Pigskin Pick'em - Week 8 Results AND Week 9 Picks AND Pats-Colts Preview

Who cares about last week when we have THE...SINGLE...MOST...IMPORTANT...GAME...OF...THE...SEASON...this weekend?

But for those of you who do care, congrats to bl! Here are last week's results:

bl - 10
David Stefanini - 9
EdMcGon - 8
J. Mark English - 8
FunkyPundit - 8
Snave - 8
Robert A. George - 6
Bill Barker - 5

Give a welcome to newcomer Snave. You have to appreciate someone who is willing to enter the weekly race without a chance of winning the YTD. Kudos!

Speaking of the YTD (with weekly wins in parentheses):

David Stefanini(2) - 72
EdMcGon(1) - 66
Robert A. George(1.5) - 63
J. Mark English(1) - 60
bl(2) - 54
Bill Barker - 45
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 41
SoloD - 28
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Snave - 8
Mike - 8

For this week's picks, since we all only really care about one game, that's the only one I will comment on (this week, my picks are in green, with the exception of the last game):

San Francisco 49ers at Atlanta Falcons
Cincinnati Bengals at Buffalo Bills
Denver Broncos at Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers at Kansas City Chiefs
San Diego Chargers at Minnesota Vikings
Jacksonville Jaguars at New Orleans Saints
Washington Redskins at New York Jets
Arizona Cardinals at Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Carolina Panthers at Tennessee Titans
Seattle Seahawks at Cleveland Browns
Houston Texans at Oakland Raiders
Dallas Cowboys at Philadelphia Eagles
Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers

New England Patriots at Indianapolis Colts: The undisputed game of the week, possibly of the entire season. This one deserves a "Super Bowl" quality analysis:

Passing offense: The Pats are head and shoulders above everyone in the NFL. 73.6% completions, 8.65 yards/attempt, 303.8 yards/game, 30 touchdowns, 3 interceptions, 8 sacks allowed, 133.2 pass rating.

The Colts have a great pass offense, but they don't match the Pats: 65.4% completions, 7.58 yards/attempt, 258.7 yards/game, 13 touchdowns, 3 interceptions, 5 sacks allowed, 102.5 pass rating. EDGE: Patriots.

Rushing offense: For all the press generated by Tom Brady and the Pats passing game, their running game is no slouch, averaging 135.8 yards/game with a 4.2 average per attempt for 8 touchdowns.

However, the Colts have been slightly better: 140.3 yards/game with a 4.4 average per attempt for 12 touchdowns. EDGE: Colts.

Rushing defense: The statistics are a bit deceptive in this category, mostly because the Patriots have forced opponents to abandon the running game early (Pats: 87.0 rush yards/game allowed; Colts: 107.4 rush yards/game allowed). But look at what the Pats do to teams with decent running games (rush attempts/pass attempts, rushing yards allowed, rushing average, td's):

vs. Chargers (20/30, 52 yards, 2.6 avg., 0 td's): The Chargers rank 12th in the NFL in rushing yards/game.
vs. Cowboys (15/29, 97 yards, 6.5 avg., 0 td's): The Cowboys rank 9th in the NFL in rushing yards/game.
vs. Dolphins (30/37, 179 yards, 6.0 avg., 3 td's): The Dolphins rank 15th in the NFL in rushing yards/game.

On the surface, it would seem that if you run a balanced attack against the Patriots, you can actually beat their run defense. Actually, this is misleading because the Dolphins did most of their rushing damage in the 4th quarter when they were already down 42-7. The Dolphins gained 72 yards rushing and scored 2 rushing touchdowns in the 4th quarter of a game they had already lost. EDGE: Patriots.

Passing defense: This is where both of these teams really shine.

Patriots pass defense: 59.7% completion percentage, 5.09 yards/pass attempt, 181.5 yards/game, 10 td's, 11 interceptions.

Colts pass defense: 65.7% completion percentage, 4.79 yards/pass attempt, 165.4 yards/game, 5 td's, 9 interceptions.

The big difference: The Pats have 22 sacks vs. the Colts 12 sacks. EDGE: Patriots.

Special teams (returns): The Pats are averaging 29.2 yards per kickoff return with 2 touchdowns and 10.1 yards per punt return. The Colts are averaging 23.9 yards per kickoff return with no touchdowns and 9.0 yards per punt return. EDGE: Patriots.

Special teams (punting): Neither of these teams has had to punt very often this year. But when they do, the Pats get the better results with a net punt average of 36.7 yards vs. 32.0 yards for the Colts (worst in the NFL). EDGE: Patriots.

Special teams (kickers): Not a lot of difference between the two kickers in this game statistically, as both have only missed one field goal so far this year. However, Adam Vinatieri is a money in the bank clutch kicker. EDGE: Colts.

Coaching: Three Super Bowl wins for Belichick. One Super Bowl win for Dungy. However, the Colts have won the last three times they have played. EDGE: none.

My prediction: Patriots win 35-17. Defense and special teams win big games, and the Patriots carry the edge there.

Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

A Response to a Pro-Porker

The last thing in the world I expected when I posted "Pork vs. Kids?" yesterday was to hear someone come out in defense of pork spending.

Thank you Rodak. Frequently I argue against pork, yet it often seems like a strawman argument, since no one ever argues against me.

Let the debate begin!

Rodak: Those who should be held up for scorn are those who would kill all discretionary spending, across the board, for an indefinite, but surely long, period of time.

Personally, I would kill ALL discretionary spending FOREVER.

Rodak: Senators are elected at the state level, and it is their job to bring home federal money ("pork") that will help to create jobs and generate tax revenues for their home states. Why would any responsible senator vote for a bill that would effectively prevent him from doing his job?
Even the much-riduculed Woodstock Museum would be a good thing for job seekers in upstate New York. Nothing gets reported on in Cleveland without pictures being shown of the Rock and Roll Museum.

Jobs paid for by federal funds are a mirage. They last as long as the funding is there or the project is running. What kind of jobs are we talking about? Construction work? Museum work?

Speaking of museums, what happens if the museum is unprofitable (i.e. not enough people visit it)? Then you either have to support it with public funds, or it closes. That is what is known as a "make work" program.

Think about it: If all we had in this country were government-funded jobs, what would that do to our economy? The government would be paying everyone, and all tax receipts would be coming from government payouts. Moving money from the government's left hand to the right hand does NOTHING to build the economy.

Museums like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are the exception, not the rule. It should also be noted it was funded by the city of Cleveland, not the federal government. Why can't the state of New York fund their own Woodstock museum? Or if it is so important, why can't the "Woodstock generation" fund their own museum?

For that matter, why can't the state of Alaska fund their own "bridge to nowhere"? Alaska has had a budget surplus for years much bigger than the funding they were requesting from the federal government.

The truth is that pork handouts are a spoils system based on seniority. Just keep re-electing the same senator over and over again, and you too can feed at the federal trough. As soon as your senator dies or retires, you're screwed.

Pork is NOT about helping people. It IS about getting senators (and congressmen) re-elected. And you think this is MORE important than children receiving healthcare? Or Social Security funding for that matter, since these wonderful senators have no problem robbing the Social Security "trust fund" in order to pay for these pork projects?

The Baby Boomers will get their Woodstock Museum. They won't be able to visit it on their reduced Social Security payments, and their grandchildren won't get healthcare, but at least their senators will get re-elected.

Pork vs. Kids? Pork wins in Senate

A great story from the Washington Post's Dana Milbank:

The United States Senate yesterday was confronted with a stark choice: health care for children, or pet projects for lawmakers' home states.

The final tally?

Pet Projects 68, Kids 26.

...It was, Coburn's many opponents grumbled, a political stunt. But, as stunts go, this one was particularly revealing. The Oklahoma physician, a foe of the unhealthy cut of congressional pork known as "earmarks," proposed an amendment to a major health spending bill that said no lawmakers' pet projects would be funded until "all children in the U.S. under the age of 18 years are insured by a private or public health insurance plan."

I think most of us agree that health insurance for children, whether provided publicly or privately, should be a higher priority than legislative pork. This is why this vote is "particularly revealing".

Here is how the votes went (a "yea" vote was to table this amendment, a "nay" vote was to add the amendment to the "2008 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act"):

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Not Voting
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Not Voting
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Clearly, anyone who voted "yea" on this should be held up for public scorn, but what about the "not voting" senators? Most of them are presidential candidates. Did they skip the vote for campaign reasons, or to NOT provide their opponents with political ammunition?

Pigskin Pick'em - Week 7 Results AND Week 8 Picks

Another two-fer Thursday, in honor of David Stefanini pulling his second weekly win of the season in week 7:

David Stefanini - 11
Robert A. George - 10
EdMcGon - 9
bl - 9
J. Mark English - 7
Bill Barker - 6

Year to date results (with weekly wins in parentheses):

David Stefanini(2) - 63
EdMcGon(1) - 58
Robert A. George(1.5) - 57
J. Mark English(1) - 52
bl(1) - 44
Bill Barker - 40
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 33
SoloD - 28
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Mike - 8

Normally, this is where I brag about how great my picks will be this week. Unfortunately, I have a cold, so I really don't feel like my usual overconfident self. So here they are, my picks in red:

Indianapolis Colts at Carolina Panthers: The Colts may fall into this trap game, but I won't pick it.
Detroit Lions at Chicago Bears: The last time these two teams played in Detroit, and the Lions had to score 34 points in the fourth quarter to win. I don't expect them to do that again, especially not in Chicago.
Pittsburgh Steelers at Cincinnati Bengals: This game could get ugly. The Steelers are a BIG step above the Bengals.
New York Giants at Miami Dolphins: Welcome to London. Dolphin fans, try not to leave your lunch there.
Philadelphia Eagles at Minnesota Vikings: Which Eagle team will show up this week? My gut says the "bad" Eagles show up.
Cleveland Browns at St. Louis Rams: The Rams may surprise someone. And I will be wrong that week. Until then...
Oakland Raiders at Tennessee Titans: As much as I would love to make the Raider homer pick, the Titans are too good to pick against. The Raiders need to develop more before I can pick them in a game like this.
Buffalo Bills at New York Jets: This game could go either way, but neither of these teams is going anywhere this year. At least the Bills seem to be moving in a positive direction.
Houston Texans at San Diego Chargers: Expect the Chargers to be a little more motivated to win this one for fire-ravaged south California.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: The battle of the two best teams in Florida. I have to lean towards the Bucs with Jeff Garcia over the Jags with Quinn Gray.
Washington Redskins at New England Patriots: The Skins are about to be skinned.
New Orleans Saints at San Francisco 49ers: I think the 49ers will find the Saints to be a little easier than their last four opponents.
Green Bay Packers at Denver Broncos: Denver's biggest weakness? Run defense. Green Bay's biggest offensive weakness? The running game. Expect Favre to throw this one away.


Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

Ed's NFL Pro Bowl Ballot

It is the time of year to vote for the NFL's Pro Bowl players (you can vote over at NFL.com). Without further ado, here are my early selections for the offensive skill positions:

AFC QB: Tom Brady (Patriots), Peyton Manning (Colts), Matt Schaub (Texans)
The first two are no-brainers. After that, it comes down to David Garrard or Schaub. I took Schaub because he's been sacked less even though he's thrown it more. With Houston's history, it's hard to say Schaub's been sacked less because of better blocking.

AFC RB: Joseph Addai (Colts), Willie Parker (Steelers), LaDainian Tomlinson (Chargers)
Addai and Parker are obvious choices. LT is off to a slow start, but coming on strong. I fully expect LT will not finish the season behind Travis Henry (who will probably be suspended soon) and Lamont Jordan (who is being slowed by back problems).

I have to give an honorable mention to Ronnie Brown. But I have to see him continue to put up good performances before I give him my Pro Bowl vote.

AFC WR: Randy Moss (Pats), T.J. Houshmandzadeh (Bengals), Chad Johnson (Bengals), Braylon Edwards (Browns)
The first three are obvious.

Why Braylon Edwards? 552 receiving yards and 7 touchdowns.

AFC Fullback: Justin Griffith (Raiders)
Griffith is THE primary reason for the resurrection of the Raiders running game.

AFC TE: Antonio Gates (Chargers), Tony Gonzalez (Chiefs)
This almost doesn't require any explanation. The two most dominant tight ends in the last ten years in the NFL. They are still the two best.

NFC QB: Tony Romo (Cowboys), Jeff Garcia (Bucs), Brett Favre (Packers)
Romo is a no-brainer.

As for Garcia, I am not sure he will still be on my ballot a month from now (I predict an injury before the end of the season), but I cannot argue with how good he has been so far.

Favre is there because he has carried the Packers on his back, and looked fairly decent doing it.

NFC RB: Adrian Peterson (Vikings), Brian Westbrook (Eagles), Edgerrin James (Cards)
If you want to know why the AFC is stronger than the NFC, look no further than the running back position.

Peterson is clearly the best of the bunch, and he is a rookie splitting carries with Chester Taylor. Peterson earned most of this consideration in one game, last week against the Bears. But that one game was enough to give him the lead among all NFL rushers.

After Peterson is where you see the major fall-off. Westbrook is invaluable to the Eagles, but he's already missed one game this year and I fully expect him to miss more.

James is having a decent year, but I can think of five AFC running backs having a better year.

NFC WR: Larry Fitzgerald (Cards), Steve Smith (Panthers), Plaxico Burress (Giants), Donald Driver (Packers)
This is the other area where the AFC clearly dominates. I would take Braylon Edwards over ANY of these guys.

NFC Fullback: none
Frankly, there are no fullbacks worthy of a Pro Bowl vote in this group.

NFC TE: Jason Witten (Cowboys)
The only tight end worthy of acknowledgment in the NFC.

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 7 Picks

For all you weekend warriors out there, if you feel like skipping the NFL games this weekend to get some yardwork done, here are the final results BEFORE they happen. Well, at least a reasonable facsimile of them (my picks in red as usual):

Baltimore Ravens at Buffalo Bills: If you don't like offensive shootouts, this is the game for you. Blackbirds over Bills.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Detroit Lions: I'm not sure which Lions team will show up, but even the "good" Lions should have a hard time with the Bucs.
Tennessee Titans at Houston Texans: For football purists, AFC South matchups are always fun to watch. Along with the Monday night game, this is definitely a weekend for football purists. I'll take the Titans to win by a tiny margin.
New England Patriots at Miami Dolphins: No-brainer of the week. With the Fish trading away their best wide receiver (Chris Chambers), I think it's safe to say they will be mailing it in for the rest of the season. Unfortunately for them, the mail won't be delivered this Sunday.
Atlanta Falcons at New Orleans Saints: So the Saints DO know how to win! That's bad news for the Falcons.
San Francisco 49ers at New York Giants: This will be a good test for the G-men.
Arizona Cardinals at Washington Redskins: The Cards go with two quarterbacks who weren't on NFL rosters a few weeks ago. Sounds like they're about to get plucked.
New York Jets at Cincinnati Bengals: The only team the Jets have beaten this year is the Dolphins. The only team the Bengals have beaten is the Ravens. I'll take the team that beat the Ravens.
Kansas City Chiefs at Oakland Raiders: Homer pick alert! Seriously though, the Chiefs are quite beatable.
Minnesota Vikings at Dallas Cowboys: Even an Adrian Peterson sighting is NOT going to save the Vikes. The Boys should be sufficiently ticked off by the spanking they took from the Pats last week.
Chicago Bears at Philadelphia Eagles: This one is just a gut feeling.
St. Louis Rams at Seattle Seahawks: Take the Hawks to fly circles around the Lambs.
Pittsburgh Steelers at Denver Broncos: If the Steelers win this one, I will have a ton of respect for Mike Tomlin. I lean towards the Steelers pulling it off.
Indianapolis Colts at Jacksonville Jaguars: There are two teams I won't pick against this year, and one of them is the Colts. But I won't be surprised if the Jags pull the upset.


Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

Fine "Young" Cannibal

Do Leftists eat their own? Apparently, at least one on the Left has turned on their last great president, Bill Clinton. Of all people, I was shocked to read the following from singer Neil Young (from starpulse.com):

"In this country we had a bad group of events starting with Bill Clinton and leading up to Bush. Clinton was a catalyst for a lot of this stuff because he played out on a moral stage a very bad scenario. He lied directly to the American people about something that has to do with core family values.

"He's not a bad person; he made a mistake. but in lying he made a worse mistake. And although it was very human and people forgive him for doing that, he gave the other side, the conservative side, the aggressive side, a huge opening. If it hadn't been for what he did, Al Gore would have been president. We would have had a president who understands the environment. We would have had a smart man in there."

Neil, you're kidding right? Are you telling me that it was NOT some evil right-wing conspiracy that got Bush into the White House? It was NOT because Bush had the Supreme Court in his back pocket?

I wonder how long it will take before the rest of the Left throws Neil under his own tour bus.

Pigskin Pick'em - Week 6 Results

Last week's results:

bl - 10
David Stefanini - 9
Robert A. George - 9
SoloD - 9
EdMcGon - 7
FunkyPundit - 7
J. Mark English - 6
*Bill Barker - 1

The year-to-date results (with weekly wins in parentheses):

David Stefanini(1) - 52
EdMcGon(1) - 49
Robert A. George(1.5) - 47
J. Mark English(1) - 45
bl(1) - 35
Bill Barker - 34
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 33
SoloD - 28
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Mike - 8

*Being the nice guy I am, I let Bill Barker have one this week, since he did get in the Monday night pick prior to that game.

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 5 Results AND Week 6 Picks

Call it a two-fer Thursday, cause you get two posts for the price of reading one.

So I had a busy week at work and I've been lazy about posting the week 5 results.

Anyway, along with the "two-fer" theme, we had two winners last week:

Robert A. George - 11
FunkyPundit - 11
David Stefanini - 10
EdMcGon - 10
J. Mark English - 9
bl - 9
SoloD - 7
Bill Barker - 6
Rigel - 6

The overall season results (with weekly wins in parentheses):

David Stefanini(1) - 43
EdMcGon(1) - 42
J. Mark English(1) - 39
Robert A. George(1.5) - 38
Bill Barker - 33
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 26
bl - 25
Dave O'Leary - 21
SoloD - 19
Rigel - 17
Mike - 8

And now for the second part of our two-fer, all the correct picks for this week's games (otherwise known as "my picks in red"):

St. Louis Rams at Baltimore Ravens: Hard to go with Gus on the road, but it still should be close.
Minnesota Vikings at Chicago Bears: I know the Vikes wished they picked up a quarterback in the offseason. When Brian Griese looks better than anything you've got, you're in trouble.
Miami Dolphins at Cleveland Browns: If the Brownies take the Fish lightly, they can lose this one.
Washington Redskins at Green Bay Packers: I am not sure how good the Redskins really are, since they've had a fairly easy schedule so far.
Houston Texans at Jacksonville Jaguars: The Jags seem to be "in the zone" now, with three straight wins. I'll take the hot team in what should be a pretty good game.
Cincinnati Bengals at Kansas City Chiefs: As bad as the Bengals are, the Chefs are worse.
Philadelphia Eagles at New York Jets: Two struggling teams trying to get their ships on course. The Eagles strike me as having just a bit more talent.
Tennessee Titans at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Both of these teams have lost to the Colts, but the Titans looked a lot more impressive against the Colts.
Carolina Panthers at Arizona Cardinals: The Battle of the Backups. Carr vs. Warner. Doesn't it just get your heart pumping? I thought not.
New England Patriots at Dallas Cowboys: The overhyped game of the week. Sorry, but the Pats walk away with this one easily.
Oakland Raiders at San Diego Chargers: I have to make the homer pick here, but I can't go against my "first place in the AFC West" Raiders. I love the sound of that!
New Orleans Saints at Seattle Seahawks: Will the Saints show up this week? I'm not betting on it.
New York Giants at Atlanta Falcons: We know this game was scheduled for Monday night before Vick went to the dogs.

Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday, or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 5 Picks

Once again, time for the picks (in red), this time from last week's defending champion (that's me):

Miami Dolphins at Houston Texans: I can't pick the Fish until they show me they can win.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Kansas City Chiefs: The Jags are not much better than the Chiefs, but they should be good enough to beat this Herm Edwards train wreck.
Cleveland Browns at New England Patriots: The only way the Pats lose this one is if they take the Brownies lightly.
Carolina Panthers at New Orleans Saints: The Saints are a tempting pick this week, but they will have to win one before I take them. They have looked pretty bad so far.
New York Jets at New York Giants: This one is a coin toss between two underachieving teams.
Seattle Seahawks at Pittsburgh Steelers: I have not been overly impressed with either of these teams. They have played well enough to win, but their competition so far has not been exceptional. That said, I lean towards the Steelers in this long road game for the Hawks.
Arizona Cardinals at St. Louis Rams: Kurt Warner wins one against his former team.
Atlanta Falcons at Tennessee Titans: Rumors swirling about Bobby Petrino returning to the college ranks after this season cannot be helping the Falcons team morale.
Detroit Lions at Washington Redskins: Expect the Lions to have a letdown after their big win over the Bears last week. The Skins coming off a bye week makes it even tougher for Millen's boys.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Indianapolis Colts: As beat up as the Colts are this week, I might take the Bucs to win under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, the Bucs are just as beat up. With both starting running backs (Cadillac Williams and Joseph Addai) likely to miss this game with injuries, don't be surprised if this game turns into a passing fiesta, and we know how Peyton Manning does in those.
San Diego Chargers at Denver Broncos: Norv Turner vs. Mike Shanahan. 'Nuff said.
Baltimore Ravens at San Francisco 49ers: Expect Trent Dilfer to pull a "Culpepper" against the team he led to the Super Bowl.
Chicago Bears at Green Bay Packers: Yawn. Am I the only one who is completely bored with Brett Favre, even when he does well?
Dallas Cowboys at Buffalo Bills: If this game were played anytime other than Monday night, I might take the Bills. But give Terrell Owens a spotlight, and he'll take it.


Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday, or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 4 Results

Look who won this week. Some guy named Ed:

EdMcGon - 8
FunkyPundit - 7
J. Mark English - 6
Bill Barker - 6
bl - 6
Rigel - 6
David Stefanini - 5
Dave O'Leary - 5
SoloD - 5
Robert A. George - 4

And that guy named Ed seems to be moving up in the YTD standings too (with number of weeks won in parentheses):

David Stefanini(1) - 33
EdMcGon(1) - 32
J. Mark English(1) - 30
Robert A. George(1) - 27
Bill Barker - 27
Dave O'Leary - 21
bl - 16
FunkyPundit - 15
SoloD - 12
Rigel - 11
Mike - 8

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 4 Picks

As Shakespeare might have said: "Cry bacon! And let slip the pigs of war!"

Ok, I took a few liberties with that, but here are my picks (in red) anyway:

Houston Texans at Atlanta Falcons: The Matt Schaub Bowl, otherwise known as Schaub returns to Atlanta to show the Falcons why they were horrendously stupid for trading him and keeping Mike "Dog-fryer" Vick.
New York Jets at Buffalo Bills: Welcome to the NFL, Trent Edwards.
Baltimore Ravens at Cleveland Browns: Take the Brownies to pull an upset in a surprisingly close game.
St. Louis Rams at Dallas Cowboys: No Steven Jackson. No Orlando Pace. No win for the Lambs.
Chicago Bears at Detroit Lions: With Brian Griese in for Rex Grossman, the Bears look like a much better team. Griese's flaw has always been choking in the clutch, but the Bears should be able to get far enough ahead of the Lions to avoid that possibility.
Oakland Raiders at Miami Dolphins: Thanks for the victory guaranty, Joey Porter! I was worried the Raiders might take this game lightly, but not anymore.
Green Bay Packers at Minnesota Vikings: Two teams moving in opposite directions.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Carolina Panthers: If QB David Carr plays, and wins, he deserves to be the full time starting quarterback for the Panthers. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Seattle Seahawks at San Francisco 49ers: The 49ers will be happy to be returning to the NFC this week, after their drubbing by the Steelers last week. Pity the poor Seahawks.
Pittsburgh Steelers at Arizona Cardinals: Speaking of pity, that's a good plan for dealing with Cardinal fans this weekend.
Denver Broncos at Indianapolis Colts: When they are at home, you have to pick the Colts against almost any team.
Kansas City Chiefs at San Diego Chargers: You would be hard pressed to find two worse coaches with two better teams in any game this week.
Philadelphia Eagles at New York Giants: The Eagles might have a letdown after last week's win.
New England Patriots at Cincinnati Bengals: The game of the week, only because it should be a lot of fun to watch. I would hate to have to go up against the Patriots without a defense. The Patriots defense will be the difference in this shootout.


Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday, or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 3 Results

Sorry this is late folks. But the winner for week 3 is (followed by the rest of us losers):

Robert A. George - 12
bl - 10
David Stefanini - 8
Bill Barker - 8
Dave O'Leary - 8
FunkyPundit - 8
J. Mark English - 7
EdMcGon - 7
SoloD - 7

And the year to date standings (with weeks won in parentheses):

David Stefanini(1) - 28
J. Mark English(1) - 24
EdMcGon - 24
Robert A. George(1) - 23
Bill Barker - 21
Dave O'Leary - 16
bl - 10
FunkyPundit - 8
Mike - 8
SoloD - 7
Rigel - 5

I will have this week's picks up either tonight or tomorrow, so hurry back and play!

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 3 Picks

Feel free to add your picks to the comments (rules below). My picks are in red:

Arizona Cardinals at Baltimore Ravens: This one is not as obvious as it appears on paper. Regardless, the Ravens should still win a squeaker.
San Diego Chargers at Green Bay Packers: I predict a painful day for Lord Favre.
Indianapolis Colts at Houston Texans: If WR Andre Johnson was playing, the Texans might have a chance. Without him, take the Colts.
Minnesota Vikings at Kansas City Chiefs: If there's a more boring matchup this weekend, I don't see it.
Buffalo Bills at New England Patriots: I don't need the video to know who's going to win this one.
Miami Dolphins at New York Jets: If Mangini is half the coach he's supposed to be, the Jets should win.
Detroit Lions at Philadelphia Eagles: When Donovan McNabb made his comment about how hard it is for black quarterbacks, I doubt he had the Lions in mind, but he'll definitely be thrown (and throwing) to them this week.
San Francisco 49ers at Pittsburgh Steelers: Take gold over steel this week.
St. Louis Rams at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: The Rams are struggling with offensive line woes, while the Bucs look like they might be for real.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Denver Broncos: Denver at home is hard to beat, especially for the Jags.
Cleveland Browns at Oakland Raiders: Don't expect the Browns offense to look like it did last week.
Cincinnati Bengals at Seattle Seahawks: Don't expect the Bengals offense to look like it did last week either, but they should still beat the Hawks.
Carolina Panthers at Atlanta Falcons: The Panthers aren't great, but they are good enough to beat these bums.
New York Giants at Washington Redskins: Both of these teams are beat up, but at least the Skins seem to have some depth.
Dallas Cowboys at Chicago Bears: The game of the week, but only because these two teams match up well. I lean towards the Bears, but only because of their great defense and the unstoppable Devin Hester on special teams.
Tennessee Titans at New Orleans Saints: The Young-Bush Bowl. The Saints need this win desperately.

Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday, or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

The Liberal View of Christian Conservatives

From Rodak's blog:

"I maintain that conservative economic values, which glorify the acquisition and hoarding of wealth; conservative social values, characterized by the establishment of a rigid meritocracy; and conservative civic values, which lead to a form of aggressive nationalism, characterized by militarism, neocolonialism, and a nearly constant state of war, are all in 180-degree opposition to the New Testament doctrines of Christianity proclaimed as central to the moral conduct of their lives by the vast majority of those Americans who characterize themselves as “conservative.” Rather than characterizing such people as hypocrites, consciously doing the very opposite of what their, often fundamentalist, Christianity would prescribe as partaking of Christian virtue, I am suggesting that, while thinking in the socio-political conservative mode, they are unaware of, and unable to access, strictly Christian values. Similarly, when directly engaged in religious activities, they are apt to say, and temporarily believe in their very hearts, things which, while in political mode, they vote against."

The basic mistake here is claiming the New Testament is proclaiming a political philosophy, instead of a personal philosophy. Neither Christ nor Paul said anything even remotely close to "use government to do good for your fellow man". If anything, Christ's "render unto Caesar" comment was the antithesis of the liberal political philosophy, showing a distinct split between the political and the theological.

In viewing the split between religion and politics, it also helps to consider the historical context of the Bible. During the time of the New Testament, there were no democratic or republican governments around. The Greek democracies and the Roman republics were both history by the time of Christ. In thinking of government, both Christ and Paul were referring to monarchical forms of government.

Which begs the question of how should Christians within a representative democracy view government?

Since it is not covered in the Bible, this is an area open to personal interpretation of the Bible. Considering government is the LEAST effective form of charity (you only have to look at the government's response to Hurricane Katrina to figure that out), why would ANY Christian in their right mind relegate to the government their own personal responsibility to commit charitable acts?

With this in mind, I would add to Christ's quote: Render unto Caesar that which is his, and NOTHING MORE. Do not pass your personal responsibilities to Caesar. By doing so, you place a burden on your neighbor. Would you have your neighbor place his burdens on you?

Other flaws in Rodak's statement:

"I maintain that conservative economic values, which glorify the acquisition and hoarding of wealth"

Glorifying a free market does NOT glorify greed. It uses greed to provide incentives for the improvement of society as a whole. Wealth does not accumulate in a vacuum. Simple greed does not allow someone to accumulate wealth.

What conservatives glorify is hard work towards a goal which benefits society. If the individual who performs this hard work is rewarded by society with great wealth for their accomplishments, then so be it. We glorify these individuals, and reward them, to provide incentives for other individuals to do the same.

But conservatives also take the view that an individual who works hard towards a goal which does NOT benefit society should NOT be rewarded. In addition, an individual who does NOT work hard should not be rewarded. In essence, we allow our neighbors to decide if there is a reward, and what the amount of the reward should be.

When government decides the individual rewards, then only government needs to benefit from the individual's work.

"conservative social values, characterized by the establishment of a rigid meritocracy"

The definition of "meritocracy":

1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.
2. a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced: The dean believes the educational system should be a meritocracy.
3. leadership by able and talented persons.

Maybe it's just me, but a meritocracy sounds like a great idea. What kind of liberal alternative to this would be an improvement? Affirmative action programs where we can promote people based on superficial characteristics, instead of ability?

conservative civic values, which lead to a form of aggressive nationalism, characterized by militarism, neocolonialism, and a nearly constant state of war

Maybe I missed it, but who was the last conservative to suggest the U.S. should colonize ANY country?

Or maybe by "neocolonialism", Rodak means the U.S. tries to maintain world peace by overthrowing governments which would threaten world peace, such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

While the virtue of the U.S. being the world's "police force" can be argued, the conservative support of this philosophy is built on history: When the U.S. tried to withdraw from world affairs after World War I, we ended up in a bigger mess in World War II.

The world is NOT a peaceful place. This is a fact which liberal idealism refuses to recognize. The Earth is NOT a utopian ideal. As long as there are threats to world peace, they must be countered. "Turn the other cheek" is a personal ideal, not an international political ideal.

I could go on to refute the rest of Rodak's post, but it is based on the faulty belief that individual responsibility is equivalent to government responsibility within Christian philosophy. In truth, this is Rodak's own liberal belief which he has projected onto Christianity.

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 2 Results

The final results for week 2 are:

J. Mark English - 12
Robert A. George - 11
EdMcGon - 9
David Stefanini - 9
Dave O'Leary - 8
Bill Barker - 7
Rigel - 5

Congrats Mark!

For our year-to-date results (with weeks won in parentheses):

David Stefanini(1) - 20
J. Mark English(1) - 17
EdMcGon - 17
Bill Barker - 13
Robert A. George - 11
Dave O'Leary - 8
Mike - 8
Rigel - 5

I will post the week 3 picks later this week, so stay tuned!

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 2 Picks

Time for our week 2 NFL game picks! My picks below are in red:

Houston Texans at Carolina Panthers: This is what is typically referred to as a "no-brainer".
Cincinnati Bengals at Cleveland Browns: Is this "no-brainer" week?
Atlanta Falcons at Jacksonville Jaguars: While the Jags aren't great, the Falcons still have Joey Harrington, who makes David Garrard look good by comparison.
Green Bay Packers at New York Giants: The Giants new motto: "Is there a doctor in the house?"
Buffalo Bills at Pittsburgh Steelers: Expect the Bills to give the Steelers a tough time this week, but the Steelers should squeak by them.
San Francisco 49ers at St. Louis Rams: The Rams REALLY miss Orlando Pace, otherwise they might win this one. Regardless, it should be close.
New Orleans Saints at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Expect the Saints to put a smackdown on the Bucs. After losing to the Colts last week, this should be a monster bounce-back for the Saints.
Indianapolis Colts at Tennessee Titans: The AFC South teams always seem to play each other tough. This game will be no exception. This game will be decided in the final minutes, and I lean towards Peyton Manning doing something spectacular to win it, although it could just as easily be Vince Young.
Seattle Seahawks at Arizona Cardinals: The Cards looked like a rebuilding team last week. The Seahawks looked like a savvy veteran team.
Minnesota Vikings at Detroit Lions: The Lions are a huge step up from the Falcons, as the Vikings are about to learn.
Dallas Cowboys at Miami Dolphins: If the Boys play Miami like they did the Giants, this one could get ugly.
New York Jets at Baltimore Ravens: The Ravens don't have an offense like the Pats, but they should still be able to put up enough points to slip by the Jets.
Kansas City Chiefs at Chicago Bears: You couldn't pay me to watch this game. Rex Grossman might even look good against the Chefs (no typo).
Oakland Raiders at Denver Broncos: While I will be rooting for the Raiders in this one, I know the history between these two teams all too well.
San Diego Chargers at New England Patriots: The game of the week. Expect the "camera-less" Pats to fall to a revved up Charger team bent on revenge for last season's playoff loss.
Washington Redskins at Philadelphia Eagles: Take the Eagles in a toss-up. On paper, these two teams are evenly matched. The Eagles need this game just a bit more than the Skins.

Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday, or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

Pigskin Pick'em - Week 1 Results

The first week's NFL results are in, as well as the results for our Pigskin Pick'em contest.

Even with two games remaining to be played, David Stefanini has already got enough wins to claim victory in the first week (tonight's picks are shown after the weekly totals):

David Stefanini - 9 (Bengals & 49ers)
EdMcGon - 7 (Ravens & 49ers)
Mike - 6 (Bengals & 49ers)
J. Mark English - 4 (Bengals & Cards)
Bill Barker - 4 (Bengals & 49ers)

I will be tracking correct picks for the entire season, so be sure to play when I post later this week.

I must admit that my Browns over Steelers pick was a truly bad one, for which I received a ton of grief. I overestimated the Browns, mostly due to the fact the team played with a lot of heart last year, even when they were losing games. On the other hand, I underestimated the Steelers because of Tomlin installing a new playbook. If you look at the Steelers on paper, they simply outclass the Browns as far as talent.

That said, I feel quite vindicated with my Titans over the Jaguars pick, for which I also received a ton of grief. Lest any of you forget, here is what was said regarding the Browns and Titans picks:

I should have stopped reading when you picked Cleveland...or Tennessee.

I understand the Falcons pick, but the Browns and Titans?

David Garrard is an upgrade over Byron Leftwich. I would wager that the Jags have the highest margin of victory this week.

luckily jax's d is about 500 tims better, and their RBs are 200 times better than their Tennessee counterparts.

The Jags aren't terrible and they have .... ah, screw it. Let Young's curse begin.

Admittedly, the Titans surprised me with how much their running game dominated the Jaguars defense (282 rushing yards), against what appeared to be a mediocre running game for the Jaguars (72 rushing yards).

Still, when I watched Tennessee in the preseason, I noticed how much better both their offensive line and defense were playing. The game against the Jags was NOT an upset.

The true test for the Titans will come this weekend against the Colts.

Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 1 Picks

It's that time of year again! Time for the weekly Pigskin Pick'em, where the rules are simple:

1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday, or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)

So to get the ball rolling, here are my picks (in red) for the first week:
Denver Broncos at Buffalo Bills: While the Broncos are not a great road team, it's hard to go against them when they are playing the Bills.
Pittsburgh Steelers at Cleveland Browns: New coach in Pittsburgh, so expect a few growing pains. I like the Brownies in an upset.
Philadelphia Eagles at Green Bay Packers: Even on a bad day, the Eagles should be able to have the Pack for lunch.
Kansas City Chiefs at Houston Texans: This one is a toss-up between a team getting worse (Chiefs) and a team that can't get any worse (Texans). If Gary Kubiak is ever going to turn the Texans around, he needs to win here.
Tennessee Titans at Jacksonville Jaguars: This should be a fun game to watch, although my gut tells me the Jags are going in the wrong direction.
Atlanta Falcons at Minnesota Vikings: The Vikings aren't that good, and the Falcons want to prove they can win without Vick. This one is all about motivation for the Falcons.
New England Patriots at New York Jets: The Pats come loaded for bear. Gotta lean towards the talent in this one.
Carolina Panthers at St. Louis Rams: This is completely a guess. Either of these teams could win this one.
Miami Dolphins at Washington Redskins: It's going to take a lot more than one game for Cam Cameron to clean up the mess Nick Saban left.
Detroit Lions at Oakland Raiders: Welcome to the NFL Lane Kiffin.
Chicago Bears at San Diego Chargers: The only question is whether Norv Turner will let the Chargers run on auto-pilot. He'll win a lot more games that way.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Seattle Seahawks: The battle of the 1976 expansion teams. As long as Jeff Garcia is healthy, the Bucs should win a lot of games like this one.
New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys: Tom Coughlin vs. Wade Phillips? Not exactly Bill Parcells vs. Jimmy Johnson. Take the Boys at home.
Baltimore Ravens at Cincinnati Bengals: Definitely the game of the week. Two hungry teams looking for redemption after disappointing seasons last year. Defense wins big games, and few teams have defenses as strong as the Ravens.
Arizona Cardinals at San Francisco 49ers: It will take Ken Whisenhunt a while to install his system in Arizona. In addition, the 49ers are a playoff team this year.

Just for anyone curious, I like the Saints tonight vs. the Colts.

Worst joke of the week

At the exact same time, there are two 35 year old men on opposite sides of the earth.

One is walking a tight rope between two skyscrapers.

The other is getting oral sex from an 85 year old toothless woman.

They are both thinking the exact same thing: Don’t look down.

Friday funnies

Too much funny stuff today, so I thought I would lump it all into one post.

First, today's Dilbert:


Second, from Neal Boortz's website:

Mike forgot his wedding anniversary and his wife was really ticked off at him.

She told him, "Tomorrow morning, I expect to find a gift in the driveway that goes from 0 to 200 in under 6 seconds, AND IT BETTER BE THERE."

The next morning, Mike got up really early.

When his wife woke up a couple of hours later, she looked out the window, and sure enough, there was a small gift-wrapped box sitting in the middle of the driveway. Confused, the wife put on her robe, ran out to the driveway, and took the box into the house.

She opened it, and found a brand new bathroom scale.

Mike is not yet well enough to have visitors.

Finally, in the category of "I can't make this stuff up", we have this little bit of actual news from the Times Online:

Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

Somebody needs to tell Andy Skurka about that study:

Andy Skurka is walking. Everyday, all day. In rain, snow, and scorching heat. And nothing can slow him down -- not cougars, bears or snakes. Not blisters or burning muscles. Since setting out from the Grand Canyon on April 9, Skurka has covered 3,653 miles … and he's only halfway home.

Andy Skurka's "GoLite on the Planet" walk has reached the halfway point. The nearly 7,000 mile odyssey -- roughly the distance from Los Angeles to Istanbul, Turkey -- is an effort to provide a first-hand look at the damage global warming is having on America's National Parks and wilderness areas.

Andy, stop! You're killing the planet!

On Federalism

It is not often that I will "steal" an entire blog posting. But in this case, I consider this a must-read, no links required.

The following post, entitled "On Federalism", is from former Senator Fred Thompson, posted July 27th on his presidential campaign's website. This reflects my own political views far better than I could ever say:

"The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power.

The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.

We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.

The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.

This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency.

The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?” But they don’t.

The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today’s governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended.

This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate commerce to promote free markets. Indeed, a commitment to federalism would help the federal government do a better job in addressing national emergencies and emerging threats, because it could focus on these issues rather than on everything else it is trying to do. A proper regard for constitutional boundaries would also go a long way in avoiding the arguments that follow when Washington acts by decree, disregarding the elected representatives of the fifty states.

You know better than anyone how involvement from Washington affects nearly every policy, program, and aspect of your jobs. But beyond the nuisance of duplicative state and federal requirements, one might wonder if a division of responsibility between the federal government and the states is still important. The answer must be a resounding yes.

Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in government at all levels suffer.

It is as true today as it ever was: the closer a government is to its people, the more responsive it is to the felt needs of its constituencies. Too often, however, state and local leaders have to answer to federal bureaucrats first and their constituents second. When the federal government mandates a program that states and localities are forced to implement, or when a federal grant program is created to fund a specific state or community need, it blurs the lines of accountability.

Who answers to the people if a program fails? The federal government will point to state authorities carrying out the program; the states will point to the federal government, which came up with the program in the first place. And in the end no one is more confused than the people the program is supposed to be serving, who can’t even say for sure who is responsible for what. This does not argue against all federal programs but it does require the recognition that there, indeed, are trade-offs.

Back in my days in the Senate, I found myself on the short end of a couple of 99 to 1 votes. They involved issues that had been under the purview of states for over 200 years. I asked why we should federalize what rightly were state and local issues.

I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a thousand sparks of genius in the states and communities around this country catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the alternative of central planning.

We need to allow local authorities to apply their own good ideas and use their own good judgment. Each state can find its own way, learning from the successes and failures of the others. There is a wealth of creativity and initiative out there in the states, and often the best ideas in Washington started out as state initiatives.

A good example of this early in my Senate service was welfare reform. We were warned that terrible things would happen if we went forward with a bill – a fundamental commitment would be abandoned and, among state governments, a “race to the bottom” would begin.

But key to our approach were elements of welfare reform that had proved successful in various states, such as Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin. The result was a law that allowed us to better meet our commitments to our fellow citizens. It was one of the great political successes of the 1990’s, because Washington – for once – had the good sense to learn from state and local authorities and empower them in return.

When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities – above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.

We saw some improvement in the post-1994, “Contract with America” takeover of Congress – strings to federal programs were cut, more federal programs were being turned over to states, historic legislation to reduce unfunded mandates became law, and we rolled back the Clinton anti-federalism executive order. But in recent years we’ve seen backsliding.

The recent immigration bill was a case in point. That bill failed, and it failed for good reason. The federal government simply had no credibility on the issue.

The promises of the 1986 immigration bill have not been fulfilled. Current laws have not been enforced. The federal government has been failing in its fundamental responsibility to control the borders. Worse, when state officials have tried to act with reforms of their own, federal authorities have gotten in the way. In the end, many in both parties in Congress have learned a lesson: promises about immigration reform aren’t worth much unless you have credibility. And in this case there’s only one way that credibility can be regained. Federal leaders must do their job and secure the borders of the United States.

Law enforcement in general is a matter on which Congress has been very active in recent years, not always to good effect and usually at the expense of state authority. When I served as a federal prosecutor, there were not all that many federal crimes, and most of those involved federal interests. Since the 1980’s, however, Congress has aggressively federalized all sorts of crimes that the states have traditionally prosecuted and punished. While these federal laws allow Members of Congress to tell the voters how tough they are on crime, there are few good reasons why most of them are necessary.

For example, it is a specific federal crime to use the symbol of 4-H Clubs with the intent to defraud. And don’t even think about using the Swiss Confederation’s coat of arms for commercial purposes. That’s a federal offense, too.

Groups as diverse as the American Bar Association and the Heritage Foundation have reported that there are more than three thousand, five hundred distinct federal crimes and more than 10,000 administrative regulations scattered over 50 section of the U.S. code that runs at more than 27,000 pages. More than 40 percent of these regulatory criminal laws have been enacted since 1973.

I held hearings on the over-federalization of criminal law when I was in the Senate. You hear that the states are not doing a good job at prosecuting certain crimes, that their sentencing laws are not tough enough, that it’s too easy to make bail in state court. If these are true, why allow those responsible in the states to shirk that responsibility by having the federal government make up for the shortcomings in state law? Accountability gets displaced.

Now, there are plenty of areas in criminal law where a federal role is appropriate. More and more crime occurs across state and national boundaries; the Internet is increasingly a haven for illegal activity. A federal role is appropriate in these and other instances. But today the Federal Bureau of Prisons has quadrupled in size in little more than 20 years.

Perhaps the clearest example of federal over-involvement in state and local responsibilities is public education. It’s the classic case of how the federal government buys authority over state and local matters with tax-payer money and ends up squandering both the authority and the money while imposing additional burdens on states.

Between 1970 and 2005, federal spending on education increased nearly 150 percent without results to match. The No Child Left Behind law itself increased federal funding by some 26 percent, while creating 50 new educational programs nationally, imposing almost 7 million hours and more than 140 million dollars in compliance time and costs. The classrooms of America, where the learning actually takes place, receive but 61 cents out of every tax-payer dollar appropriated.

A little more federalist confidence in the wisdom of state and local governments might go a long way toward improving America’s public schools. The most encouraging reforms in education are occurring at the local level, with options like charter schools. And often the best thing Washington can do is let the states, school districts, teachers and parents set their own policies and run their own schools.

It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding. However, it is not a good idea for the federal government to specifically set forth the means to be used in order to reach those goals. Adherence to this principle would make for fewer bureaucracies, fewer regulations, and less expense, while promoting educational achievement. There are bills pending in Congress that would move us in this direction, and I hope Congress gives them the attention they deserve.

Beyond specific policies, what’s needed are some basic rules to restrain the federal rule-makers.

A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.

It is not enough to say that we are “for” federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together."

Kudos to Costas

From Ronald Blum at theAssociated Press:

"A day after Barry Bonds called him a "little midget man who knows (nothing) about baseball," broadcaster Bob Costas said he wasn't upset with the San Francisco Giants slugger and responded with a jab of his own.

"As anyone can plainly see, I'm 5-6 1/2 and a strapping 150, and unlike some people, I came by all of it naturally," Costas said Thursday in a telephone interview."

You gotta love Costas, don't you?

Vick and the Jock Culture

From Jason Cole at Yahoo Sports:

"Until Monday, when [NFL Commissioner Roger] Goodell ordered [Falsons quarterback Mike] Vick to stay away from the team's training camp while the league reviews the federal dogfighting charges against him, at least one person close to Vick felt he didn't fully grasp the ramifications of his circumstances.

"I wouldn't say he's delusional about the problem, but I don't think he sees it as being as big a deal as everybody else," the associate said. "He thinks it's going to blow over eventually … He doesn't know how deep this goes.""

Mike Vick...just...doesn't...get it.

Vick doesn't think think the allegations are a big deal. By extension, is it safe to assume he doesn't think dog fighting is a big deal? If he doesn't think being accused of fighting dogs is important, then how far of a stretch is it to believe he would actually do it?

While this may not be damning evidence, it certainly lends credence to the charges. But there is another side to Vick's state of mind: the jock culture.

We all have seen how jocks rarely have to face consequences for their off-the-field activities. We have all seen the DUI's, and speeding charges, and wife/girlfriend beatings, but how many times do jocks ACTUALLY get caught? I suspect it is a lot more times than we have been led to believe, but we will never know for certain if the police won't hold these kids accountable.

And childhood is where it starts. A kid is good at a specific sport in high school. But kids being kids, he does something wrong at school. The principal finds out, and covers it up, because the school's team is winning, thanks to this kid.

Maybe the kid is failing a class, so the principal puts a little pressure on the teacher to give the kid a passing grade.

By the time the kid is out of high school, he has only learned one thing: Do well at sports, and all other things will be forgiven.

In college, this lesson is only reinforced. Money, dinners, and gifts from alumni boosters only serve to ingrain the lesson. Of course, the campus police are always there to escort a star player back to his dorm room after he gets drunk and rapes some poor girl at a frat party.

On top of all this, the jocks all look after each other. That is part of the team mentality. Unfortunately, the jock culture almost elevates it to mafia-like similarities.

Consider all the current and former players who have come out in defense of Mike Vick:

Clinton Portis (RB, Redskins): "It’s his property, it’s his dog. People should mind their business."

Joe Horn (WR, Falcons, from an interview with the Atlanta Journal Constitution): "What upsets me is if you don't know Michael Vick or haven't talked to him about how he feels, you shouldn't talk about the man until he's proven guilty or exonerated. Let the system take care of itself and take its course...

I've spoken to him several times. Mike is saddened about the tension this is going to cause the team. I assured him I support him, the rest of the guys support him and the team supports him. Whether he's guilty or innocent or whether you believe he is, time will tell...

I think he should be around. The more he's around his family, his football family, his teammates playing football; it's what might help Michael Vick. I respect our commissioner but I don't think suspending him is going to help him. Michael wants to play football. He told me that over and over again. "I know what's going on but I need to be there playing and going through training camp to try and get through this." I told him over and over that good times will come again. Right now you're going through something and it's something you're going to have to go through."

Deion Sanders (former NFL cornerback, in an editorial on news-press.com): "What a dog means to Vick might be a lot different than what he means to you or I. Hold on, don’t start shaking your head just yet. Listen to me.

Some people kiss their dogs on the mouth. Some people let their dogs eat from their plate. Some people dress their dogs in suits more expensive than mine, if you can believe that.

And some people enjoy proving they have the biggest, toughest dog on the street. You’re probably not going to believe this, but I bet Vick loves the dogs that were the biggest and the baddest. Maybe, he identified with them in some way.

You can still choose to condemn him, but I’m trying to take you inside his mind so you can understand where he might be coming from."

Emmitt Smith (former NFL running back): "He's the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond so they're putting the squeeze on him to get to everyone else...Now, granted he might have been to a dogfight a time or two . . . but he's not the one you're after, he's just the one whose going to take the fall -- publicly."

Does anyone wonder where the phrase "dumb jock" comes from? Logic goes out the window when they have to defend one of their kind. Portis was downright defensive, Horn completely ignored the PR ramifications because he wants his teammate on the field, Sanders sounds like Oprah, and Smith is paranoid.

But why would great players like these reduce themselves to stupidity in order to defend the indefensible? Just as Vick doesn't see his own problems, neither do other players.

D.C. residents need not apply

Jay Tea over at Wizbang has come across an interesting coincidence regarding years of federal political experience and who we elect for president:

"I haven't fully worked out how far back the trend goes, but it seems that when it comes to electing presidents, we tend to choose the candidate with the least Washington experience.

2004: Bush had four years, Kerry decades.

2000: Bush zero, Gore decades.

1996: Clinton four, Dole decades.

1992: Clinton zero, Bush over a decade.

1988 was an aberration, but come on -- it was MIKE DUKAKIS. I recall one political commentator (I think it was Dave Barry) announced that "the union of crazed loners announce they are sitting out this election. They urge anyone who feels enough passion to kill either candidate should seek professional help."

1984: Reagan with four years, Mondale with -- again -- over a decade.

1980: Reagan zero, Carter 4.

1976: Carter zero, Ford decades.

Is this a statistical aberration, or a sign that Americans tend to prefer outsiders and reject career Washington politicians? I'm not sure, but it definitely bodes ill for candidates like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton (her term as First Lady will count, I think), Christopher Dodd, and John McCain, while encouraging to the likes of Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, and Mike Huckabee."

Add this to the other traditional tendencies, such as no sitting senator has won the presidency since JFK, no Democrat from outside the South since JFK, and no Republican has won since Eisenhower who wasn't from California or Texas.

NFC Preview

Time for the NFC Preview. (AFC Preview here)

Estimated wins this year are in parentheses:

NFC EAST
EAGLES (9 wins): The Eagles are the mark of consistency in this division. They haven't really improved any this year, but they aren't much worse either. Andy Reid has this team running like a well-oiled machine, as we saw last year when Donovan McNabb got hurt and Jeff Garcia stepped in easily. The Eagles are the team to beat in the East.
REDSKINS (9 wins): This team will live or die by QB Jason Campbell. If he improves significantly this year, they could easily win more than 9 games and blowout this division. However, I think he could be a solid quarterback who can put this team in playoff contention, possibly Super Bowl contention.
GIANTS (7 wins): Bye bye Tiki Barber. Bye bye Tom Coughlin. Hello Bill Belichick.
COWBOYS (6 wins): I feel it is safe to say Wade Phillips is a HUGE step down from Bill Parcells. The Cowboys highlight film this year should be titled "Ray Handley Does Dallas".

NFC NORTH
BEARS (10 wins): Exactly WHICH team in this division will challenge the Bears? Even losing Thomas Jones and (possibly) Lance Briggs will still leave the Bears strong enough to beat this division's sorry bunch of losers.
LIONS (7 wins): I will give GM Matt Millen credit: He got the best player in last April's draft. WR Calvin Johnson will be a legitimate superstar in the NFL. But even that won't be enough to save this sorry team.
VIKINGS (6 wins): Just four words: starting quarterback Tarvaris Jackson. Somewhere, Daunte Culpepper is laughing his butt off.
PACKERS (5 wins): Bret Favre getting another year older cannot be good for this team, even though he did play alright last year. Still, if I was playing for this team, I wouldn't feel like I was playing for a Super Bowl. I would feel like I was playing to get some old quarterback into the record books.

NFC SOUTH
SAINTS (12 wins): Actually, 12 wins might be a conservative guess. This team looks ready. Other than injuries, there is no reason this team can't win 14-15 games.
PANTHERS (8 wins): The Panthers are a good team, but not great. After a few mid to late season losses, expect the "Bill Cowher is going to the Panthers" rumors to start flying, and the Panthers will mail in the rest of the season.
BUCCANEERS (7 wins): If you look at all the quarterbacks on the Bucs preseason roster, there is one decent one: Jeff Garcia. The last time he started 16 games was 2002. He is 37 years old. Expect the Bucs to start strong with Garcia before he gets hurt.
FALCONS (5 wins): The Falcons will be a real "dog" this year. Seriously though, they have a new coach installing a new system and a quarterback with legal problems. The backup quarterback (Joey Harrington) is mediocre on his best days.

NFC WEST
49ERS (10 wins): This team will surprise a lot of people this year. Alex Smith is starting to become a good quarterback. Frank Gore may be the next Marshall Faulk. They picked up solid receivers in Darrell Jackson and Ashley Lelie, to go along with Arnaz Battle. TE Vernon Davis can only get better in his second season. The defense started to look better last year. This team will make the playoffs AND will contend for the Super Bowl.
RAMS (8 wins): The Rams will live or die by Steven Jackson. That said, I still see too many questions with their defense.
SEAHAWKS (7 wins): Mike Holmgren is looking like a strong candidate for the hot seat. This team won a weak division last year, and the main players aren't getting any younger.
CARDINALS (6 wins): The Cards got the right head coach. Now they just need an offensive line and a defense. If the Cards get any more than 6 wins, then you can call Ken Whisenhunt a genius.

Dog's in the Kennel

With the news of Mike Vick's indictment for dog fighting, it seemed appropriate to take this moment for a musical review of the situation:


(Thanks to Profootballtalk.com for the YouTube link)

AFC Preview

It is that time of year again. With NFL training camps just a few weeks away, it is time to take a preliminary guess at how this coming season will unfold. I am just a bit anxious for the season to begin, can't you tell?

I'll start with the AFC this week. My projections for wins this season are in parentheses:

AFC EAST
PATRIOTS (11 wins): While the Pats have improved their most glaring weakness from last year, their wide receivers, I would not expect that to improve their overall wins by much because the rest of this division has also improved. However, they should still win this division.
JETS (9 wins): I will give Coach Mangini credit. He learned how to win games from Bill Belichick using smoke and mirrors. This is still not a great team, but I wouldn't underestimate their coaching.
BILLS (8 wins): The addition of RB Marshawn Lynch will make this team better, but this is offset by the loss of CB Nate Clements. I am still not sold that J.P. Losman can be the quarterback they need.
DOLPHINS (7 wins): New coach (Cam Cameron). New quarterback (Trent Green). Even with the growing pains, I expect the Dolphins will be better.

AFC NORTH
BENGALS (10 wins): The team to beat in the North. We all know how depleted their roster has become due to local law enforcement, but this team still has a solid base to build on, and Marvin Lewis can do it.
RAVENS (10 wins): It is hard to call the Ravens a much worse team than last year. While the addition of RB Willis McGahee improves them, this team was already old last year. If QB Steve McNair still has enough gas left in the tank, this team could easily be a Super Bowl team. But that's a BIG "if".
STEELERS (7 wins): This is a good news/bad news deal for the Steelers. With Mike Tomlin installing a new offense, expect the Steelers to take a while to come around offensively (assuming the new offense works at all). I am giving the Steelers the benefit of the doubt here by saying 7 wins. Expect the Steelers to start slow and MAYBE come on at the end of the season.
BROWNS (4 wins): This team is STILL rebuilding? By the way, anyone execting Brady Quinn to be an improvement over Charlie Frye will be sorely disappointed. Quinn might be a LITTLE better next year.

AFC SOUTH
TITANS (9 wins): While the Colts may be the "class" of this division, the Titans will be hungrier. Vince Young is the real deal, and he'll take the Titans past the Colts to win this division. The only question in my mind is whether the Titans win the division by a tie-breaker or by overall wins.
COLTS (9 wins): With the Super Bowl victory hanging around their necks like an albatross, expect the Colts to drop more games than last year. Regardless, they are still a tough team to beat.
TEXANS (7 wins): Will their offensive line play any better than last year? Will Matt Schaub play any better than David Carr? And their best running back is Ahman Green? With all those questions, there is a bright side. I think their defense will be a little better with DT Amobi Okoye.
JAGUARS (6 wins): The Jags still have not solved their quarterback problems. Without a lot of improvement elsewhere, this team is dropping.

AFC WEST
BRONCOS (10 wins): Jay Cutler looks like the best quarterback the Broncos have had since Elway. Another year under Cutler's belt can only mean good things for this team.
CHARGERS (9 wins): How can an overwhelmingly talented team like the Chargers go from 14 wins to 9 wins? Two words: Norv Turner, who has consistently shown over the years he can take a great team and make them mediocre.
RAIDERS (7 wins): Expect the first year under Lane Kiffin to be a significant improvement over last year's catastrophe. All the news out of Oakland seems to show the Raiders embracing the new coach's philosophy.
CHIEFS (7 wins): Nothing like another year under Herm Edwards to make a playoff team worse. When you consider that RB Larry Johnson might hold out or be traded, the Chiefs might even be a 2 win team.