and Bruce Gradkowski proves he's just a rookie. Bengals 24 - Bucs 10
Bills at Lions (Line - Bills by 1) - Both teams are horrible. For some reason I think the Lions get the win here. I love the Bills defense and running game. I don't know. Here goes. Lions 14 - Bills 13
Seahawks at Rams (Line - Seahawks by 3) - The Rams are Bill Simmons' sleeper team. Too bad they don't play anyone good. The Hawks don't have the running game going and Bulger always does well. I'll take the Rams, but I still don't believe in them over the whole season. Rams 21 - Seahawks 17
Eagles at Saints (Line - Eagles by 3) - A lot of people are predicting let-down game for the Eagles. I predict let-down game for the Saints who will finally realize there are better teams than those in the NFC South. Eagles 35 - Saints 10
Panthers at Ravens (Line - Ravens by 3) - This game is a bear. Steve Smith versus the Ravens secondary. I REALLY want to watch this game, but it's on at the same time as the Eagles. Oh well. Ravens 14 - Panthers 10
Dolphins at Jets (Line - Jets by 2) - Upset of the week. Joey Harrington can definitely beat the Jets. The Dolphins used to be overrated, now they are underrated. Dolphins 17 - Jets 13
Giants at Falcons (Line - Falcons by 3) - The Giants won big against a division rival and, unlike the Eagles, are playing a playoff-caliber team. I think it's close though. Falcons 20 - Giants 14
Chargers at 49ers (Line - Chargers by 10) - I don't know if this is a home game for the 49ers. I think the Chargers defense handles Alex Smith and the rest. Chargers 24 - 49ers 3
Chiefs at Steelers (Line - Steelers by 6.5) - Again, this is a bear of a game. The Steeler should shut down the Chiefs offense and the Steelers offense should get back on track. However, who knows when you have LJ on your team (and that offensive line). Steelers 17 - Chiefs 14
Raiders at Broncos (Line - Broncos by 15) - BY FIFTEEN! Yeah, they cover easily. Broncos 42 - Raiders 10
Bears at Cardinals (Line - Bears by 10.5) - The Bears are the best team in football, NFC or AFC. They beat the Cards on the defensive side of the ball in a low scorer. Bears 14 - Cardinals 3
President ClinTon
Ah, the Simpsons. I am ClinTon. Anyway, the ex-pres is running around badmouthing everyone he possibly can. Does anyone remember any ex-president that has criticized succeeding administrations as much as President Clinton? Isn't there a point when there should be some respect for the fact that his time is over and it's others' turns. Here's a link to some of the stuff he said:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/oct/12/101210281.html
I agree with some of the stuff (for example, that the Republicans have been hijacked by the Christian Coalition). However, I don't think that the Democrats are conservative. Let me rephrase... I don't know if the Democrats are fiscally responsible enough because I don't know what they stand for.
Gotta love the election season.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/oct/12/101210281.html
I agree with some of the stuff (for example, that the Republicans have been hijacked by the Christian Coalition). However, I don't think that the Democrats are conservative. Let me rephrase... I don't know if the Democrats are fiscally responsible enough because I don't know what they stand for.
Gotta love the election season.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
The Saints and the Republican Party
First, the Saints... I think if the Eagles have their collective heads on straight this weekend, they win easily. The Saints are running on emotion (and some talent). I think the Eagles can put up 40 on the New Orleans defense and generally dominate the game. Speaking of the Saints, I have a hypothetical question for all the Reggie Bush lovers out there: is he going to get significantly better in the future? From what I understand, running backs generally start their careers out with a bang and finish with a whimper. So far, Reggie is not really living up to his #2/should have been #1 billing. If he remains basically the same throughout his career he'll have about 1200 combined yards from scrimmage and 4 TDs a year. Those are worse than Brian Westbrook. I think Bush is an exciting player, but not necessarily as good as people are making him right now. I guess I'll find out some more on Sunday.
Second, the Republicans. I believe in most of what the Republicans stand for, with some exceptions. I classify myself as a libertarian. I believe in freedom for everything. A libertarian with a strong military... that's me. Anyway, I think the Republicans have some good ideas about some things, but they're going down the toilet in a big way lately. For example, this sex scandal (which has made the cover of time) is killing the party... and for good reason. Can anyone sense the irony in this? I sure can. Although, the Republicans should have painted the Clinton scandal as more about lying under oath (as an attorney no less) than as a sex scandal. I think it has more weight if it's about lying. Anyway, good luck to the Republicans. We should have a chance to see what the Democrats will do in office. Unfortunately, I don't know if I agree with the Democrats because I don't know what they stand for other than that they all disagree with the President. That's quite a platform (sarcasm!).
Second, the Republicans. I believe in most of what the Republicans stand for, with some exceptions. I classify myself as a libertarian. I believe in freedom for everything. A libertarian with a strong military... that's me. Anyway, I think the Republicans have some good ideas about some things, but they're going down the toilet in a big way lately. For example, this sex scandal (which has made the cover of time) is killing the party... and for good reason. Can anyone sense the irony in this? I sure can. Although, the Republicans should have painted the Clinton scandal as more about lying under oath (as an attorney no less) than as a sex scandal. I think it has more weight if it's about lying. Anyway, good luck to the Republicans. We should have a chance to see what the Democrats will do in office. Unfortunately, I don't know if I agree with the Democrats because I don't know what they stand for other than that they all disagree with the President. That's quite a platform (sarcasm!).
Monday, September 18, 2006
Stupid, stupid Eagles
Needless to say I'm very disappointed with the Eagles. For those of you who haven't heard, the Iggles lost, in overtime, to the Giants, giving up at 24-7 lead in the second half. I knew the Eagles would lose as soon as the Giants won the toss in the pre-overtime coin flip. That's just my Philadelphia-ness shining through. If you don't have this disease it consists of believing that the worst things will happen to you (a symptom is that the worst things do happen to you), and that everyone is out to get you. Fortunately, I only have the sports version. Knock on wood, I'm very, very lucky in real life. The worst things do not happen to me.
The second aspect of this disease... everyone is out to get you... is no more evident than in reading today's espn.com article regarding the game. See http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/lastcall?page=lastcall/week2. Specfically see who Len Pasquerelli (who I really like) gives his game ball to... Eli Manning. Eli had a horrible game (a byproduct of an Eagles front 8... four each DT and DE) up until the end of the third quarter. This had little to do with Eli's skills. It had much to do with (a) the Eagles playing prevent defense, (b) the Eagles losing their starting CB (Rod Hood) who had previously replaced their starting CB (Lito Sheppard), and (c) the Eagles front four getting no pressure at all. Unfortunately, this equates into Eli being great. To link this to my original point, everyone is talking about the Giants, NOT the Eagles. They should be talking about how the Eagles, who got no respect in the preseason, has killed in the first seven quarters of the 2006 season... and then shot themselves in the foot in the remaining two quarteres (overtime included). This is more about the Eagles being bad for two quarters than the Giants being good. As I told my friend Pete, a Giants fan, "you should be very worried about this team."
Anyway, that's my rant for Monday on the Eagles.
My beautiful wife threw a tremendous birthday celebration for my parents and sister on Saturday evening. She cooked a fantastic meal and I am very proud of her. So the weekend was not a total loss. I also received a bunch of Eagles paraphenalia (bottle opener that plays the Eagles fight song, Eagles air freshners, Eagles tumblers, and an Eagles self-freezing mug), a bunch of Penn paraphenalia (t-shirt, long sleeve t-shirt, and hat), books (Harlan Coben... fantastic; and a book about the writing of the TV show Lost), and a dress shirt and pants (for work). All in all a satisfying birthday with only the Eagles blot.
The second aspect of this disease... everyone is out to get you... is no more evident than in reading today's espn.com article regarding the game. See http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/lastcall?page=lastcall/week2. Specfically see who Len Pasquerelli (who I really like) gives his game ball to... Eli Manning. Eli had a horrible game (a byproduct of an Eagles front 8... four each DT and DE) up until the end of the third quarter. This had little to do with Eli's skills. It had much to do with (a) the Eagles playing prevent defense, (b) the Eagles losing their starting CB (Rod Hood) who had previously replaced their starting CB (Lito Sheppard), and (c) the Eagles front four getting no pressure at all. Unfortunately, this equates into Eli being great. To link this to my original point, everyone is talking about the Giants, NOT the Eagles. They should be talking about how the Eagles, who got no respect in the preseason, has killed in the first seven quarters of the 2006 season... and then shot themselves in the foot in the remaining two quarteres (overtime included). This is more about the Eagles being bad for two quarters than the Giants being good. As I told my friend Pete, a Giants fan, "you should be very worried about this team."
Anyway, that's my rant for Monday on the Eagles.
My beautiful wife threw a tremendous birthday celebration for my parents and sister on Saturday evening. She cooked a fantastic meal and I am very proud of her. So the weekend was not a total loss. I also received a bunch of Eagles paraphenalia (bottle opener that plays the Eagles fight song, Eagles air freshners, Eagles tumblers, and an Eagles self-freezing mug), a bunch of Penn paraphenalia (t-shirt, long sleeve t-shirt, and hat), books (Harlan Coben... fantastic; and a book about the writing of the TV show Lost), and a dress shirt and pants (for work). All in all a satisfying birthday with only the Eagles blot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)