The Liberal Hammer

"When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." - Abraham Maslow

For liberals, that hammer is government.

Recently, I was having a discussion with a liberal about healthcare. Any solution I offered which did not involve government, specifically socialized medicine, got shot down. For him, the only healthcare solution was free healthcare provided by the government. The fact this has never worked well in Canada or England was no impediment to him. "Americans can do it better", he said (although he never makes that point in discussions about Iraq, but I digress).

For me, government is the last option in the tool box of ideas. While government can be effective, it comes with a very high price. And once you give power to government, you cannot get it back.

The greatest irony in this is that liberals claim they are the open-minded people in our society. That is like offering a wonderful buffet, but all it has is hamburgers.

Mind you, that is a generalization. There are open-minded liberals. Unfortunately for the liberals, those people tend to become conservatives when they realize there are other tools to use on problems which are not nails.

Ranking the NFL - Week 8

Steeler fans, you may officially hang your heads in shame.

How about them Raiders? Two wins in a row! If we win the rest of the games, we will be 11-5. And Jessica Alba will be waiting for me under the Christmas tree too...

Anyway, I may tweak the rankings after tonight's Patriots-Vikings game, but for now, here they are:

THE ELITE
BEARS: Love those orange uniforms. But, I also used to like the old Buccaneers' uniforms too, so take that compliment for what it is worth.

COLTS: A HUGE win over Denver. It is now time to give the Colts credit. they are elite. They have just enough defense to keep them in close games, and more than enough Peyton Manning to win.

THE "ALMOST" ELITE
BRONCOS: It is hard to watch the Broncos and not wonder: If Jay Cutler were starting...

SAINTS: The Saints are hanging here by a thread. Losing to the Ravens is not the end of the world.

THE GOOD
CHARGERS: Just taking care of business by beating the Rams. When they lose Shawne Merriman to suspension, that will hurt.

PATRIOTS: Tonight vs. Minnesota.

SEAHAWKS: Since they were playing without Matt Hasselbeck, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. For now.

RAVENS: It is easy to see the Ravens are good, but hard to tell just how good. They beat the Saints and Chargers, but also lost to the Panthers and Broncos.

GIANTS: Spanking the Bucs is a good sign. Their game against Chicago in two weeks looms large. But the game coming up against Houston this week yells "trap game".

FALCONS: I saw "The Prestige" a week ago. Mike Vick reminds me of it. Like a magician, he tells us he will do something, and we watch sceptically as he goes out and does it. But I have to wonder what the trick is...

BENGALS: Which Bengal team will show up next week? Stay tuned...

PANTHERS: Ouch! Dominated by Dallas. This shows those losses earlier this season without Steve Smith in the lineup were not flukes.

CHIEFS: Beating the Hawks minus Matt Hasselbeck proves nothing. Also, their loss to the Steelers a couple of weeks ago hangs over them like a cloud.

THE AVERAGE
EAGLES: A three game losing streak? Considering the best team they have beaten was Dallas, the Eagles are wearing the label "overrated" quite proudly.

COWBOYS: The Tony Romo era has begun. The true test comes in three weeks against Indy.

BUCCANEERS: Don't feel bad Buc fans. Better teams than yours have lost to the Giants. Like Atlanta...

VIKINGS: Tonight vs. New England.

JAGUARS: Don't read too much into their victory over Philly. The Jags could easily turn around and lose to Tennessee next week.

STEELERS: Open trap, insert Steelers. If they cannot beat the Raiders, they can only be average, at best.

RAMS: The Rams should lose to San Diego, and they did. 'Nuff said.

REDSKINS: Oh merciful bye week.

BROWNS: Poor Cleveland. When they get a weak team on their schedule, they beat them, as evidenced by their victory over the Jets. With their upcoming game in San Diego, they remind me of Kevin Bacon in "Animal House": "Please sir, may I have another?"

JETS: Losing to the Brownies proves the Jets may be the worst 4-4 team in the NFL.

THE BAD
BILLS: Bye week.

TITANS: Now if Vince Young could just look this good against a REAL team (not the Texans).

TEXANS: Smart move putting Sage Rosenfels in yesterday. But don't think for a second that this is the start of the Rosenfels era in Houston.

49ERS: Remember that scene from "Monty Python" where the big foot comes out of the sky and stomps somebody? That was the Bears-49ers game, with the 49ers under the foot.

RAIDERS: The Raiders rule! Hey, they beat the Super Bowl champs. Ok, so maybe the Raiders are not great, but we can at least say they are not the worst of the worst.

PACKERS: Favre got to do his first "Lambeau leap". Enjoy it Brett. You won't be playing against Arizona every week.

DOLPHINS: Bye week.

LIONS: There were a lot of bad teams with bye weeks this week. Detroit was just one of them.

CARDINALS: You smell something burning? That is just the hot seat under Dennis Green. On a side note, Matt Leinart is starting to look like what he is: a rookie quarterback. 14 completions in 35 attempts against Green Bay is NOT impressive.

Liberal racism

Mary Katharine Ham over at Townhall.com has a commentary about liberal racism today. Personally, I could not agree more with her.

With their zealous hatred of all things conservative, liberals show their true colors with their "no holds barred" attacks on conservatives, making generalizations that would make a KKK member blush. If you are a black Republican, you must be an "oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside, as though being white was somehow a bad thing). I won't even go into all the nasty things they have said about Condi "Aunt Jemima" Rice (their nickname, not mine).

God help you if you live in the South. Liberals view the South as one step up from Darfur. In their eyes, all Southerners (note the generalization) would go on an ethnic cleansing of all the blacks, if not for those glorious blue states keeping us in line (heavy sarcasm intended).

The great irony is that when I lived in the Northeast, I saw more racism than I ever did living in the South (I have lived in Georgia for the last 12 years). You know the kind of racism I mean: A group of whites sitting together and someone makes a derogatory comment or a joke about blacks, and everyone laughs. I cannot say I have ever seen that in the South, even among the most ignorant rednecks.

One of the things I have noticed about the racists I have known in my life is their lack of a positive self-image. They seem to use racism as a way to compensate for this. It is kind of sad really.

But this does explain why racism is ok for liberals. They are starting to question their own self-image because they know they cannot get a majority in this country, and subconsciously they don't like what they see. The South won't support their moonbat ideas, so there must be something wrong with the South. The South must be filled with racist troglodytes. In other words, the liberal cannot be wrong, so there must be something wrong with THEM.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to racism. When someone refuses to acknowledge flaws in their own self, then that leaves the problem as someone else.

Don't get me wrong. There are some liberals who are fair, open-minded people. Unfortunately, they are NOT the ones pushing the Democratic Party's agenda.

Why to vote Republican in November

Any Democrats wish to challenge the truth of this? I'm waiting...

As mad as I am at the Republicans, the Democrats have yet to give me a single reason to vote for them. In fact, they scare me worse than any GOP arrogance.

(Hat tip to Bob Gorrell over at Townhall.com)

Ranking the NFL

With the Raiders win over the Cardinals, I no longer have an "ugly" category. Of course, the Raiders are still "bad", in the literal sense.

THE ELITE
BEARS: A bye week always helps keep you at the top of the list.

THE "ALMOST" ELITE
PANTHERS: Losing a close game to the Bengals is not necessarily a bad sign.

SAINTS: Bye week.

BRONCOS: No change here. They should beat Cleveland, and they did.

COLTS: Sure they are undefeated. But can they go into Denver and win this week?

THE GOOD
BENGALS: This team may be ready for the next level after their win over the Panthers. We shall see in the next four weeks, with games against the Falcons, Ravens, Chargers, and Saints.

CHARGERS: Their loss to the Chiefs tells me more about K.C. than San Diego. However, there may be rough times ahead as they lose two of their star linebackers for awhile.

EAGLES: It would be hard to downgrade the Eagles when they lose to a decent Tampa team on a 62 yard field goal at the end.

PATRIOTS: Yawn. Buffalo roadkill.

SEAHAWKS: When they lost to Minnesota, that proved they are not anywhere near the "elite" category.

GIANTS: Beating the Cowboys in Dallas was impressive, but still not meaningful in the rankings.

RAVENS: Bye week.

FALCONS: The Falcons didn't LOOK like the Falcons in their win over the Steelers. Mike Vick looked like a quarterback instead of a running-back-playing-quarterback. But can he keep it up? Highly doubtful.

STEELERS: The Steelers ought to be ashamed for making Mike Vick look like Dan Marino.

CHIEFS: The Chiefs proved they are better than I gave them credit for with their win over the Bolts.

THE AVERAGE
BUCCANEERS: Even though the Bucs are coming off a win over the Eagles, and they have had a tough schedule, it takes more than a 2-4 record to be considered "good".

VIKINGS: Beating the Seahawks proves they are good. Their loss to the Bills proves they are bad. That leaves them squarely in "average".

COWBOYS: The NFC East is a tough division to be average.

JAGUARS: I should have paid more attention to that Redskins loss several weeks ago. Losing to Houston proves the Jags are merely average.

JETS: They lose to good teams (Pats, Colts, and Jags) and beat bad teams (Titans, Bills, Dolphins, and Lions). They are still the definition of average.

RAMS: Bye week.

REDSKINS: They SHOULD lose to the Colts. And probably a lot of other teams too.

BROWNS: Their loss to the Broncos only reinforces the fact they have the most brutal schedule in the NFL.

THE BAD
BILLS: Being roadkill for the Patriots only further proves this is a good spot for them.

TEXANS: Beating the Jags soundly only proved the Jags were over-rated. But it does prove the Texans are getting better.

49ERS: Bye week.

PACKERS: So they are better than Miami. They still suck.

DOLPHINS: You know you have problems when you lose to Green Bay. In Miami.

LIONS: A loss to the Jets was to be expected.

TITANS: Thank God for bye weeks!

RAIDERS: Thank you Arizona for proving there IS a worse team than the Raiders.

CARDINALS: They only beat the 49ers, and lost to the Raiders. Forget the Bears game: THIS is the worst team in the NFL.

Quote of the day

"The gavel of the Speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children." - Nancy Pelosi

I guess that is one way to describe the Democratic Party.

A conversation with my daughter

A conversation with my 9 year old daughter Kestra:

KESTRA: Do you know Miss Lee Anne, the school nurse?
ME: Not personally.
[Kestra gives a sigh of exasperation, then continues.]
KESTRA: Well, you know we have a school nurse?
ME: I always hoped you did.

I always knew I would love having kids. I just never realized what great straightmen they made.

Pick the NFL winners redux

Even though I got beaten like a drum, we had fun with our "pick the NFL winners" last week, so let's do it again. (I am surprised Bill Barker hasn't used his bragging rights yet.)

Put your picks in the comments before 1 pm Sunday and I will announce the winner next week. No money, just bragging rights.

Anyway, here are my picks for this week (my pick is in red):

Carolina at Cincinnati: Will the Bengals bounce back after last week's surprise loss to the Bucs? This game is a must-win for both of these teams. I will take the Panthers by a hair.

Detroit at N.Y. Jets: Can the Jets get up for this game after their squeaker over Miami? I say yes, but just barely.

Green Bay at Miami: Don Shula. Vince Lombardi. Larry Csonka. Bart Starr. Dan Marino. Brett Favre. Normally, I would say one out of six ain't bad, but in Favre's case, I will make an exception. Take Miami at home.

Jacksonville at Houston: This one smells like a "trap" game, but I just cannot pick Houston against a better team.

New England at Buffalo: Pats win here by one score.

Philadelphia at Tampa Bay: A must-win for the Bucs. Only a nice-to-have win for the Eagles. Take the Bucs in their second upset win.

Pittsburgh at Atlanta: This is the game I have been waiting to see for weeks. I want to see how a good 3-4 defense handles Atlanta's option offense. I think Pittsburgh can.

San Diego at Kansas City: I think K.C. was looking past Pittsburgh last week to this game. Unfortunately, it won't do them any good. Take the Bolts.

Denver at Cleveland: The Brownies have had two weeks to prepare for the Broncos. It ain't enough.

Arizona at Oakland: According to the news, this is one of the alleged target sites for a terrorist bombing this weekend. With these two teams, I would call it more of a mercy killing. Regardless, I think Arizona will take out their frustrations from Monday night on the hapless (or is that hopeless?) Raiders.

Minnesota at Seattle: The Sea Birdies should beat almost anyone at home. The Vikes are no exception.

Washington at Indianapolis: A bad secondary vs. Peyton Manning. You do the math.

N.Y. Giants at Dallas: Heads Dallas wins, tails Giants win. It's heads.

Blacks don't get bad service at restaurants?

NEWSFLASH: Chris Rock's mother gets bad service at restaurant! Details at 11!

Seriously, when I read the following story on CNN.com, I was floored:

"Rose Rock, the mother of comedian Chris Rock, claims she was racially discriminated against when she was seated but ignored for a half hour at a Cracker Barrel restaurant along the South Carolina coast.

Rock said Tuesday she planned to sue the Lebanon, Tennessee-based company. A Cracker Barrel spokeswoman said the restaurant chain was investigating and taking the complaint "very seriously."

Cracker Barrel has in the past faced numerous lawsuits and a federal inquiry over complaints of refusing to serve black customers, discriminating against minority workers and firing gay employees. The company has taken steps to rebuild its folksy image and reach out to minorities.

Rock, who is from Georgetown, said she and her 21-year-old daughter were the only blacks at the chain's Murrells Inlet restaurant in April. She said when she asked the manager about the delay she was told they could have a free meal.

"He never called over the waitresses and asked, 'Why did these people sit here for a half hour without service?' " she said. "The only thing he said was we could have a free meal and neither of us wanted to eat.""

I will grant it is possible this situation occurred because of discrimination. But I do not see the proof in this story. Did the non-black customers get their food in a timely manner?

Add in the fact that I, as a white man, have been through this same kind of thing at restaurants more times than I care to recall, and the discrimination charge seems pretty frivolous.

Someone needs to give Rose Rock a copy of the story, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Ranking the NFL

The foggy NFL picture is becoming clearer, so it is time to look at where the teams rank:

THE ELITE
BEARS: With their schedule, this team could go 16-0. The only tough matchups the rest of the way are at the Giants, at the Patriots, and at the Rams. The way they beat up on the Seahawks three weeks ago (37-6) shows they can play with the big boys. The way they beat the Cardinals last night shows they can find ways to win (and a little luck never hurts).

THE "ALMOST" ELITE
SEAHAWKS: Even without Shaun Alexander, they manage to win, with their only loss coming to "da Bears".

PANTHERS: This ranking is based strictly on the presence of Steve Smith. With him, they are 4-0, including wins over the Saints and Ravens. Without him, they are 0-2, losing to the Falcons and Vikings.

SAINTS: Aside from a squeaker they lost to the Panthers in Carolina, this Saints team has been dominant. Winning against the Eagles showed they can win the big ones.

BRONCOS: After their week 1 loss to the Rams, the Broncos have rolled through their schedule, including consecutive wins over the Patriots and the Ravens.

COLTS: Until they lose, the Colts have to be considered up there. However, their only decisive victory came against the hapless Texans. In their favor, the Colts did manage to beat the Jaguars in a close game; however, their defense is weak, and their running game is questionable. But as long as Peyton Manning is there, they have a chance.

THE GOOD
CHARGERS: San Diego is a borderline "almost elite" team. Their loss to the Ravens almost drops them a notch, but the Chargers take care of the bad teams with ease.

EAGLES: Another borderline "almost elite" team. Losses to the Saints and Giants are holding them down, but they MUST be respected.

PATRIOTS: This team is still hard to peg. They lost to the Broncos, but they also beat the Bengals.

GIANTS: Why aren't the G-Men rated higher? Because they can't beat the "almost elite", having lost to the Colts and Seahawks. Add in some really sloppy play, and this rating may be generous.

RAVENS: Their win against the Chargers showed how good they can be. The last two losses to the Broncos and Panthers showed they are not quite ready for the "almost elite".

JAGUARS: Another hard team to peg, but they are good. I just can't rank them higher after that loss to the Redskins two weeks ago.

FALCONS: A borderline "good" team. With their only losses to the Saints and the Giants, and some dominant wins over lesser teams, it is hard to be certain which Falcon team is real.

BENGALS: Their loss to the Buccaneers was a head-scratcher. However, they may drop to average, or rise to "almost elite", in the next five weeks, with games against the Panthers, Falcons, Ravens, Chargers, and Saints. That is a brutal schedule.

STEELERS: How can a 2-3 team be called "good"? They lost to the Jags, Bengals, and Chargers. With Pittsburgh seemingly coming out of their funk against K.C., this rating may actually be a little low.

THE AVERAGE
BUCCANEERS: Only one win? But it was against the Bengals. Their losses to the Ravens, Falcons, Panthers, and Saints, tell me they are NOT a one-win team. They might even be good.

COWBOYS: Losses to the Eagles and Jags leave the Cowboys here.

JETS: They lose to good teams (Pats, Colts, and Jags) and beat bad teams (Titans, Bills, and Dolphins). I would call that the definition of average.

RAMS: If you consider the Rams week 1 victory over the Broncos a fluke, then they have to be ranked here. They lost to the 49ers!

VIKINGS: Ignoring the OT win over the "Steve Smith"-less Panthers, the Vikes have beaten the Redskins and Lions. Nothing to get excited about here.

REDSKINS: How do they beat the Jags and lose to the Titans? Parity is a cruel mistress.

CHIEFS: When your only wins are against the 49ers and Cardinals, calling you "average" is kind.

BROWNS: I know. Only one win, and that was against the Raiders. But look who they lost to: Saints, Bengals, Ravens, and Panthers. They may have the most brutal schedule in the NFL.

THE BAD
BILLS: Almost average. Beating the Vikes was a good sign. Losing to the Lions was not.

TEXANS: They have played poorly, but they have had some tough games: Eagles, Colts, Redskins, and Cowboys.

CARDINALS: They almost beat the elite team, and they might even be better than this. But only beating the 49ers doesn't put you high up in the rankings.

49ERS: They are getting better. At least the 49ers are fun to watch now.

DOLPHINS: If Culpepper ever gets healthy, this is a better team. Until then...

PACKERS: Time to retire Brett. Sure they have lost to some good teams. But the way they looked, I am not sure it would have made a difference.

LIONS: If the Lions resurrected Vince Lombardi as their head coach...they would still lose.

TITANS: The Redskins game was a fluke. They are REALLY this bad. However, with a few more wins, they might move up to average.

THE UGLY
RAIDERS: Sorry Raider fans. But if you look at this team, you know it is true. I just hope they can sneak in a win somewhere.

Early results from last week's "Pick the NFL winners"

Time for me to eat a little crow after my awful NFL picks from last week. Whose brain-dead idea was it to start this thing?

Oh yeah, I guess it was me. Never mind.

Buffalo at Detroit: I was wrong. Detroit is every bit as mediocre as Buffalo.

Carolina at Baltimore: Wrong again, but is it my fault Steve McNair got hurt early?

Cincinnati at Tampa Bay: This was a shocker.

Houston at Dallas: No surprises here.

N.Y. Giants at Atlanta: Amazingly, the Giants not only did NOT stop Atlanta's running game, the G-Men put on a running clinic of their own.

Philadelphia at New Orleans: I'm a believer now. The Saints are for real.

Seattle at St. Louis: Seattle proves me wrong in a squeaker.

Tennessee at Washington: Huh? What the heck happened here? Gibbs, time to go back to NASCAR.

Kansas City at Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh has not looked like the Super Bowl champs all season. Until this game.

Miami at N.Y. Jets: Hey! I got one! (barely, but I'll take it)

San Diego at San Francisco: Note to Robert George: Was I right, or was I right?

Oakland at Denver: Sorry Raider fans. On the bright side, just think of that high draft pick we'll get next year...

Chicago at Arizona: TBD tonight.

In total, I got 4 right. If you need me, I'll be hiding under my desk for the rest of the day.

How all of you did (with your Chicago-Arizona pick):
Bill Barker: 8 (Bears)
RAGS: 7 (Cards)
J. Mark English: 7 (Cards)


UPDATE: After the Bears amazing come-from-behind victory last night, Bill Barker seals the win with an impressive 9 correct. Kudos Mr. Barker!

Why the Chargers over the 49ers is a no-brainer

Based on my NFL predictions this week, Robert George asked:

"San Diego at San Francisco. Ed, how can YOU ask that? SF is much improved while the Chargers (or Philip Rivers) have forgotten that they have a Pro-Bowl tight end. Marty Schottenheimer is bringing his bad mojo to yet another team. And LT ain't LT no more."

Robert, while San Francisco has improved, they still have a LONG way to go. Even though I won't say it is impossible to the 49ers to beat the Chargers ("any given Sunday"), it would be a monster upset if they did.

Consider the following stats (Chargers shown first):

RECORD: 3-1 vs. 2-3
TURNOVER MARGIN: +6 vs. -2
RUSHING YARDS/GAME: 176.0 vs. 122.2
PASSING YARDS/GAME: 174.8 vs. 205.8
RUSHING YARDS ALLOWED/GAME: 66.5 vs. 126.2
PASSING YARDS ALLOWED/GAME: 138.0 vs. 224.0

Let's look at who the teams have won and lost against.

The Chargers only loss came to a very solid Baltimore Ravens team in a close game (16-13), while they beat Oakland, Tennessee, and Pittsburgh.

The 49ers beat St. Louis and Oakland and lost to Arizona, Philadelphia, and Kansas City. At first glance, you might say St. Louis is not a bad team to have a victory against. They are 4-1. But when you consider that two of the 49ers four wins last year came against the Rams, that victory is a little less impressive.

But back to Robert's points. It is quite true the Chargers have not been utilizing Antonio Gates as much as they have in the past. But according to Phil Rivers, a lot of that is due to Gates being double-teamed much of the time.

As for LT not being LT, he is now LT and Michael Turner. The Chargers are second in the NFL (behind only Atlanta) with 176 rushing yards per game. I would call that an effective running game, wouldn't you?

The only prayer the 49ers have against the Chargers will be the "Hail Mary"!

Pick the NFL winners!

Let's see who can pick the winners in this weeks NFL games. Just for fun. No money. Plenty of bragging rights.

This will be cross-posted on three blogs (Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends), so I will report the results from all three.

The only requirement is your post must be time-stamped before 1 pm EST on Sunday.

Here are my picks (in red):

Buffalo at Detroit: Buffalo is bad, but Detroit is worse. I'll take Buffalo to squeak by in this one.

Carolina at Baltimore: Pity the Panthers. Having to face the Baltimore defense coming off their Monday night loss to Denver.

Cincinnati at Tampa Bay: Cincy has had two weeks to prepare. This could be ugly too.

Houston at Dallas: Dallas should be sufficiently "T.O.'d" after their loss to the Eagles.

N.Y. Giants at Atlanta: This is the game of the week. Can the Giants run defense stop Atlanta's league best running game? Hard to say, but I'm taking the Falcons.

Philadelphia at New Orleans: Are the Saints for real? If they pull off this win, then I'm a believer. Until then, take the Eagles.

Seattle at St. Louis: I'm leaning towards St. Louis in a game which will go a long way towards determining the NFC West champ.

Tennessee at Washington: Skins. If you have to ask why, you haven't seen the Titans this year.

Kansas City at Pittsburgh: Until Pittsburgh gets on the right track, they are going to have a hard time with even mediocre competition like K.C.

Miami at N.Y. Jets: J-E-T-S! Jets Jets Jets!

San Diego at San Francisco: Do you even have to ask?

Oakland at Denver: Allow me to repeat: Do you even have to ask?

Chicago at Arizona: Da Bears in Da Desert. Ob la Da...

The Left's Fascist Agenda on Global Warming

I was all ready to do my weekly fluffy fantasy football post, when I read something disturbing at the U.S. Senate Committee Environment & Public Works website:

"A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no"

In defense of David Roberts, here is the entire post he made (from the link above):

"Check out this startling excerpt from George Monbiot's new book Heat.

It's about the climate-change "denial industry," which most of you are probably familiar with. What you may not know about is the peculiar role of the tobacco industry in the whole mess. I've read about this stuff for years and even I was surprised by some of the details.

When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."

In order to give Mr. Roberts a fair hearing, I go to the link to George Monbiot's book excerpt, which allegedly links the tobacco industry to the "global warming deniers". It was the usual conspiratorial garbage until I got to this part:

"The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists."

I read everything JunkScience.com had to say about global warming, and I missed the name-calling of which the website is accused. If anything, I found their articles on global warming to be objective, without the partisan venom displayed by George Monbiot and David Roberts. In fact, JunkScience.com explicitly does NOT deny that global warming is happening, or that human emissions are having an impact. It merely puts the human factor within the context of other environmental factors which have a greater impact. In other words, we could reduce human emissions to zero and still not prevent global warming if the other factors are going to cause it anyway.

Speaking of Roberts, let us return to his idea about Nuremberg trials for global warming deniers. I wonder if he would be willing to have himself put on trial if either (1) global warming never comes to pass, or (2) it is definitively proven that human emissions have NOT caused it.

What worries me about even suggesting such trials is it displays the contempt the environmental movement shows for those opposed to it. Given the power and oppurtunity, I can easily imagine them running such trials even in the absence of global warming. How dare anyone challenge their enlightened views!

And maybe JunkScience.com SHOULD equate "environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists."

Foley and Illegal Immigration

For me, the two big issues in the upcoming midterm election are:

1. The Foley scandal. The questions for me are: What did the Republican leadership know, when did they know it, and why did they fail to act on it? If the Republican leadership did fail in this scandal, why are they still being supported by MY representative?

2. Illegal immigration. I still want to know why Congress passed a bill giving Homeland Security funding to build a wall on the Mexican border, but NOT requiring DHS to build it? And why only 700 miles when the border is nearly three times that?

The first issue shows me that Republicans are more concerned about retaining power than they are, per the second issue, resolving problems. If I want a power hungry party that won't solve problems, I can vote Democrat.

If I vote for a representative at all, it will be third party.

That said, in local political offices, I will still consider voting Republican. The state of Georgia is one of the better run states in which I have lived.

Random Thoughts on the NFL in Week 5

MINNESOTA 26, DETROIT 17: Who was the moron who thought Jon Kitna (3 interceptions) would be a good starting quarterback? Hello, Matt Millen. Or is that goodbye Matt Millen?

SAN FRANCISCO 34, OAKLAND 20: While the rest of the world was watching the T.O. vs. his old team, I watched this.

Oakland may not win a game this year. If they do, it's a fluke. This team is AWFUL! Even Randy Moss is dogging it.

I don't know if they could find three worse quarterbacks in the NFL. I include Aaron Brooks, even though he did not play. I have seen enough of Brooks this year to know he is not any better than he was with New Orleans. The best part: Oakland passed on Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler for these three bums.

Their defense? Well, San Fran put up 27 points on them (7 points came from an ugly fumble return). There is no defense in Oakland. Or FOR Oakland.

As for the 49ers, it is hard to praise them when the Raiders looked so bad.

Running back Frank Gore looks like the real deal. He runs hard and fast. He doesn't lose anything late in the game either (one of my concerns about him was that he would be like Charlie Garner). When the 49ers actually block for him, Gore is scary good.

Quarterback Alex Smith has me curious though. When he plays against bad defenses, he makes them pay dearly. Now I want to see him put together a good game against a good defense. Then we will know he has arrived.

INDIANAPOLIS 14, TENNESSEE 13: This game never should have been this close. Indy mailed this one in. Of course, they can do that against Tennessee.

By the way, did anyone notice Indy is undefeated going into their bye week, and they have already swept all their division foes?

JACKSONVILLE 41, N.Y. JETS 0: The Jets didn't look bad. Jacksonville looked dominant. I think the Jags were a little ticked after their overtime loss to the Redskins last week.

ST. LOUIS 23, GREEN BAY 20: I was watching the end of this game with my dad. When Green Bay got the ball at the end and started driving, I told him, "The only question is whether Favre will give the game away before the Packers score."

A minute later, Favre fumbles and the Rams recovered. Do I know Brett Favre or what?

KANSAS CITY 23, ARIZONA 20: If Arizona had an offensive line, they might have won this game.

CHICAGO 40, BUFFALO 7: Rex Grossman. Respect him or pay the price. He doesn't put up huge numbers like a Peyton Manning. Just watch him win games.

PHILADELPHIA 38, DALLAS 24: Forget Terrell Owens. Donovan McNabb rocks!

By the way, Rush Limbaugh was wrong. I like Rush on politics. But on football, his knowledge has the quality of a matchbook cover.

CAROLINA 20, CLEVELAND 12: Yawn. Who cares?

NEW ORLEANS 24, TAMPA BAY 21: Even though I thought New Orleans would win, I must say I was surprised by Bucs QB Bruce Gradkowski. He looked real good.

Before everyone in Tampa starts thinking "quarterback controversy", consider that Cadillac Williams had his best game of the season so far. That was sorely lacking when Chris Simms was starting.

N.Y. GIANTS 19, WASHINGTON 3: I will take my lumps on this one now. I thought it would be a good offensive shootout. It wasn't even close to that. What a yawner!

Note to Tom Coughlin: You still haven't fixed your offensive problems, although the defense looked a lot better.

Note to Joe Gibbs: This is the kind of game your teams needs to win. They didn't. Time to retire.

NEW ENGLAND 20, MIAMI 10: Joey Harrington loses to Tom Brady. Any surprises here? I thought not.

SAN DIEGO 23, PITTSBURGH 13: Amazing! Phil Rivers CAN win games! And Ben Roethlisberger CAN lose games!

Maybe that second part is not too big a surprise, since that is all Roethlisberger has done this year. But Roethlisberger better get his act together soon or the Steelers will be on the outside looking in come January.

As for Phil Rivers, I almost wonder if this Chargers team will be the one that puts Marty Schottenheimer into the Super Bowl? Nah...

Week 5 Fantasy Football Predictions

Time to get out the fantasy crystal football, which is clearly broken when it comes to kickers. But we will see what it says anyway.

I will also say the game of the week should be the Giants-Redskins. For you defensive purists out there, maybe not so much.

QB: Mark Brunell has been hot lately. Expect this to continue against the Giants, who seem a little "short" on defense lately.

On the flip side, expect Eli Manning to also have a good game against the Redskins, who are still missing Shawn Springs in the secondary.

RB: For my no-brainer of the week, go with Larry Johnson against Arizona. Matt Leinart may never see the field.

If "Fragile" Fred Taylor can stay healthy, he should have a big day against the Jets.

WR: Look for Troy Williamson to put it in the end zone against the pussycats from Detroit. He should also rack up some good yardage too.

Santana Moss. 'Nuff said.

Also, let the Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce tandem ride this week against the Packers "Cheese Whiz" defense.

TE: If you have either Jeremy Shockey or Chris Cooley, feel good about this week.

K: I will take George Blanda and Jan Stenerud. They should do as well as anyone I would pick.

Seriously, Lawrence Tynes looks like a good pick against Arizona's aerobics defense (bend and keep bending).

Gotta love Ryan Longwell against the Detroit "Pussycats". If Minnesota's offense fails to convert a third down at any point, it will undoubtedly already be within field goal range.

DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS: The Chiefs look sweet against Arizona's red-faced birds. Dante Hall might even put one in the end zone for them.

Take the Colts against the rebuilding Titans. Welcome to the NFL, Vince Young.

Week 4 Fantasy Football Review

It was kind of a mixed week for my fantasy football predictions. Where I was good, I was outstanding.

Unfortunately, I still can't predict a kicker to save my life.

WINNERS
QB Marc Bulger: 328 passing yards, 3 passing touchdowns, -1 yard rushing
QB Donovan McNabb: 288 passing yards, 2 passing touchdowns, 47 rushing yards, 2 rushing touchdowns
RB Julius Jones: 23 carries, 122 rushing yards, 1 rushing touchdown
WR Torry Holt: 6 catches, 102 receiving yards, 1 receiving touchdown
WR Isaac Bruce: 7 catches, 100 receiving yards, 1 receiving touchdown
Bears DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS: 2 interceptions, 5 sacks, 6 points allowed

TIES
RB Ronnie Brown: 12 carries, 49 rushing yards, 8 catches, 62 receiving yards
WR Chris Chambers: 3 catches, 28 receiving yards, 1 receiving touchdown, 1 carry, 14 rushing yards
TE Tony Gonzalez: 5 catches, 59 receiving yards
Rams DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS: 2 interceptions, 1 fumble recovery, 2 sacks, 34 points allowed

LOSERS
WR Donte' Stallworth: 1 catch, 26 receiving yards
TE L.J. Smith: 2 catches, 38 receiving yards
K Rian Lindell: 1 field goal, 2 extra points
K David Akers: 1 field goal, 4 extra points

Lose one game? Fire the coach!

You are undefeated going into the third game of the season. Your opponent is also undefeated, and looking very tough. You lose in their stadium by 3 points. What happens next? Naturally, the fans, the team, and Media call for the coach's head!

Say what?

That seems to be what is happening with the San Diego Chargers. According to Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune:

"No one is happy.

Only Keenan McCardell is really saying so publicly, which should endear him to the thousands of Chargers fans who are beside themselves over Sunday's 16-13 loss in Baltimore and too many like it under Marty Schottenheimer.

But be certain about this: Not a soul at Chargers Park is pleased.

Many players, including McCardell, pointed out there are 13 games to play, which might be precisely the point."

Acee's article goes on to quote Charger management that nothing surrounding the coaching will be reviewed until after the season.

To be fair, the article does point to some bad coaching decisions by Schottenheimer.

Dealing with first year starting QB Phil Rivers:

"Asked yesterday whether [Schottenheimer] lacked confidence in Rivers, Schottenheimer balked.

“I have complete trust in him,” said the coach, who approved a sequence of play calls that had Rivers throw just once in the third quarter Sunday.

However, Schottenheimer was asked later if Drew Brees were still the quarterback would Sunday's play-calling have been different and would he have been willing to take more risks?

“I think that is a fair assessment,” he replied. “We're not asking Philip to do all the things we asked a five-year veteran to do.”

...After the game, Ravens linebacker Bart Scott said this to the Baltimore Sun: “I'm glad (Schottenheimer) stuck with his game plan, because that Rivers kid could play.”

...[Phil Rivers] played it cool when told of Schottenheimer's comments about how things would have been different if a veteran QB had been under center. But he was clearly crestfallen and then a little angry.

“My hope is there isn't a lack of confidence or trust,” he said. "

Ouch!

In case you had not noticed, Schottenheimer does not deal well with young quarterbacks. He has a bad case of "George Allen syndrome" (and I am not talking about racism!).

While Schottenheimer did develop Bernie Kosar with the Browns, he did it VERY slowly. Consider that in Kosar's first year, 1985, the Browns had two one-thousand yard rushers (Earnest Byner and Kevin Mack). In 12 games, Kosar threw the ball 248 times, roughly 20 times a game.

Yet, Charger fans and Media expect Marty to air it out with a first time starter? Get real.

The Chargers run the ball too much, and at bad times:

"...the Chargers ran five of the nine times they had third-and-4 or longer. Schottenheimer attributed most of the play-calling decisions to poor field position.

But field position did not explain the time the Chargers ran on third-and-6 from the Ravens' 24. It also did not explain the time they started at their 40 and ran three straight plays before punting. Running three straight times after having first-and-20 at the 20 was a little curious as well. So, too, was there reason to question the fourth-quarter decisions to run from the Ravens' 41 on first down and again from the 35 on second-and-20."

Apparently, the people in San Diego are shocked by this. I have no clue why. This IS Marty Schottenheimer football. He did this in Cleveland, Kansas City, and Washington. Schottenheimer has always run the ball at obscenely stupid times, usually with some success, because he forces defenses to account for the run at all times.

Did the Chargers think when Schottenheimer arrived in San Diego he would be possessed by the spirits of Sid Gillman or Don Coryell?

In Marty's defense, he does have arguably the best running back in the game with LaDainian Tomlinson. Also, they only lost by 3 points to the Ravens, who are looking about as good as they did in their Super Bowl season.

No matter what you think of Schottenheimer's style, it is effective...to a point. That point usually happens in the playoffs, where Marty has never taken a team beyond the conference championship. And he never will.

But to lose one game to an excellent team and then call for the coach's head is the very definition of insanity. Add in the fact that the Chargers and their fans knew what they were getting when they hired Schottenheimer, and I am reminded of Albert Einstein's saying about insanity:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I hate techies!

Sorry I did not post yesterday, but having a rough day at work. I will have more of the same today. The reason? Network techies. (I apologize for the technical nature of this post, but I need to vent)

I do a lot of work with databases. So whenever there is a network issue, it affects me.

While I appreciate the network techies are understaffed and overpaid, every time they do something to the network at work, I end up with a new unexpected project. It can be as simple as having to remap my co-workers desktop shortcuts. Or it can be as hard as changing links in the code I have in ALL of my databases.

This past weekend, they migrated a server. It would have been no big deal, but they changed the address. Ironically, the email they sent Friday said the migration would be "transparent". One of my co-workers put it best: "Transparent? Yeah, I can't see shit!"

Before you ask, "Why didn't they change the network mapping?", here is the problem: They change the network mapping ALL THE TIME! If my G: drive points to address "A" today, it will point to address "B" tomorrow. In order to avoid this constant problem, I have had to use "my network places" to map addresses on every pc, as well as in the code and various links I use.

Did I mention the mapped network drives are different on a lot of pc's? I am so glad they set up this networking for consistency across all pc's.

Did I mention I hate network techies?

Terrell Owens: Truth or Consequences

The whole Terrell Owens suicide story stinks to high heaven, and his denials of a suicide attempt are not convincing me.

Over at the Dallas Morning News website, there is a revealing interview with Terrell's trainer, James Primm.

While Primm does try to confirm Terrell's story, he also gives some insightful comments which might lead one to see how Owens might have tried suicide:

"Primm said Owens underwent two traumatic events Monday involving his 7-year-old son and his fiancée, a woman he has dated for three years.

Owens' son, from a previous relationship, celebrated his birthday Monday, Primm said. Owens was distraught, he said, about not being able to be see the boy, who lives in California.

"He wanted to get together with the boy," Primm said. "But the boy could not come here, and Terrell could not go there."

Then hours later, a woman whom Primm described as Owens' fiancée broke off the relationship. Primm declined to give the woman's last name but said she and Owens had been dating for three years. She also lives in California.

"That's been coming on forever," Primm said of the breakup. "She's not a bad girl. She's cool, she's fine. He said, 'Can I take a break from the engagement?' And she said, 'No, let's just put a stop to it.' And that was a complete surprise to Terrell.""

For you amateur psychologists out there, here is the meat of the story:

"...Primm says that [he and Terrell] have forged a father-son-like bond that Owens seems to need. Growing up in abject poverty in rural Alabama, Owens was raised by his mother and grandmother and, according to Primm, has long been in need of a dominant male figure in his life.

...Owens "doesn't have many friends," said the trainer, who contends that the public and news media have long misperceived a man he considers "a gentle soul" and a "caring, highly sensitive" individual with a fragile psyche.

"He's a good person," Primm said. "A very good person.""

The other side of this is Kim Etheredge, Terrell's publicist, who first found him during the incident in question. During Terrell's press conference Wednesday, Etheridge denied it was a suicide attempt (although everything she told the EMT's the previous night would lead one to believe it was), and added, "Terrell has 25 million reasons why he should be alive," a reference to Terrell's contract with the Cowboys. So the only reason Terrell has to live is his money? Or perhaps that is the only reason Etheredge sees for him to live, especially since he is her only client.

I don't know if Etheredge is exemplary of the rest of Terrell's entourage. If so, you have a man who is "highly sensitive" with a "fragile psyche", and is surrounded by people who love him strictly for his money. That has "Mike Tyson" written all over it.

Even if Etheredge is not exemplary of the rest of the people in Terrell's life, you have to wonder why she was there for him and others weren't. It may just be a coincidence. Or it may be that she carries a high status with him, in which case I feel sorry for him.

When you consider how many people stand to lose a lot of money if Terrell Owens doesn't play football, including Etheredge and Drew Rosenhaus, T.O.'s infamous agent, and you consider that a suicide attempt could cause the Cowboys to cut strings with T.O., then you can imagine how Etheredge went from trying to save T.O.'s life to denying it was a suicide attempt within the span of 24 hours.

The conspiracy theory goes like this: Etheredge comes upon what she thinks is a suicide attempt by T.O. Etheredge knows she has to save her "cash cow", otherwise she goes back to being a nobody with nothing. Ok, she saves him. Then she realizes how a suicide attempt could impact her client's career, and the spin begins.

Normally, I don't go in for conspiracy theories. But something has always struck me wrong about Terrell Owens. People don't become complete jerks for no reason. Terrell Owens strikes me as someone who is looking for love, but doesn't know how.

Terrell Owens has trouble with women because he had no fatherly role model from which to draw experience. Because of that, he mishandled the relationship with his fiancée, and lost her. Then he took it much harder than anyone expected.

Until Terrell Owens faces the truth about himself and his own inability to give love, he will continue to pay the consequences for his inability to get love.

But this is all speculation on my part. I could be wrong, and T.O. may be the completely selfish jerk he seems to be.

UPDATE: Apparently, T.O. is not as close to his trainer, James Primm, as Mr. Primm would have you believe. At least not anymore, according to a Dallas Morning News report today:

"James "Buddy" Primm, Terrell Owens' personal trainer, said Thursday that the Cowboys wide receiver had relieved him of his services and was no longer speaking to him.

In a telephone conversation with The Dallas Morning News, Mr. Owens acknowledged as much and said Mr. Primm "had no business" discussing details of his private life with the news media."

Jeremy Shockey was right

Robert George brought up an interesting point to me: Have you noticed how the New York Giants offense doesn't seem to move until they go into a two minute/no-huddle offense, when the coaching staff has the LEAST impact on what they do?

As I pointed out earlier in September, I don't think Eli Manning will ever be a great quarterback as long as Kevin Gilbride is his quarterback coach. The only decent quarterbacks Gilbride has ever coached were Mark Brunell and Warren Moon, and both of them were well-coached before Gilbride ever got his hands on them.

Perhaps we should look at John Hufnagel, the offensive coordinator? According to the Giants website, Hufnagel is responsible for "devising game plans and calling plays".

Hufnagel spent most of the 90's coaching in the CFL, where he got to coach Doug Flutie and Jeff Garcia. Impressive resume fact, but it was the CFL. So what has he done in the NFL to warrant becoming an offensive coordinator?

Hufnagel has extensive experience as a quarterback coach. His first job as a quarterback coach was in 1999-2000, where he got to develop Tim Couch, who is currently...not playing.

In 2001, Hufnagel got to coach Peyton Manning, who had already been in the NFL for three years prior. After that, Hufnagel left for Jacksonville in 2002, where he coached Mark Brunell. Hufnagel moved on again in 2003, to the Patriots, where he got to coach Tom Brady, who had already won one Super Bowl by then.

I have to give Hufnagel credit. He has worked with some pretty good quarterbacks...who were already pretty good by the time he got there.

Of course, I am curious why Hufnagel seems to have a problem keeping his job? Before coming to the Giants, he had four consecutive quarterback coaching jobs with four different teams within five years. Why is this guy qualified to be an offensive coordinator?

Based on the Giants offensive performance the last two weeks, I feel confident saying Hufnagel is NOT qualified. I also think Jeremy Shockey's initial impression of Sunday's game against Seattle was right on the money: "We got outplayed, and outcoached."

Especially the "outcoached" part.

Terrell Owens: Suicide?

Associated Press writer Jaime Aron is reporting that Cowboys receiver Terrell Owens' hospitalization for an "adverse reaction" to pain medication may have actually been a suicide attempt by the controversial player:

"Dallas Cowboys receiver Terrell Owens reportedly tried to kill himself by overdosing on pain medication, even putting two more pills into his mouth after a friend intervened.

A Dallas police report released Wednesday morning said Owens told his friend "that he was depressed." Details of the report were first released by WFAA-TV.

The friend, who is not identified in the report, "noticed that (his) prescription pain medication was empty and observed (Owens) putting two pills in his mouth," the police report said.

The friend attempted to pry them out with her fingers, then was told by Owens that before this incident he'd taken only five of the 40 pain pills in the bottle he'd emptied. Owens was asked by rescue workers "if he was attempting to harm himself, at which time (he) stated, `Yes.'""

Week 4 Fantasy Football Predictions

After my pitiful week 3 results, it is time to climb back on the horse.

QB: Marc Bulger should get the wheels on the Rams passing game as Detroit comes to St. Louis.

For our no-brainer of the week, Donovon McNabb looks super sweet against Green Bay's lousy pass defense on Monday night.

RB: Ronnie Brown should look like Earl Campbell against Houston.

Speaking of great Texas running backs, how about Julius Jones against Tennessee this week? Maybe Jones isn't great, but he should look like it this week.

WR: Chris Chambers should get more than a few looks from Daunte Culpepper against the woeful Texans.

Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce should be able to break into the end zone against Detroit's gasless secondary.

Do I need to tell you Donte' Stallworth will score big against Green Bay?

TE: Speaking of Green Bay, how about L.J. Smith? Against the Pack, L.J. looks like a nice play this week.

This may sound like a no-brainer pick, but Tony Gonzalez doesn't set the NFL on fire any more (12 catches, 88 yards, 1 td after two games this year). However, he should be able to burn the 49ers.

K: Buffalo's Rian Lindell has quietly gone 6/6 this year. Expect Minnesota's bend-but-don't-break defense to give Lindell a few more opportunities.

The Eagles should put up a ton of points against the Packers, including field goals. David Akers should shine.

DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS: The Lions will sleep among the Lambs this week. At least the Lions offense will, which should allow the Rams to notch a nice defensive performance.

Da Bears at home against the Shaun Alexander-less Seahawks? This could get ugly.

Week 3 Fantasy Football Results

Ok, I admit it: I stunk it up with last week's predictions.

Here is the damage:

WINNERS
WR Roy Williams: 7 catches, 138 receiving yards, 1 touchdown
K Matt Stover: 3 field goals (including a 52-yarder)
Ravens DEF/ST: 7 sacks, 1 interception, 1 fumble recovered, 14 points allowed

TIES
QB Byron Leftwich: 107 passing yards, 1 pass touchdown, 2 interceptions, 14 rushing yards, 1 rushing touchdown
QB Daunte Culpepper: 168 passing yards, 5 rushing yards, 1 touchdown
RB Ronnie Brown: 90 rushing yards, 10 receiving yards
RB Steven Jackson: 62 rushing yards, 59 receiving yards

LOSERS
WR Chris Chambers: 4 catches, 39 receiving yards, 39 rushing yards
WR Santana Moss: 6 catches, 50 receiving yards, 2 rushing yards
WR Donald Driver: 3 catches, 20 receiving yards, 1 touchdown, -1 rushing yard
TE Chris Cooley: 4 catches, 18 receiving yards
TE Vernon Davis: big goose egg
K Stephen Gostkowski: 1 extra point
Patriots DEF/ST: 17 points allowed
Panthers DEF/ST: 1 interception, 1 sack, 24 points allowed

Quarterback intangibles

In my post "The best quarterback of all time", I received a lot of positive feedback from a lot of you, and I truly appreciate it.

I got one comment, from my buddy Myrhaf, which deserves a full response:

"But seriously, I'm sure your statistical analysis is sound. However, I wonder how you measure intangibles, such as will to win, work ethic, intelligence, etc. Do those traits show up in statistics? What if a great quarterback is on a bad team? And what about charisma, fame and overall impact on the game, as in the case of Joe Namath, who became a cultural icon? Should that be a factored in? Broadway Joe probably got more women to watch football on Sunday than anyone else in history. Isn't that important? Is there a difference between importance to the game and greatness as a quarterback?"

A great quarterback's intangibles will show up statistically IF the rest of his team is good enough. Football is a team sport. Unlike golf or tennis, greatness at any football position has to be viewed within the context of the team. Objectively viewing quarterbacking greatness can only be accomplished through statistics, including but not limited to championships. It is there that we view the meeting of ability with opportunity.

Consider "will to win". No matter how much a quarterback wants to win, he cannot do it if his receivers drop his passes, the running back fumbles a lot, and his team's defense is a sieve. On the other hand, a quarterback who is surrounded by a great team, but is otherwise not very capable, may not win despite his desire.

How about "work ethic"? Ask Billy Volek how important work ethic is. He went from being named the Titans starting quarterback in the preseason, to being demoted to second string, to being traded in the same year. From what I hear, it was all because he took the starting job for granted. In the modern era, quarterbacks HAVE to have a good work ethic. We could say Peyton Manning has a better work ethic than Tom Brady, but does that mean Brady is a slacker? No.

"Intelligence" is one of the odder intangibles. Clearly a certain amount of intelligence is required to even be able to play quarterback in the NFL. Beyond that, what does greater intelligence gain a quarterback? Consider the following two Wonderlic scores (which measures intelligence): Dan Marino - 16, Ryan Leaf - 27. Or how about Terry Bradshaw vs. Roger Staubach? I think Staubach would have given up a few brain cells to have won the two Super Bowls he lost to Bradshaw.

The "great quarterback/bad team" (otherwise known as "The Archie Manning Dilemna") is the hardest part to quantify. How much does a bad team detract from a great quarterback's statistics?

Imagine if you were the world's best accountant, but you were working for the world's worst company. While your work would be perfect, you would continue to receive no recognition, all because the company was awful. But you stay there year after year, doing perfect work, but accomplishing little in your career. Whose fault is that?

At some point, a quarterback has to realize a team will not help him win. Sometimes, your decision about where to work can be every bit as important as how well you work. In Manning's defense, the free agency rules of the 70's made it a lot tougher to change teams. But Manning never tried until he was already past his prime.

"Charisma, fame, and overall impact on the game". This is the style-over-substance factor. But this also comes into direct conflict with the "great quarterback/bad team" factor. Joe Namath clearly had more charisma, fame, and overall impact on the game than Archie Manning. Ironically, they both played 13 seasons, with almost the same number of pass attempts (Manning had 3,642, while Namath had 3,762). Statistically, theie career numbers are very close (Manning's numbers are first):

Completion percentage: 55.2% vs. 50.1%
Average gain per attempt: 6.57 vs. 7.35
Touchdown percentage: 3.4% vs. 4.6%
Interception percentage: 4.75% vs. 5.85%
Super Bowl championships: 0 vs. 1
Average rush yards per carry: 5.7 vs. 2.0
Passer rating: 67.1 vs. 65.5

At the very least, the statistics prove that Manning belongs in the same class as Namath.

But what about that Super Bowl? The "guaranty"? The first AFL victory over the NFL in a championship game? Namath's importance in the history of the NFL is unquestionable. But by any objective measure, he cannot be named the best quarterback in NFL history. He was immobile and threw too many interceptions. By today's NFL standards, he would be lucky to make a team. Don't believe me? Consider Ryan Leaf, who is considered a failure by modern standards. Leaf's career interception percentage of 5.5% is better than Namath's.

Looking back at Namath's career, the Jets won IN SPITE OF Namath, NOT BECAUSE OF Namath. Even if you look at that one Super Bowl, what did Namath do? Heck, running back Matt Snell, with 30 carries for 121 yards and the Jets only touchdown, deserves more credit for the win than Joe Namath does. All Namath did was NOT throw an interception.

While Namath has become part of football folklore, I would actually give the Chiefs credit for sealing the AFL legitimacy argument. Their victory over the Vikings in Super Bowl IV gave the AFL two wins out of the first four Super Bowls.

Namath is proof that importance to the game and greatness as a quarterback are two very different things. Namath is proof that historical importance is subjective.

The best quarterback of all time

I have been asked to rate the best quarterbacks of all time. Who am I to say no?

I will resist the urge to include those guys who are still playing. Although I will include references to current players where they are comparable or even better than the ones I list.

GAME MANAGEMENT
The first quality all rookie quarterbacks must learn is game management. By this I mean the ability to avoid mistakes. Bad game managers today include the likes of Brett Favre and Daunte Culpepper. While these two are capable of big plays, they both try to do too much, effectively hurting their teams more than helping them.

On the barest levels, good game managers include Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. Unfortunately for those two, that is ALL they are. But as they have proven, you have to be at LEAST a good game manager if you want to win a Super Bowl.

I am tempted to give the best game manager of all time to Sammy Baugh. To this day, he still holds the NFL record for most seasons leading the league with the lowest percentage of passes intercepted, with five seasons. There are five players tied with three seasons behind him. None of those five players are playing today.

But, if you look at Baugh's career as a whole, he threw more interceptions in 9 out of the 16 seasons he played.

For consistency over the entirety of his career, I have to give it to Neil O'Donnell. As soon as you clean your drink off your monitor, I will continue.

Believe it or not, O'Donnell holds the NFL record for lowest percentage of interceptions in his career (2.11). In his 13 year career, O'Donnell only had two seasons where he threw more interceptions than touchdowns, and he only played in 6 games both of those years.

O'Donnell did manage to lead the Steelers to the Super Bowl in 1995, where they lost to the Cowboys 27-17.

TOUCHDOWNS
In order to throw a lot of touchdowns, you have to be able to throw the ball in the red zone. You won't make a career out of only lobbing 70 yard bombs. You also have to be able to toss the little two yard pass to the tackle eligible in the end zone.

Of the current quarterbacks, Peyton Manning seems most ready to break some career records, having already obtained a few NFL records (most TD passes in a season with 49, most TD passes in his rookie season with 26, most consecutive games with 4 or more TD passes with 5).

Unfortunately for Manning, he still has a long way to go to catch Dan Marino's career touchdown pass record of 420. As of last year, Manning only had 244 TD passes.

While Marino may lead on quantity of touchdown passes over a career, we have to consider the pass-happy nature of the NFL during Marino's career. Even with Marino's prolific touchdown numbers, there is another quarterback who still holds a lot of significant touchdown records from a less pass-happy era: Johnny Unitas.

Consider Unitas's touchdown records. He is tied for most seasons leading the league in td passes with 4 seasons (tied with Len Dawson, Steve Young, and Brett Favre) but only Unitas's 4 seasons were consecutive (from 1957 to 1960). In football's version of Joe Dimaggio's famed hitting streak, Unitas holds the record for most consecutive games with a td pass, 47 (next closest is Brett Favre with 36).

In addition, Unitas is third on the list of career games with 4 or more td passes (17). Only Marino (21) and Favre (19) are ahead of him.

RELEASE
A quick release is not necessary to be a great quarterback, but it seems the great ones tend to have quicker releases than most quarterbacks.

The first quarterback to have an exceptionally quick release was Joe Namath, but the quickest of all time belongs to Dan Marino.

Of today's quarterbacks, the one who impresses me the most is Vince Young. If you watch him closely, you can see that his release is comparable to Marino's release. I won't say Young will be another Marino, but his release should help him to have a good career.

ARM STRENGTH/AVERAGE GAIN
By itself, arm strength is nice, but it won't win games.

Early in his career, Doug Williams had the strongest arm I have ever seen. Unfortunately, when he threw little passes into the flat, the ball would bounce off the receiver because it was uncatchable.

For arm strength to be effective, it has to be combined with touch on shorter passes.

In this category, average gain per pass attempted tells us the quarterback is using his arm strength to its ultimate advantage.

Unfortunately, the two quarterbacks who rate the highest in this are from VERY different eras: Sid Luckman and Steve Young.

Luckman is second all time to Otto Graham in average gain (8.42 to 8.63). I don't include Graham because he only played 6 years in the NFL, whereas Luckman played 12 years.

In addition, Luckman holds the following records: led the league in average gain 7 times, and had the most consecutive seasons leading the league in average gain (5). Luckman also had the second highest single season average gain, with 10.86 in 1943.

While Luckman's records are impressive, I have to give equal consideration to someone I have actually seen play. In the modern era, Steve Young used his arm strength the best.

Young stands firmly in second to Luckman's NFL records for average gain. Young's greatest asset was his ability to stretch the 49ers West Coast Offense with his arm strength. Even though Young was not known for his arm strength, this is deceptive since he was nearly as accurate on deeper passes as he was on shorter passes.

Joe Montana may get the kudos for the success of the West Coast Offense, but Steve Young took it to another level, all because Young could stretch the field with a greater arm strength than Montana possessed.

Of today's quarterbacks, Kurt Warner is the best in average gain, as he is already third on the all time list with 8.21. We will see if he can maintain or improve on that before he retires. At the peak of Warner's career, he was certainly comparable to Steve Young.

ACCURACY
Accuracy is another of those areas where it is difficult to compare quarterbacks from the modern era, where short passes are more frequently thrown, with those from previous eras.

If you look at the record for highest career completion percentage, you will see three current quarterbacks (Kurt Warner, Marc Bulger, and Daunte Culpepper). But will they still be there when they retire? Perhaps Warner, but I would not bet on the other two.

For modern era quarterbacks, I would have to name Steve Young as the most accurate. having led the NFL in completion percentage 5 times, with 4 of them coming in consecutive years.

However, Len Dawson was the most accurate of the old era quarterbacks, having led the NFL in completion percentage a whopping 8 times, with 6 of them coming in consecutive years.

CHAMPIONSHIPS
In a team sport, the championship stands out as the ultimate test of how much a quarterback is helping his team.

This is the biggest no-brainer of all the quarterback categories. Bart Starr stands above everyone with 5 NFL championships and the first 2 Super Bowl victories to his credit.

Currently, Tom Brady, with 3 Super Bowl victories under his belt, looks the most ready to challenge Starr's record.

RUSHING
Should running ability be considered when looking at great quarterbacks? Currently, I would say no. But after watching what Mike Vick did to the Buccaneers last weekend, I cannot say this will always be true.

Take college football for example. A great running quarterback can lead a team to a national championship (like Vince Young did at Texas). Could this happen in the NFL? History would say no.

But history also used to say that a team without a running game could not win a championship. Enter the 1981 49ers to prove that wrong.

Will Mike Vick redefine the quarterback position? Perhaps, but his talent is freakish.

Vick is clearly the best running quarterback of all time. However, for the sake of choosing a retired quarterback, I would have to name Randall Cunningham the best I ever saw, at least until Vick retires.

SO WHO IS THE BEST OF ALL TIME?
What I have shown to this point are the best quarterbacks in every facet of the quarterbacking position. But the ultimate test of a quarterback is the guy who can use the quarterback position to carry the rest of his team to victory. The best quarterbacks I have seen, in no particular order: Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Ken Stabler, Joe Montana, Steve Young, Fran Tarkenton, Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Johnny Unitas.

Of those, Steve Young stands out from the rest in most of the categories of quarterbacking excellence.

GAME MANAGEMENT: Young's career 2.5% interception percentage compares favorably with Neil O'Donnell's 2.1%.

TOUCHDOWNS: Young is tied with Unitas for seasons leading the league in td passes (4) and is second behind Unitas with 3 consecutive seasons leading the NFL.

RELEASE: Compared to Marino, this is Young's weak suit. However, Young's release was more than adequate.

ARM STRENGTH/AVERAGE GAIN: Young was the best of the modern era.

ACCURACY: Again, Young was the best of the modern era.

CHAMPIONSHIPS: With only one Super Bowl win to his credit (although Young was named the MVP), Young is pretty weak in this category. Still, there are plenty of great quarterbacks who would gladly switch places with Young (such as Fran Tarkenton and Dan Marino).

RUSHING: With 4,239 career rushing yards, 5.9 rushing average, and 43 rushing touchdowns, Young compares favorably to Randall Cunningham's 4,928 rushing yards, 6.4 rushing average, and only 35 rushing touchdowns.

BUT WHAT ABOUT JOE MONTANA?
Any mention of Steve Young as the greatest quarterback of all time will naturally draw the comparison to Joe Montana. Let us look at the career numbers (Young's numbers are shown first below. NFL career records are marked with an asterisk):

Completion Percentage: 64.3% vs. 63.2%
Average Gain per Attempt: 7.98 vs. 7.52
Touchdown Percentage: 5.6% vs. 5.1%
Interception Percentage: 2.5789% vs. 2.5783%
Super Bowl Championships: 1 vs. 4*
Average Rushing Yards per Carry: 5.9 vs. 3.7
Passer Rating: 96.8* vs. 92.3

When you consider Young's numbers are a little skewed by spending two horrendous years at Tampa Bay during the start of his career, Young's numbers are even more impressive.

One other thing to consider: If the 49ers had a better defense during the 90's, who knows how many Super Bowls Young might have won?

Jurgenson vs. Kilmer

Sonny Jurgenson vs. Billy Kilmer is one of the great football barroom arguments of all time, often inspiring seemingly political partisanship in Washington, where they played for the Redskins back in the 1970's.

Based on pure passing ability, Jurgenson wins hands down. Vince Lombardi said of him, "Jurgensen is a great quarterback. He hangs in there under adverse conditions. He may be the best the league has ever seen. He is the best I have seen."

In passing statistics, Jurgenson had 2,433 pass completions for 32,224 yards and 255 touchdowns and 189 interceptions. Kilmer had a pedestrian 1,585 completions for 20,495 yards and 152 touchdowns and 146 interceptions.

In post-career honors, Jurgenson wins again, since he is enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Washington Hall of Stars, and the Eagles Honor Roll. Kilmer only made it to the Washington Hall of Stars.

Argument over, right? Not quite.

In rushing stats, Jurgenson had 493 yards and 15 touchdowns over his 18 year career. Over Kilmer's 16 seasons, he rushed for 1509 yards and 21 touchdowns. But that is not a fair comparison, since Kilmer started out as a running back for San Francisco, where he had 987 yards and 15 touchdowns in his first two years. By the time Kilmer got to D.C., his legs were shot.

How about Super Bowls? The Redskins made one appearance during the Jurgenson-Kilmer years. Jurgenson got hurt early in the 1972 season. Kilmer led the Skins to Super Bowl VII, where the Skins lost to the Dolphins to complete Miami's "perfect season".

Sorry Kilmer, but losing a Super Bowl does NOT make you a better quarterback than Sonny Jurgenson.

Week 3 Fantasy Football Predictions

For you fantasy footballers out there, don't forget this coming weekend is the first of the bye weeks, with Dallas, Kansas City, Oakland, San Diego taking a hiatus.

One intriguing coincidence I noticed was the two teams at the bottom of the NFL passing rankings both played against Indianapolis so far (the Giants and the Texans). I guess we can expect to see Jacksonville joining them shortly?

As for rushing, the two teams at the bottom of the NFL rankings (the Panthers and the Buccaneers) both played against Atlanta. Next up: New Orleans.

QB: While piling up tremendous passing numbers of their own, Indianapolis seems to give up a lot at garbage time, allowing both Eli Manning and David Carr to pull out decent games at the end. Expect Byron Leftwich to have a little more success earlier to add to whatever he gets in garbage time.

Is this Daunte Culpepper's coming out week? If he is going to, this week against Tennessee is a good place to start. The Titans have made both Chad Pennington and Phil Rivers look good so far.

RB: Speaking of the Titans, their run defense is just as bad as their pass defense. Hello Ronnie Brown.

For my no-brainer pick of the week, the Rams Steven Jackson should get 2 touchdowns against Arizona's defense.

WR: If Roy Williams is going to ever look like a number one receiver, this week against Green Bay is a great place to start.

A few others to look for good games from this week: Chris Chambers, Santana Moss, and Donald Driver.

TE: Chris Cooley of the Redskins should do well against the Texans.

Look for Vernon Davis of the 49ers to get a touchdown and 4-5 catches this week against the Eagles.

K: I will be the first to admit, my kicker predictions have been crap so far this year. So take these with a grain of salt. And a shot of tequila.

The Broncos have been displaying a lot of "bend, don't break" defense this year, so the Patriots rookie Stephen Gostkowski should have a decent game at home against Shanahan's boys.

Pssst! Want a really good waiver wire pickup? If he is available in your league, get the Ravens Matt Stover. He is going to have a good year, and this week will be no exception against the hapless Brownies.

DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS: I can imagine Dean Pees, the Patriots defensive coordinator, was salivating when he was watching the game film from the Broncos first two games. Especially the parts with Jake Plummer passing. Take the Patriots defense this week and enjoy the Sunday Night game.

You also have to love the Panthers against the Buccaneers. The way Gruden is completely ruining Chris Simms is sad to watch, but I am sure the Panthers won't mind.

One more no-brainer this week: take the Ravens against the Browns. Poor Charlie Frye.

Fantasy football results for week 2

Here are the results from my week 2 fantasy football predictions:

WINNERS
QB Peyton Manning: 400 passing yards, 3 touchdowns
QB David Carr: 219 passing yards, 3 touchdowns, 10 rushing yards
RB Chester Taylor: 113 rushing yards, 15 receiving yards
WR Marvin Harrison: 7 catches, 127 yards
WR Reggie Wayne: 6 catches, 135 yards
WR Andre Johnson: 4 catches, 56 yards, 1 touchdown
K Shayne Graham: 2 field goals, 4 extra points
Ravens DEF/ST: 3 fumbles recovered, 3 interceptions, 6 sacks, 1 safety, 6 points allowed

TIES
RB Shaun Alexander: 89 rushing yards, 1 touchdown
TE Antonio Gates: 4 catches, 55 yards
TE Todd Heap: 5 catches, 17 yards, 1 touchdown

LOSERS
WR Eric Moulds: 4 catches, 59 yards
TE Daniel Wilcox: no stats
K Lawrence Tynes: 2 field goals
Saints DEF/ST: 1 fumble recovered, 1 interception, 2 sacks, 27 points allowed

You may wonder why I put Alexander, Gates, and Heap in the "Ties" category. Simply put, they underperformed. Those numbers might be good for anyone else, but 89 yards and a touchdown from a top 3 running back? Not good enough. Same for the tight end numbers.

Andre Johnson just managed to squeak into the "Winners" column with that touchdown. Minus that, he joins Moulds in the "Losers".

Back to the future: The Atlanta Falcons innovative offense

I watched the Atlanta Falcons dismantle the Buccaneers yesterday and something occurred to me: This Falcon offense is actually innovative.

While no one will call the option offense innovative, since it has been used extensively on the college level for decades, no one has been able to bring it to the pro level, due to defensive players being too fast. Until the Falcons did it this year.

I take back everything I ever said about Jim Mora and Michael Vick. Credit Mora for trying it, and Vick for executing it.

But there is a catch to this: ONLY Michael Vick could pull this off. It would take an extremely athletic (Read: FAST) quarterback to run an option offense at the pro level.

But there are questions to be resolved: Can Vick stay healthy all year? What happens when they play against a good 3-4 defense, like when they play against the Steelers on October 22nd? How will this new offense do in the playoffs, assuming they make it?

Stay tuned for the answers to these questions. In the meantime, enjoy the show.

The Western backlash against Islam

"A common Atlantic policy backed by moderate Arab states must become a top priority, no matter how pessimistic previous experience with such projects leaves one...

The debate sparked by the Iraq war over American rashness vs. European escapism is dwarfed by what the world now faces.

Both sides of the Atlantic should put their best minds together on how to deal with the common danger of a wider war merging into a war of civilizations against the background of a nuclear-armed Middle East." - Henry Kissinger, from Yahoo News

Add the above from Kissinger to what Pope Benedict said on Tuesday, quoting a Byzantine Emperor Manual II Paleologos:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict also brought up the inherent difference between Christianity and Islam, as summarized by Jeff Israely in Time Magazine:

"[Pope Benedict's] discourse Tuesday sought to delineate what he sees as a fundamental difference between Christianity's view that God is intrinsically linked to reason (the Greek concept of logos) and Islam´s view that "God is absolutely transcendent." Benedict said that Islam teaches that God's "will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." The risk he sees implicit in this concept of the divine is that the irrationality of violence can potentially be justified if someone believes it is God's will. "As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?""

What of the Left's view on the subject of Christianity vs. Islam?

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam." - Rosie O'Donnell

I wonder whether Rosie means "radical Christianity", or just Christianity? Either way, her point falls flat. How many news stories do you read or see about Christians blowing themselves up, or setting IED's, or blowing up trains, or flying airplanes into buildings? Compared with radical Muslims, radical Christians are downright boring.

As for regular Christians, I can see what scares Rosie. Christianity is generally opposed to homosexuality, abortion, and a whole list of liberal causes. Unfortunately, Rosie conveniently forgets that Islam is opposed to the same list.

The penalties in Islam for violating their beliefs are far stricter than anything Christianity requires. A homosexual Christian? God will forgive you. A homosexual Muslim? I hope you enjoy that noose around your neck.

If it comes down to a war between Western Civilization and Islam, I wonder which side Rosie will be on?

That is the burden of the West: Our self-centered, moonbat Left.

While great minds like Kissinger and Pope Benedict define the problem of radical Islam, and offer potential solutions, we have morons like Rosie giving us Pogo-isms ("I have seen the enemy and he is us."). If we are truly the enemy in a war of cultures, then we need to revisit our beliefs, which are frequently philosophical descendents of Christian beliefs (whether we as individuals are Christian or not).

What alternative does that leave Western Civilization? We either move farther Left or farther Right. Since I doubt Rosie meant farther Right, that means we should move into moonbat territory.

But if you ask the moonbats if they are willing to die for their beliefs, the answer is generally "no". Against a belief like radical Islam, where it is considered honorable for a mother to turn her children into suicide bombers, what chance does liberalism stand?

On the bright side, because liberals generally do not carry the conviction of their beliefs, they are easily ignored. While they squeal a lot, we as a society do not have to listen to them as long as we stand in a majority against them.

Which leaves us with the issue of defining the problem. As Pope Benedict has presented it, the problem is getting Islam to recognize the value of reason within a theological context. The only way to do that is through education, but how do we educate a billion Muslims? There is no easy way to accomplish this without a tremendous loss of life on both sides of this cultural war.

Kissinger gives us the start of a blueprint to accomplish this daunting task. The U.S. and Europe need to align themselves with moderate Arab states against the radical factions of Islam. But what actions do we take?

First, we have to draw a hard line against ANYTHING nuclear in the Islamic nations. This is where we meet our first problem: Europe refuses to draw hard lines. Until European backs are pressed against the wall, expect Europe to do nothing, except talk. Until Europe is willing to back up their words with actions, Europe is useless.

One thing has me curious: Why did Kissinger not suggest China in this scenario? While China is not a part of Western Civilization, and they certainly have nothing to gain by threatening one of their major sources of oil (Iran), we still ignore them regarding anything having to do with Islam. I wonder if we could not somehow make it worth their while. Considering we are one of their best trading partners, in addition to China having a ton of money invested in the U.S., I find it hard to believe we are without any kind of diplomatic leverage. However, I will defer to Dr. Kissinger on this point, as his expertise on China is far more significant than my puny knowledge on it.

But that leaves us without even being able to take the first step in Kissinger's plan. So what happens next? Nothing, until Iran gets a nuke. Maybe then Europe might honor the threat.

Fantasy football tips for Week 2

QB: Peyton Manning serves as the no-brainer pick of the week. While you should start him anyway, you have to feel good going against the woeful Houston Texans, especially considering what Donovan McNabb did to them last week (314 yards and 3 td's).

On the flip side, I also like David Carr against the Colts. The Giants pulled a lot of boneheaded blunders that lost them the game against the Colts last week. If the Texans can keep the blunders to a minimum, expect a fun game of pinball between these two offenses.

RB: If Shaun Alexander cannot run on the Cardinals, he should retire. The Cards made Frank Gore look like Marshall Faulk last week.

Was the Panther defense last week that bad, or was the Falcon running game that good? We will find out this week when Chester Taylor of the Vikings gets a crack at the Panthers. With LB Dan Morgan out for the Panthers, Taylor looks like an even better play.

WR: Along with the Manning no-brainer above, I have to also include Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. Throw in Andre Johnson and Eric Moulds for the full Colts-Texans list of receivers to play.

TE: Repeat after me: Antonio Gates, Antonio Gates, Antonio Gates...

Seriously, Gates should put up some better numbers against the woeful Titans this week.

The Todd Heap/Daniel Wilcox two-headed tight end monster in Baltimore should have a walk-through over the Raiders this week.

K: Considering what Jeff Wilkins of the Rams did to the Broncos last week, you have to like Lawrence Tynes of the Chiefs this week. As long as Jake Plummer is playing QB for the Broncos, their opponents should have plenty of oppurtunities in field goal range.

Shayne Graham of the Bengals should also have a solid week against the Browns.

DEFENSE/SPECIAL TEAMS: You have to love the Saints defense/special teams this week for two reasons. First, they get to feast at the Brett Favre buffet. Second, Reggie Bush returning punts.

Do I even need to suggest taking the Ravens against the Raiders? Jerry Porter should be laughing it up again this week.

Fantasy football review: Week 1 predictions

Time to toot my own horn. My week 1 predictions were not too bad. Ok, they were great:

WINNERS
*QB Kurt Warner: 301 passing yards, 3 touchdowns
QB Chad Pennington: 319 passing yards, 2 touchdowns
*RB Tatum Bell: 103 rushing yards
*RB Mike Bell: 58 rushing yards, 30 receiving yards, 1 touchdown
RB LaDainian Tomlinson: 131 rushing yards, 18 receiving yards, 1 touchdown
RB Frank Gore: 87 rushing yards, 83 receiving yards, 2 touchdowns
*WR Anquan Boldin: 4 catches, 62 yards, 1 touchdown
*WR Larry Fitzgerald: 9 catches, 133 yards
WR Laveranues Coles: 8 catches, 153 yards
WR Jerricho Cotchery: 6 catches, 65 yards, 1 touchdown
*TE Antonio Gates: 2 catches, 26 yards, 1 touchdown
TE Dallas Clark: 3 catches, 39 yards, 1 touchdown
*Bears Defense/Special Teams: 0 points allowed, 1 fumble recovered, 2 interceptions, 3 sacks, 1 punt return touchdown

TIES
*K Jason Hanson: 2 field goals

LOSERS
RB Shaun Alexander: 51 rushing yards, 1 receiving yard
WR Chad Johnson: 5 catches, 48 yards
WR T.J. Houshmandzadeh: did not play
K Phil Dawson: 2 extra points
Broncos Defense/Special Teams: 18 points allowed, 3 sacks

My first picks, highlighted by an "*", were clearly better than my second and third picks. I may have to limit myself going forward.

NFL vs. 9/11: NFL wins!

From an AP story, as reported on AccessNorthGeorgia.com:

"The movie ["The Path to 9/11"] was beaten soundly in the ratings by the regular-season debut of NBC's "Sunday Night Football," matching Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts against younger brother Eli of the New York Giants. The National Football League game had an estimated 20.7 million viewers, while "The Path to 9/11" had 13 million, according to Nielsen Media Research."

I am glad to see I was not the only one tired of all the 9/11 hype.

No 9/11 here

This may annoy some people, and I am sorry. But I truly do not feel like talking about 9/11 today.

I am NOT saying it is too early to discuss 9/11. I went to see "United 93" earlier this year because I think enough time has passed.

But just because today happens to be a nicely numbered anniversary of the event, does not mean I have to talk about it, or have to WANT to talk about it.

If you folks want to go along with the Media-created event that is the 5th anniversary of 9/11, go crazy with it. Just don't expect me to join you.