NFL Draft Review

This year's NFL draft is not a deep one in terms of talent. But there are gems here, and winners and losers among the drafters.

WINNERS
RAIDERS: Of all the offensive skill position players in the draft, there was only one "sure thing": RB Darren McFadden. I was downright giddy when my Raiders got him. There is the argument the Raiders didn't need another running back, with Justin Fargas, Michael Bush, and Dominic Rhodes already there. But McFadden is a special back, the kind who makes your offensive line better just because he is so good. And fast.

FALCONS: My hometown Falcons did well, getting the top quarterback in the draft, Matt Ryan, and an offensive lineman for him, Sam Baker. Add in linebacker Curtis Lofton, and things look good for the future of this franchise. However, cornerback Chevis Jackson is a little slow and small for his position.

DOLPHINS: Say what you will, but when you go 1-15, there are offensive line problems. Adding the top offensive lineman in the draft, Jake Long, makes perfect sense. And let's not forget quarterback Chad Henne and two defensive linemen, Phillip Merling and Kendall Langford.

BEARS: There were a lot of needs on the Bears, and they filled a few of them. Tackle Chris Williams, running back Matt Forte, and wide receiver Earl Bennett, may all end up starting right away, considering the lack of quality ahead of them.

COLTS: Even without a first round pick, the Colts got some quality prospects in center Mike Pollak and linebacker (although I think he'd make a better safety) Philip Wheeler. Especially Wheeler, who has a good motor.

JETS: Even though tight end Dustin Keller has some question marks (great receiver, so-so blocking skills), the Jets definitely got a good one in defensive lineman Vernon Gholston.

PACKERS: Like the Colts, no first round picks here, but they got some quality prospects anyway. Getting quarterback Brian Brohm in the second round was a steal.

PATRIOTS: When I see two linebackers going to a team coached by Bill Belichick, I know I am looking at two potential all-pros. Belichick spends more time with his linebackers than any other position, and his defenses show it. Even though the Pats linebackers were all studs last year, they are also OLD. Adding youth to this experienced corps of linebackers makes the Patriots scary.

In addition, the Pats picked up a super-speedy corner in Terrence Wheatley. Expect to hear his name a lot over the next few years.

STEELERS: Even though running back Rashard Mendenhall is the big name of the Steelers draft, I like the guys they got in the second and third rounds better: WR Limas Sweed and DE Bruce Davis. Davis may end up getting switched to linebacker and will be a project because of it, but he has a good motor and attitude. Sweed is another solid prospect.

LOSERS
RAVENS: Think the Ravens learned from the mistake of letting quarterback Derek Anderson go? They went and drafted an Anderson clone in Delaware quarterback Joe Flacco. That said, Delaware quarterbacks have rarely excelled in the NFL, with Rich Gannon being the only exception, and it took Gannon many years to become an outstanding quarterback. In spite of the fact the scouts have become enamored with him, and I personally wish him well as a Delaware grad myself, I predict Flacco becomes a journeyman quarterback who may or may not find success in the NFL. If he does, it will take longer than the Ravens want to wait, and it will be with another team (similar to Rich Gannon).

The rest of the Ravens draft has question marks, although Tom Zbikowski might turn out to be a quality safety.

BROWNS: No picks until the fourth round? It is not like this team doesn't need help.

CHIEFS: I am putting the Chiefs in the losers category for now, only because they got a lot of players with question marks. Even their top pick, defensive lineman Glenn Dorsey, was probably the most questionable among the top 10 picks in the draft.

As for the other five players the Chiefs got in the first three rounds, the scouts are calling them "quality" picks, but I still see "wait and see" picks.

THE REST
What I saw of the rest of the NFL was a bunch of question marks in this draft, which was the weakest draft I have seen in many years.

Observations on Carville-Matalin

Some random thoughts on seeing James Carville and Mary Matalin last night:

1. I was surprised at the lack of young people in the audience. This was at Brenau University, and the tickets for students were free. I could count on one hand the number of students there, yet the auditorium was packed. Either young people aren't as involved politicially as I would hope/expect, or Carville and Matalin just don't resonate with the young (which is possible).

2. I was there with my dad, my step-mother, and my wife. Pretty scary when you consider the "baby" of the group was me (age 43).

3. I finally figured out the mystery of their marriage. They aren't ideologues. Sure they tease each other mercilessly about ideology, but they don't take it seriously. For them, it is all about political strategy, and they mutually respect each other's abilities in that area. They just happen to work for opposing sides.

4. They made some VERY good points about our current election, specifically about how we have never had one like it. Matalin said that McCain's early leadership followed by his slump, allowed his campaign to regroup. Carville correctly pointed out that the last election which did NOT involve a sitting president or vice president was in 1928 (President Coolidge chose not to run for re-election, and Vice President Charles Dawes did not run). We are in new territory for political strategists.

5. Carville talked about his test for the best vice presidential choice: It makes the opposing campaign manager "throw up". He suggested the best choice for McCain would be Colin Powell. Ironically, both my dad and I had the same thought at this: Why not Condi Rice? Later it occurred to me that Rice is too closely associated with the Bush administration, and an opposing campaign manager might salivate at that choice.

Looking at politics from both sides

I will get a political treat tonight when I will be seeing James Carville and Mary Matalin appearing together over at Brenau University.

Some of the luster has been taken off their political shine by their support of losing candidates this year (Matalin supported Fred Thompson and Carville supported Hillary Clinton's slowly dying campaign), but it should still be interesting.

When I have seen them interviewed in the past, I found them both very partisan to an extreme, although I hope to gain some insight into the concept of partisanship by listening to them. Specifically, is it possible to find a middle ground without giving up your political beliefs?

That is the political anomaly of the Carville-Matalin marriage.

Aussie sent home and other Idol-atry

There are too many headlines today calling Michael Johns being sent home on American Idol a "shocker". As much as I liked his voice, he had too many weeks of bland performances not to see the writing on the wall.

Of course, the entire group of singers presented nothing but bland performances this week so sending any of them home this week wouldn't have shocked me. "Idol Gives Back" week was a dud (and I am NOT referring to the Idol-Aid show on Wednesday night).

As for the remaining singers:

DAVID COOK
Cook is the clear frontrunner at this point, thanks to several weeks of kickass performances, not the least of which was his innovative take on Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean", which is already being lauded as one of the greatest Idol performances in the history of the show.

On the downside, he has set the bar pretty high.

JASON CASTRO
Watching Castro, and the judges' glowing assessments of him, and the fact he has only made the bottom three once that I can recall, makes me feel like I am not from this universe. This guy is LAME!

Take his ukelele version of Somewhere Over the Rainbow from Tuesday night. The judges, including Simon Cowell, gushed over him for it. Taking one of the most beautiful slow songs of all time, increasing the tempo, and adding a ukelele, is NOT a great idea, and Castro's performance showed it. No one can come close to Judy Garland's version of it.

As for Castro, all I can figure is that he is a pretty boy with decent vocal abilities. Simon described my feelings about Castro best earlier this season: If I heard him on the radio, I would change the station.

KRISTY LEE COOK
Kristy is no Carrie Underwood. However, as the only remaining country presence in the show, Kristy could go far if she doesn't stumble.

DAVID ARCHULETA
David could sing the phone book and it would sound good. But Idol's wunderkind is not flawless.

In recent weeks, I have noticed him singing more than enunciating song words. That's wonderful if you're doing opera, where no one expects to understand the words. Not so good for American Idol.

That said, his version of John Lennon's Imagine earlier this season still stands out for me as the best version of the song ever done, including Lennon's version.

But David has had trouble with uptempo songs after his disastrous version of Shop Around earlier this season.

CARLY SMITHSON
Whether Carly wins or not, I am a fan. She had me when she did Shadow of Your Smile back in the beginning. That is one of my favorite songs, and she nailed it.

She has done some good songs since then, although this week's rendition of Queen's The Show Must Go On was a bit of a head scratcher for me. Undoubtedly it was the reason she ended up in the bottom three in the voting.

I still believe she is capable of winning the whole contest, but she will need a huge performance next week.

SYESHA MERCADO
One thing I have to give Syesha credit for is guts. She doesn't back down from any challenging song. Some people think she is too cocky, but I find her to be refreshing, especially because she has the pipes to take on just about any song.

Two songs she's done this season stand out for me: The Beatles Yesterday, which she performed flawlessly, and Dolly Parton/Whitney Houston's I Will Always Love You, which I absolutely despise, but she nailed it.

But she is in the same boat as Carly Smithson. She will need a strong performance next week to stick around. This week, Syesha's performance of Fantasia's I Believe was forgettable, mostly because the song itself is forgettable. Her bottom three finish was testament to that.

BROOKE WHITE
Brooke can be very good, and she tends to be consistent, but she never quite outshines her competition.

Take her rendition of The Beatle's Let It Be. While it was outstanding, David Archuleta's Imagine outshines it. That's basically her story: Every week a bridesmaid, never the bride.

She is the only Idol contestant I can look at and say she will definitely not win.

Comparing the Candidates Part 2: Iraq

Following is part 2 in a continuing series comparing the presidential candidates and where they stand on the issues. (part 1 link)

While all three candidates are pretty clear on their overall view of Iraq, they each have subtleties in their positions which are not as well known (all quotes are from the candidates' websites linked to their names below):

HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary's position is clear: Get the troops out of Iraq. However, her position relies on a diplomatic initiative which will require the support of the U.N. and cooperation from "key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq."

BARACK OBAMA
Obama's position is similar to Hillary's, with one key exception:

He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Based on that loophole, Obama could conceivably keep troops in Iraq for the entirety of his presidency.

JOHN McCAIN
Everyone knows about McCain's "100 years" comment about Iraq. His position supports that view, as he plans to INCREASE the number of troops we have in Iraq:

More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America's ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.

SUMMARY
If Iraq is your primary issue going into the election, the choices are pretty clear. McCain wants to fix Iraq, Clinton wants us out of Iraq, while Obama wants us out but is willing to consider staying there if circumstances require it.

Comparing the Candidates Part 1: Energy/Environment

Beginning today, I will be writing on where the three remaining candidates for president stand on the issues.

The first issue covered will be Global Warming, arguably the greatest scam of our time. Let's see how much damage the candidates will do in order to save our country (and the world) from nothing (all quotes are from the candidates' websites linked to their names below):

HILLARY CLINTON

To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation's stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.

Sounds lovely, doesn't it? But as usual with anything Clintonian, the devil is in the details:

An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs

Read: more government regulation, which you will pay for at the pump and in your electricity bills.

A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy.

Read: more oil company taxes, which you will pay for at the pump.

An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards

Once the automakers retool their plants, how is this investment paid back? If this operates as a loan to the automakers, what if they don't take the loan? It is still an intriguing idea, but I am not sure how it will work, or if it can work.

A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae work so well, why not do the same thing for green houses? In the middle of a housing crisis which was brought on by loans to people who shouldn't have been buying houses in the first place, is adding more government loans a good idea?

A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission

A new reporting requirement for ALL public companies which we can all pay for in the higher cost of goods! I can't wait!

What does she think companies do when they are impacted by "climate change"? They increase their prices to cover their costs. So we need companies to comply with a new government regulation for what reason?

Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.

A new government agency! Woohoo!

Seriously, there isn't an existing government agency to handle whatever it is she wants the NEC to do?

JOHN McCAIN
One thing I like about McCain's issues statement on the environment is that it is light on details. He basically says we have to maintain a strong economy first, which I agree with 100%. He also mentions using more nuclear power, with which I also agree.

A speech he made on April 23rd of last year provides a lot of the details his issue statement is missing:

Alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass and many other sources, fuel cells, biodiesel derived from waste products, natural gas, and other technologies are all promising and available alternatives to oil. I won't support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lower costs. But I'll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and let consumers choose the winners. I've never known an American entrepreneur worthy of the name who wouldn't rather compete for sales than subsidies.

...I want to improve and make permanent the research and development tax credit. I want to spend less money on government bureaucracies, and, where the private sector isn't moving out of regulatory fear, to form the partnerships necessary to build demonstration models of promising new technologies such as advanced nuclear power plants, coal gasification, carbon capture and storage, and renewable power so we can take maximum advantage of our most abundant resources.

It is safe to say he plans to leave it up to the free markets to decide how we handle this problem, with a little bit of help from tax breaks.

The barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. We've let the fears of thirty years ago, and an endless political squabble over the storage of nuclear spent fuel make it virtually impossible to build a single new plant that produces a form of energy that is safe and non-polluting.

Cutting BACK on government regulation? Can he do that?

Probably not, but it is refreshing to hear a politician say it.

BARACK OBAMA
All three candidates promote "cap and trade" systems. Obama's is a little different:

Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

In other words, a tax on companies which sell their allowances. It is unclear how much the tax will be.

Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

...Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

...Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.

...Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.

More government spending. He has more ideas of different ways to spend government money in a lot of different areas, but no specific energy direction. From biofuels to solar to wind to others, he hits all of them with our tax dollars.

Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S

Aside from the spending aspect of this, is he SURE we can get this done in 5 years?

Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.

I will give Obama some credit for mentioning geothermal as a possibility. Of all possible energy sources, we really don't hear much about geothermal.

Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

This sounds good on the surface, but is a lot more difficult in practice.

Coal energy is derived from the carbon in coal. Low carbon coal provides less energy. Therefore, you have to burn more low carbon coal in order to get the same amount of energy as you would from high carbon coal.

The problem is NOT the coal, but HOW we burn it to produce energy.

SUMMARY
The three candidates show some marked contrasts in energy/environmental policies. As expected, McCain is the farthest from the other two, in that he plans to leave most of it to the free market. Obama wants to spend, spend, spend. Clinton wants to spend too, but she seems to rely on government regulation a bit more than Obama.

R.I.P. Charlton Heston

With the death of Charlton Heston, it seems an appropriate time to bring up his best movies. Whether you agree with his politics or not, Heston's movies were unforgettable. The top five, in the order they were released:

1. The Ten Commandments(1956): I don't know if it still does, but this movie used to air every year around Easter. And I remember watching it every year as a kid. And it never got old.

Incredibly, Cecil B. DeMille made a silent version of The Ten Commandments back in 1923. But the 1956 version is the one everyone remembers, for good reason: It was a lavish spectacle. This movie was the definition of the phrase "Hollywood epic". DeMille took some liberties with the historical accuracy, even the Biblical accuracy, but he was true to the intent of the story.

Of course, Heston's Moses was the rock-jawed hero at the center of the story. But the rest of the cast reads like a "who's who" of mid-20th century Hollywood: Yul Brynner, Anne Baxter, Edward G. Robinson, Yvonne De Carlo, John Derek, Vincent Price, and John Carradine.

I won't call The Ten Commandments Heston's finest work as an actor. But taken as a whole, this movie was the best he did, simply because the film has become a cultural icon.

2. Ben Hur(1959): This movie did for Ancient Rome what The Ten Commandments did for Ancient Egypt. I can almost picture the executive in the movie studio: "Ok, we're making a movie about a guy who goes through a deep religious struggle, set against the backdrop of an ancient period. Now who would be a good actor for the lead? Hmmm..."

Seriously, Heston was a little better in this role, but the movie as a whole pales next to The Ten Commandments, simply because the supporting cast wasn't as good.

3. The Agony and the Ecstasy(1965): This one is my personal favorite of Heston's films. One of the few films where Heston wasn't the big-chested, rock-jawed hero. Instead, Heston played the artist Michelangelo, offset by Rex Harrison's Pope Julius, as Julius gets Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel.

Heston's character struggles in this film aren't quite so "over the top" as in his more famous films. This was Heston at his finest.

4. Planet of the Apes(1968): "Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape!"

Everyone remembers that line, but what they forget about this film is that it was made during the peak of the Civil Rights movement. Science fiction, at it's best, gives us a mirror to the human condition. Planet of the Apes looked at racism.

In the movie, you can hear apes justify their own superiority to humans, such as humans aren't smart enough, and you are reminded of the old racist arguments against blacks.

The great irony of Heston's most famous line from the film is that it shows our own prejudices when it comes to apes. Within the framework of a planet where apes rule over humans, it becomes an example of reverse racism.

Even more ironic is that Heston's most important film is considered just another science fiction film today.

5. The Omega Man(1971): I was so proud of myself when I saw an ad for Will Smith's I Am Legend and thought, "Boy, that sounds like The Omega Man." It should, since it's based on the same novel (I Am Legend, written in 1954 by Richard Matheson).

The point of The Omega Man is that the same science which can destroy mankind can also be used to save it.

Heston's character, as "the last man on earth", would be an unusual role for any actor, and still stands out among his many movies.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:
-El Cid(1961): It has been a long time since I have seen this one, and it doesn't really stand out for me, but most critics rate it as one of his best.
-The Three Musketeers(1973) and The Four Musketeers(1974): Heston was deliciously evil in a supporting role as Cardinal Richelieu.
-Airport 1975(1974): In my opinion, this one was better than the original Airport. Also, it is a classic example of the 1970's disaster films genre.
-Midway(1976): One of the greatest WWII movies, but Heston almost gets lost in the all-star cast (Henry Fonda, James Coburn, Glenn Ford, Hal Holbrook, Toshiro Mifune, Robert Mitchum, Cliff Robertson, and Robert Wagner).

Jobs

With the news that 80,000 jobs were lost in March, it is time to tell my story about my job.

I was laid off in November. Fortunately, I got a nice layoff package that pays me full salary through part of May.

While I did not start job hunting until January, it took me a little over three months to find a job, which I will be starting later in April. Obviously, I was lucky to be able to have time to look without facing financial hardship.

But I did learn some job hunting tips, which I will share:

1. LOOK IN YOUR AREA FIRST. I know this is a no-brainer, but it bears repeating, specifically for the first word: LOOK. If you don't look, you won't find it. Also, make sure you use ALL possible resources, from friends and relatives, to newspapers, to business contacts, to...

2. USE THE INTERNET. Use all your resources, including the internet. I recommend Monster.com and CareerBuilder.com, but use any website where you can post your resume. I got mine through Kelly Services, but that worked for me because I was willing to accept a contract position. Which brings us to...

3. BE FLEXIBLE. If you go into job hunting saying, "I will ONLY take a job in my field within my industry within 10 miles of my home", you probably won't find a job unless you are incredibly lucky. If your line of work can transfer to another industry, then look in other industries. For example, most job skills under Information Technology can be utilized in all industries.

4. BE WILLING TO RELOCATE. 12 million Mexicans can't be wrong. If tip #1 above doesn't work for you, then tip #4 is crucially important. For some people, finding a job with their skill set is just a matter of changing employers. For other people like me, finding a job where I live is close to impossible ( there are plenty of IT jobs, but there is also an overabundance of IT workers).

The first two tips above are common sense for any job hunter. The last two are necessary when you are having trouble finding a job.

To use myself as an example, I got laid off from an IT job working for a bank in Alpharetta, GA (about 30 minutes from Dawsonville, where I live). I found an IT job in Savannah, GA (about 5 hours from Dawsonville) working for an airplane manufacturer. While I will have to move my family to Savannah, I will also be getting a 31% salary increase over what I was making before. Did I mention Savannah is on the Georgia coast? Hello, deep sea fishing!

Recession? Ignore it. There are opportunities out there IF you are willing to go after them, no matter where they are.

Rating Quarterbacks

When I did my recent post about "The Best NFL Quarterback of All-time", I put together some criteria that I thought were important qualities for any quarterback. Since then, I have had some time to think about it, and there are four qualities that stand out for me that any successful quarterback will have.

1. AVOID MISTAKES
This is the one area where quarterbacks can be fairly judged against other quarterbacks, regardless of the talent around them. While quarterbacks may be unfairly blamed for some mistakes (i.e. a wide receiver runs the wrong route on a timing pattern which leads to an interception, or the running back fumbles the ball on a handoff and the quarterback gets credited/blamed with a fumble), over the entire course of a career these mistakes become very minor statistical blips.

2. GAIN YARDS
There are three basic ways for a quarterback to do this: throw the ball deep, throw the ball short, or run with the ball.

DEEP PASSING: The deep pass is a high reward/high risk play. Older era quarterbacks threw a lot more deep passes than modern era quarterbacks. Because of this, the older era quarterbacks tended to have higher yards/attempt, but also had higher interception percentages.

SHORT PASSING: The short pass is a medium reward/low risk play, hence the popularity of the West Coast Offense. While short passes do get intercepted, it occurs less often than longer passes. As for the reward, consider this: If a quarterback is averaging 5 yards per pass attempt, he is having a bad year; whereas, when a running back averages 5 yards per rushing attempt, he is having a stellar year.

RUNNING: Whether a quarterback run is a good idea varies. Bad running quarterbacks will tend not to run with the ball, and opt to throw it away if they don't think they can complete the pass. Good running quarterbacks have another weapon in their arsenal which they can use on defenses.

3. SCORE TOUCHDOWNS
This goes hand-in-hand with the last category, but it is a separate skill. Throwing or running in the "red zone" is much harder. Consider how many times you have seen a quarterback with 4,000 passing yards in a season, but only 20 touchdown passes.

4. WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS
In any team sport, winning the championship is the whole reason to play the game. All players on any team, regardless of their position, are judged by this criteria.

In categories 2-3, a quarterback relies on his receivers for success. If they don't catch the ball or run the right routes, it doesn't matter how well the quarterback throws the ball. But in the 4th category, the quarterback relies on the ENTIRE rest of his team for success. If the defense is a sieve, then the whole team will be lucky to make it into the playoffs, let alone make it to a championship.

THE BIG QUESTION?
In judging any quarterback, is there any one category which should be weighted more highly than the others? Is there a subcategory of one of these which deserves equal consideration?

Personally, I think these 4 categories should be sufficient, and close to equally weighted. I am also changing my rating system to reflect these. Following is a list of the new calculations:

1. Avoid Mistakes: (Interceptions + Fumbles)/(Pass Attempts + Rush Attempts)
2. Gain Yards: (Pass Yards + Rush Yards)/(Pass Attempts + Rush Attempts)
3. Score Touchdowns: (Pass TD's + Rush TD's)/(Pass Attempts + Rush Attempts)
4. Win Championships: Total number of championships won

Please let me know in the comments if you feel I am overlooking something or not giving enough weight to a specific category. Remember, this rating system is ONLY a statistical starting point for discussion. Intangibles can be brought to the argument later.

Ed's Sunday Sermon: Happy Earth Hour!

Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it. - Mark Twain

I was reading "Cities go dark to mark Earth Hour" over at CNN.com:

From Rome's Colosseum to the Sydney Opera House to the Sears Tower's famous antennas in Chicago, floodlit icons of civilization have gone dark for Earth Hour, a worldwide campaign to highlight the waste of electricity and the threat of climate change.

Ah "the threat of climate change". It is almost like being afraid of the sun rising in the morning.

The environmental group WWF has urged governments, businesses and households to turn back to candle power for at least 60 minutes Saturday starting at 8 p.m. wherever they were.

Candle power? I don't suppose the brain surgeons at the WWF know what candles produce? Good old carbon dioxide, that infamous cause of "Global Warming". But why let a little science get in the way of a good cause?

The campaign began last year in Australia and traveled this year from the South Pacific to Europe in cadence with the setting of the sun.

"What's amazing is that it's transcending political boundaries and happening in places like China, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea," said Andy Ridley, executive director of Earth Hour. "It really seems to have resonated with anybody and everybody."

Stupidity knows no national boundaries.

Earth Hour officials hoped 100 million people would turn off their nonessential lights and electronic goods for the hour. Electricity plants produce greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.

Fortunately, the other 5.9 billion people aren't in the dark.

The truth is that Earth Hour isn't about saving the planet. It is about spreading the political belief that humans are responsible for something the Earth does anyway. Climate change has been happening since the Earth was created, and will continue to happen regardless of whether humans are on this planet.

Once more, let me remind everyone that manmade Global Warming is a scientific THEORY, not a fact. Considering the huge number of factors that go into changing the Earth's climate, and considering the limited amount of time we have been measuring the Earth's climate, this subject requires far more objective study before any actions are taken.

Let's move from theories to some simple facts:

What happens when the air is warmer? More water evaporates.

What happens when you get more water in the atmosphere? More clouds are formed.

What happens when more clouds are formed? More of the sun's light is reflected away from the planet.

What happens when the Earth gets less sunlight on the surface of the planet? The planet cools.

What happens when the air is cooler? Less water evaporates.

What happens when you get less water in the atmosphere? Fewer clouds are formed.

What happens when there are fewer clouds? More of the sun's light hits the surface.

What happens when the Earth gets more sunlight on the surface of the planet? The planet warms.

This isn't rocket science folks. This is the never ending cycle of warming and cooling this planet goes through every year.

But at least the Irish got it right in the CNN.com story:

Ireland's more than 7,000 pubs elected not to take part, in part because of the risk that Saturday night revelers could end up smashing glasses, falling down stairs or setting themselves on fire with candles.

For the Irish, "Happy hour" is more important than Earth Hour, as well it should be for the rest of us.

The Best NFL Quarterback of All-time (Revisited)

Back in September of 2006, I did a blog post on "The best quarterback of all time". At the time, I did not include active quarterbacks. Now that Brett Favre has retired, it is time to revisit this subject.

This time around, I decided to come up with a list of all possible contenders for the best of all-time (feel free to mention in the comments if I overlooked a reasonable contender). As before, I am NOT considering active quarterbacks (sorry Tom Brady and Peyton Manning fans).

The contenders (in alphabetical order by first name): Bart Starr, Brett Favre, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Montana, Joe Namath, John Elway, Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham, Roger Staubach, Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman, Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, and Warren Moon.

The criteria:

ACCURACY
Accuracy is an area where it is difficult to compare quarterbacks from the modern era, where short passes are more frequently thrown, with those from previous eras. on the other hand, quarterbacks from previous eras tended to throw longer passes, so this category tends to balance out with the "arm strength" category below.

Completion percentage is the simplest statistic for accuracy. The top five from the list are:

1. Steve Young - 64.3%
2. Joe Montana - 63.2%
3. Troy Aikman - 61.5%
4. Brett Favre - 61.4%
5. Dan Marino - 59.4%

ARM STRENGTH
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. The top five of all-time:

1. Otto Graham - 8.98 yards/attempt
2. Sid Luckman - 8.42
3. Steve Young - 7.98
4. Bart Starr - 7.85
5. Johnny Unitas - 7.76

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

The top five championship winning quarterbacks of all-time:

1. Otto Graham - 8
2. Bart Starr - 5
3t. Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, and Sid Luckman - 4

GAME MANAGEMENT
The first quality all rookie quarterbacks must learn is game management. By this I mean the ability to avoid mistakes, specifically interceptions.

The top five in lowest career interception percentage:

1. Joe Montana - 2.5783%
2. Steve Young - 2.5789%
3. Troy Aikman - 2.99%
4. Dan Marino - 3.01%
5. John Elway - 3.12%

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 reason for this is the quicker the ball is gone, and the fewer hits the quarterback has to take, thereby cutting down on fumbles (as well as sacks).

If you take the number of fumbles and divide it by the total number of rush and pass attempts, the overall result shows the two quarterbacks generally considered to have the quickest releases of all-time: Dan Marino and Joe Namath.

The top five quickest releases of all-time (based on fumbles/rush + pass attempts):

1. Dan Marino - 0.48%
2. Joe Namath - 0.86%
3. Joe Montana - 0.91%
4. Troy Aikman - 1.15%
5. Fran Tarkenton - 1.18%

RUSHING
The key to any quarterback's running ability is how many times do they score touchdowns? More specifically, does the defense have to respect a quarterback's ability to run with the ball?

The best way to judge this is to take the number of rushing touchdowns and divide it by the number of rushing attempts AND passing attempts. The top five running quarterbacks of all-time:

1. Otto Graham - 1.45% rushing td's/total attempts
2. Steve Young - 0.88%
3. Terry Bradshaw - 0.74%
4. Roger Staubach - 0.59%
5. Fran Tarkenton - 0.45%

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.

The top five all-time in touchdown percentage:

1. Sid Luckman - 7.24%
2. Otto Graham - 7.19%
3. Sammy Baugh - 5.91%
4. Steve Young - 5.65%
5. Terry Bradshaw - 5.62%

WHO IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL-TIME?
If you sum the rankings of all the quarterbacks on the list, the final ranking would then be determined by the lowest total (assuming all categories are weighted equally) of ranking values.

The final ranking of the 17 quarterbacks:

Rank. QB - Overall score (lower is better)
1. Steve Young - 29
2. Joe Montana - 34
3. Otto Graham - 38
4. Roger Staubach - 54
5. Bart Starr - 56
6t. Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton - 61
8. Johnny Unitas - 64
9t. Sid Luckman, Troy Aikman - 65
11. Terry Bradshaw - 69
12t. Brett Favre, John Elway - 73
14. Dan Fouts - 74
15. Sammy Baugh - 77
16t. Joe Namath, Warren Moon - 81

Before everyone starts crying about how their favorite quarterback played on a lot of bad teams or didn't have enough talent around them, consider two things. How good would Archie Manning have been if he had played on a good team instead of the horrible Saints teams of the 70's? Also, if championships are removed as a criteria, the top 4 remain the same (and Steve Young gets an even better score).

As I stated in my previous post, Steve Young is the best of all-time. And now that Brett Favre is retired, we can put to bed the notion that he was somehow the best of all-time.

Let the argument commence.

Favre beaned

This post is my way of giving a bloggy high five to ESPN's Sal Paolantonio. Finally, somebody in the Media gets it! Brett Favre is overrated!

In a recent column for ESPN.com, Paolantonio had this to say:

We interrupt the continued deification of Brett Favre -- a first-ballot Hall of Famer and the most durable player in NFL history -- with the following reality check.

Yes, Favre played long enough to throw the most touchdown passes and collect the most wins by an NFL quarterback. But let's examine the second half of No. 4's career. The truth is, Favre did little over the past decade to earn the gushing praise heaped upon him by our fawning brethren in the media.

Sal even goes on to point out something I have already said: Favre is NOT even the best Packers quarterback of all-time. That honor belongs to Bart Starr.

Oh, you say Starr was surrounded by a Hall of Fame roster with a legendary coach. But Starr still is the NFL record holder with a 104.8 career playoff passer rating, nearly 20 points higher than Favre's. That wasn't Vince Lombardi or Ray Nitschke throwing those passes for Starr, whose career postseason passer rating, by the way, is 38 points higher than Johnny Unitas'.

Favre's career playoff record was 12-10. Starr's was 9-1 -- without the benefit of wild-card games. Favre threw 28 interceptions in 22 playoff games. Starr threw three in 10. Think about that -- just three picks in 213 postseason attempts.

But Bart Starr gets the Ringo Starr treatment -- underappreciated and overlooked. Favre gets put on a pedestal. Yes, he had a Pro Bowl season in 2007 with the youngest roster in the NFL. But his final moment on Lambeau Field was a wildly errant pass that turned into the NFC title for the Giants.

By the way, how do you think Favre would have done playing for Vince Lombardi? Frankly, Lombardi would have benched Favre a long time ago for throwing too many interceptions. Gunslingers don't make great quarterbacks, because they don't win championships.

If you look at Favre's career numbers, you will see that after Mike Holmgren left the Packers, Favre's interceptions went up each year, and his touchdowns went down. Holmgren made Favre play within his own limitations. After Holmgren, Favre became the gunslinger, throwing way too many passes he shouldn't because none of the succeeding Packers coaches could control him. Favre became larger than life, and woe be to the coach who might criticize the almighty Favre.

Of course, the Packer fans didn't help the situation by deifying Favre, thereby making it harder on the Packer coaching staffs to try and control Favre's interceptions, which were fueled by Favre's out-of-control ego.

But that brings us back to Sal Paolantionio, who got his start as a sports reporter in Philadelphia. Try to picture what would have happened to Favre if he had been a quarterback in Philadelphia instead of Green Bay? The Eagles fans would have run Favre out of town years ago, with all those playoff interceptions.

Kudos to Sal for giving Favre the Philly treatment. Favre has been playing Santa Claus for too many Packer opponents for too long, and we all know what the Philly fans did to Santa.

Oh Glorious Happy Day!!!

Packers QB Brett Favre retiring!

I'm looking forward to next season already. I won't have to listen to announcers gushing over him any more.

The perfect photo of Hillary Clinton

Nothing needs to be said about this one:


(Hat tip to Reuters)

RIP: Global Warming?

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming"

This is how Michael Asher's blog over at Dailytech.com begins. While the blog (which was reported by Drudge Report) is a bit over the top in it's declaration of the end of Global Warming, if you go to the sources Asher is using for this epithet, you will see there is a SIGNIFICANT trend in global cooling. Whether it is an actual trend, or just a blip, only time will tell.

Unless you listen to the "Religion of the Global Warming Scare" (headed by Pope Al Gore), you will realize that global cooling is a far greater threat to mankind than any amount of warming we have seen historically, with the "Little Ice Age" being the best example of how global cooling can hurt mankind.

Mind you, I am NOT sounding the alarms on global cooling. Nor am I heeding the scare tactics of the Global Warming crowd. The plain simple fact is that Global Warming was, and is, a scientific theory. If climatologists begin claiming that global cooling is happening based on the data, that too will be a scientific theory. The FACT is that climatology has NOT been able to accurately predict what global temperatures will do in the past (the Global Cooling scare of the 1970's is a prime example of this).

Ironically, in both the Global Cooling and the current Global Warming scares, mankind was blamed as the primary cause, in spite of the fact that significant global warming and cooling have occurred throughout the history of this planet prior to mankind's industrialization. Yet we still view ourselves as the center of the universe, with all things happening because of US.

I have said it before, but it is worth repeating:

If you look back on mankind's history, whenever something bad happened, such as famine or disease, mankind's natural reaction was that the gods were causing it to happen because they were displeased with humans. In essence, mankind was responsible for the famines or diseases they experienced.

To this day, we assume nothing happens in the universe unless mankind causes it.

In psychology, a human infant assumes they are the center of the universe, since they know nothing else except themselves. As a species, humans are being infantile when we assume that everything that happens in the universe is caused by us.

Grow up people.

My daughter and Egypt

My family got a Wii yesterday, and my 10 year-old daughter was playing her "Hannah Montana" game on it this morning before school. I was on my computer when my daughter came charging in, quite pleased with herself.

DAUGHTER: I'm going to "kayrow"! (that's the way she pronounced it)
ME: You mean Cairo?
DAUGHTER: Yes. Where's that?
ME: Egypt.
DAUGHTER: Oh...that must be why they have that dog-looking thing on the screen.
ME: Dog-looking thing?
DAUGHTER: Yeah. (then she proceeds to make herself look like the front of the Sphinx)
ME: Oh, that's the Sphinx.
DAUGHTER: Is that what it's called?
ME: Yes, and it's not a dog, it's a lion. With a man's head. Specifically, the pharaoh's head.

She proceeded to run off and continue playing.

I am still scratching my head over that exchange.

John "Kerry" McCain

There is a good editorial in the Wall Street Journal today by Kevin Stach about John McCain's fiscal record.

There is an interesting tidbit about the infamous Bush tax cuts which McCain voted against:

"In 2001, with the bitter primary battle still fresh, Mr. McCain voted against the final Bush tax-cut package. Why would he deviate from a pro-growth, tax-cutting position, built up over 17 years in Congress and dozens of votes, even after running on a tax-cut plan himself in 2000?

Mr. McCain's protest that he wanted spending cuts to accompany the Bush tax cuts has persuaded few conservatives. But what is not remembered is that, two weeks earlier, Mr. McCain voted to approve the final version of the Budget Resolution -- the blueprint used by congressional committees for spending and tax bills -- which included $1.35 trillion in tax cuts (the Bush proposal) coupled with a $661 billion cap on discretionary spending. When the promised spending cap never materialized, Mr. McCain denounced the wasteful earmarks and pork-barrel spending that he felt jeopardized the budget, and lodged the now famous protest vote against the tax cuts."

In other words, McCain voted for it before he voted against it. But I guess we won't hear him saying that.

Obama-mania: Part 2

Continued from Part 1. As before, all quotes are taken from Obama's website.

HEALTHCARE

"My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less." - Barack Obama

And his plan to do this? First:

"Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums." - Obama's website

This is an idea I both like and dislike at the same time.

I like this idea because I personally believe that catastrophic healthcare costs should be handled by the government, and Obama's plan actually works in a good way.

I dislike this idea because it leaves the impression that we will somehow be paying less. While it may save us money in premiums, it will also cost us money in taxes. Moving an expense to a different column doesn't save money.

The second part of Obama's plan, called "Helping Patients", is mostly a bunch of nice sounding ideas that are pretty vague on specifics. However, one part is worth noting:

"Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs." - Obama's website

Great idea! More government paperwork to fill out! Of course, compliance with this WILL cost money. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies will have to hire staff to fill out the new paperwork, which means another increase in healthcare costs passed along to the consumer. Not to mention another layer of government bureaucracy to process all this paperwork, which will be paid for by your taxes.

But what is truly great about this part is the "quality" aspect. Fear of malpractice lawsuits clearly don't do enough to prevent "medical errors". We need more government to do that!

Unfortunately, Obama is big on the "quality" healthcare thing, as his third part is dedicated to it. Most of the third part sounds nice, but is light on specifics. But one part scares me:

"[Obama] will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce." - Obama's website

Note the last part in bold. Exactly how will affirmative action programs for our healthcare workers help anything? We will get better quality healthcare if we lower the standards to allow more minorities into healthcare?

The fourth part of Obama's plan is actually a decent idea:

"Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected." - Obama's website

This is one of those rare cases where spending public money could result in something useful.

The fifth part of Obama's plan is flawed in it's reasoning:

"The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent." - Obama's website

The reason premiums have skyrocketed is NOT because of insurance company mergers. The reason is because most Americans have public or private health insurance, and little reason to shop their healthcare around. So they go to doctors or pharmacies who take their insurance, with no regard to cost. They use the healthcare system regardless of whether they NEED it, thereby creating a greater demand for healthcare. Under the very simple laws of supply and demand, we know that when demand goes up while supply remains constant, prices will also rise. Obama (and most of Washington) ignore this fact.

Let's see where Obama's ignorance will take us:

"Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers." - Obama's website

By limiting profits for these companies, he will also restrict investment capital in new companies to compete with the existing companies. The great irony here is that he will be ensuring the monopoly status of the existing companies. His own idea shoots itself in the foot.

The next part is almost as stupid:

"The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets."

Tha last part in bold is the truly insane idea, because that will kill drug research in this country. Without the ability to market new drugs exclusively for a period of time, drug companies will have no incentive to research new drugs. The pipeline of innovative new drugs will come to a screeching halt.

Which brings us to Obama's "Fight for New Intiatives":

"As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships." - Obama's website

So as soon as Obama kills all private investment in medical research, federal funding will be the only source of new treatments. Translation: Instead of wealthy investors taking risks on researching new treatments, the risk will be transferred to the American taxpayer. Instead of stockholders holding companies accountable, it will fall to government bureaucrats instead.

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Personally, I consider these two separate issues which he lumps into one because of "climate change" (note that it is no longer called "global warming").

Actually, this is one of the few areas I agree with Obama's plan, even if I don't agree with his reasons for it. We do need other energy sources. If government funding and tax incentives will help get us there, so be it.

The only areas I take exception with Obama's plan is his lack of any plans for expanding oil drilling within the U.S., as well as ignoring nuclear power as a potential source of power generation in this country.

IMMIGRATION
Obama's plan here is right on the money, except for the last part below:

"Create Secure Borders
Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

Work with Mexico
Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration." - Obama's website

In order to "fix" Mexico's economic problems, he will first have to rid their government of corruption. Short of taking over Mexico, I don't see that happening.

To be continued...

Obama-mania: Part 1

As Obama-mania seems to be picking up steam, I decided now would be a good time to see where he stands on the issues. The logical starting point is his campaign's website, where all of his quotes are taken below.

THE ECONOMY
As the Clinton campaign once said, "It's the economy, stupid!" This is the primary issue with which any candidate has to deal.

“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.” - Barack Obama

The great irony is Obama can tell HOW we developed a strong economy, and yet he plans to restrain the free market as much as possible.

Following are the problems as the website describes them, and Obama's solutions.

PROBLEM:"While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression." - Obama's website

SOLUTION(S): I will give Obama credit for attacking the economic problems on multiple fronts. Unfortunately, his ideas range from the same old sorry liberal ideas we have heard for decades (i.e. raise the minimum wage, more unions, more paid leave for workers, and more federal funding for education and job training programs), to brand new bad ideas. For example:

"Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees." - Obama's website

And when the IRS screws up my tax forms, who gets held liable for it? I thought so.

"Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers." - Obama's website

That's all well and good, but we are losing jobs to China and India, which brings us to:

"Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports. - Obama's website

This is great, but he will actually have to get other countries to agree to this. Exactly how does he plan to bribe them?

"The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world." - Obama's website

"America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce"? You mean the one in India?

The fact is that if you want to improve the economy, there are other ways besides Obama's "quick fix" solutions. We can start with improved basic education, not just offering retraining to workers who have already been ruined by our pitiful public education (more about his plans for that later).

Another way is to reduce unnecessary government regulations on businesses, especially small businesses. Unfortunately, Obama plans to INCREASE these regulations:

The [Family and Medical Leave Act] covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence. - Obama's website

In other words, let's hit even smaller businesses with more government regulations and expenses. This will make it even harder for smaller businesses to grow and compete with larger businesses. Keep in mind that larger businesses have the income to be able to handle more government regulation. This kind of burden placed on small businesses actually PROTECTS big businesses from competition. This goes against the free market which Obama himself has said made this country great. He is either an idiot or a liar (or both).

EDUCATION
Most of Obama's education plan is fairly uneventful. Although one thing did strike me:

"Obama's comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, Obama's plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school." - Obama's website

How long before we see a Democratic candidate promising government-funded prenatal educational cd's?

Seriously though, at what point will parents be responsible for raising their kids? With ideas like this, you will get to hold your child for two minutes after birth, then they will be off to school!

Even more seriously, why would we hand our kids over EARLIER to an educational system that doesn't work NOW?

IRAQ
Obama was clearly against the Iraq War from the beginning, claiming:

"I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus." - Barack Obama

Even though Obama promises to get our troops out of Iraq "within 16 months", he leaves himself an out:

"[Obama] will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." - Obama's website

In other words, you can expect our troops to be in Iraq for some time to come. Don't believe me? Check out this idea from Obama:

"Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven." - Obama's website

Exactly HOW do you "ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven"? Pull out the military and throw money at the problem! Brilliant!

To be continued...

And When I Die: "Blood, Sweat & Tears" and David Clayton-Thomas

Last year on American Idol, contestant Melinda Doolittle reminded me of Gladys Knight. That is the great thing about American Idol for someone like me who used to work as a DJ: Hearing a new vocalist who brings back the memories of another great vocalist.

Last night, another contestant (I think his name was Michael Johns) reminded me of a vocalist I haven't heard in years: David Clayton-Thomas, former lead singer of Blood, Sweat & Tears, which was one of the most unique bands to come out of the 60's. Most people have heard their standard hits, such as "And When I Die", "You've Made Me So Very Happy", and "Spinning Wheel". Between the band's unique fusion of multiple musical styles, including big band, rock, pop, and jazz, and Clayton-Thomas's strong vocal style, Blood, Sweat & Tears was a one-of-a-kind band. I won't call them the best of all-time, but I cannot honestly say I have ever heard anyone do what they did, as well as they did it. They certainly deserve kudos as a band that stands out in the history of music.

Consider this: How many other bands could take "And When I Die", and make it fun, without turning it into satire?

The key, in my opinion, was Clayton-Thomas. The band was good, but his voice gave the music the "gravitas" it needed.

For example, check out this video from 1972, with Jerry Fisher doing the lead vocals on "And When I Die":


Now check out this performance from 1970, with Clayton-Thomas doing the lead vocals:


Even considering the poor quality of the second video, the difference is obvious. Clayton-Thomas's "lounge singer with a growl" vocals were sorely needed to make the song work.

But don't get me wrong. Clayton-Thomas can't do ANY song and make it work. On the following video, from 1993, he does Carole King's "Hi-De-Ho", and it's pretty bad. Personally, I recommend skipping to about 6:27 into the video, where there is a good quality copy of "And When I Die":


From that video, Clayton-Thomas has lost a little of the power in his vocals, but he is still better than most vocalists today. But his voice is still unique among vocalists.

And if another vocalist makes it on American Idol with Clayton-Thomas's sound, I won't shed a tear (or any blood and sweat).

P.S. If you're interested, here are some links to other butchered versions of "And When I Die" by different "artists" (and I use the term VERY loosely): link, link, and link. It is amazing what people will shamelessly put on Youtube.

(Hat tip to Youtube.com for the videos.)

Primary Endorsement

Today, I voted for John McCain.

I know my blog buddy Myrhaf would object to my selection. While I would agree with Myrhaf that McCain is not the best choice, he IS the best choice available among the major candidates from both parties.

In choosing McCain, I had to first look at my own political values. First and foremost, I am a fiscal conservative. I want the government to take less of my money and be more frugal about how they spend it. Of all the candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who is, and has always been, a fiscal conservative.

McCain has been "porkbusting" since before his failed 2000 presidential campaign. Even though McCain has since said he was wrong, he was at least against the Bush tax cuts for a good reason. Most importantly, McCain was against the Bush Medicare fiasco for one simple reason: we didn't have the money for it.

What about the current economic stimulus package? As Bill Barker pointed out in the comments section over at Ragged Thots:

...but I do have a problem - a lack of respect - for anyone who would simply ignore McCain's support of this $150-billion mainly middle class giveaway using borrowed (with interest due!) money for the largess by a man who you claim to support mainly because he's supposedly a budget hawk.

To this I respond: Are there EVER circumstances where our government should borrow money? I am sure most of us would agree that war is one of those circumstances. What about an economic recession? I can only speak for myself, but pulling money out of the government and giving it back to the public during economic hard times seems like a smart thing to do. (Pulling it out of the government permenantly is even smarter, but that's another topic.)

According to some economists (from an article at CNNMoney.com), we are already in a recession. The last time we were in a recession, the government used a similar economic stimulus package, and it worked quite well. Even a fiscal conservative such as myself has to defer to history where it shows that government spending CAN be effective. In this case, I tip my hat to our government, and I applaud McCain for also being willing to stifle his fiscal conservatism in the face of needed government spending.

All in all, McCain is still the best choice. Romney and Huckabee are nowhere close to fiscal conservatism. And don't even consider using the word "conservative" in any context related to Clinton or Obama.

That said, I still reserve the right to change my pick in November.

Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Final Results

And the winner of the Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs is (drumroll please):

Bill Barker - 9
Audio Dave - 8
Robert A. George - 8
EdMcGon - 6
David Stefanini - 6
J. Mark English - 2

Congrats Bill! Sometimes, playing the "homer" works!

Be careful how you vote!

My dad emailed me this joke:

While walking down the street one day a US Senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted."

Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - The Super Bowl

I was going to do a long post, completely overanalyzing the Super Bowl. Fortunately, the New York Giants have saved me the trouble by shooting off their mouths. For example (the following quotes are from the New York Post's website):

As he pulled his car up to the Giants Stadium tunnel to unload his bags, [Plaxico] Burress was asked...a direct question: Are you ready to make history? "You better believe it," the towering Giants receiver said.

And then, as he entered the stadium and turned left toward the Giants locker room, Burress was asked for his prediction. Burress never hesitated, flatly stating "23-17."
He didn't identify the winning team. He didn't have to.

Or even better:

Next came Michael Strahan...The same question: Are you ready to make history? "Yes sir," said Strahan, who for 15 years has chased the dream of winning the Super Bowl.

"History will be ours."

How about a quote from Giants chairman Steve Tisch, when asked to predict a winner? (quote from Northjersey.com)

"I'm not going to give you the score...We'll have more points than they do. That's my score."

All analysis of this game is moot. The Patriots will win, and it might even get ugly.

Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Championship Results

Audio Dave pulled the "two-fer" last weekend to tie Barker for first place going into the Super Bowl. In addition, Robert George pulled a "two-fer" to move into second place, one game back. The playoff results:

Bill Barker - 8
Audio Dave - 8
Robert A. George - 7
EdMcGon - 6
David Stefanini - 6
J. Mark English - 2

Stay tuned for Super Bowl picks next week!

Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Divisional Results/Championship Preview

Time to give Bill Barker some kudos (try to keep your breakfast down people): Barker aced last weekend's games. On the other hand, Mark English swung for the fences and struck out. Here are the playoff results so far:

Bill Barker - 7
Audio Dave - 6
EdMcGon - 5
David Stefanini - 5
Robert A. George - 5
J. Mark English - 1

With only three games left, it looks like a Barker vs. Audio Dave horse race, with the rest of us as the "Fred" (as in Thompson) in the race.

Here are my picks for this weekend's games (with other pertinent info):

San Diego Chargers at New England Patriots (Sunday at 3:00 p.m. EST, game temperature estimated at 22°F): The paradigm of recent times versus possible all-time perfection?

The Chargers represent the "paradigm of recent times", where a team follows up an outstanding season where they failed in the playoffs with a good season where they win the Super Bowl. Last year, the 12-4 Colts won the Super Bowl after going 14-2 the previous season and losing in the playoffs to the 11-5 Steelers, who had gone 15-1 the previous season. Ironically, the 15-1 Steelers lost in the AFC Championship to the Patriots, who were the last team to win consecutive Super Bowls.

The Chargers went 14-2 last year, losing to the Patriots in the Divisional Round. Is this year's 11-5 Charger team good enough to keep the paradigm going, or will they fall to the Patriots' pursuit of perfection?

There is one important difference between the Chargers this year and last year: Norv Turner. That alone may be enough to keep the Chargers from going any further in the playoffs.

While the Chargers surprised a lot of people, me included, by beating the Colts last weekend, that game was clearly a case of the hungrier team winning. The Colts did not have the "fire in the belly" after winning the Super Bowl last year.

As for the Patriots, they have busted paradigms before by being the last team to win consecutive Super Bowls. They busted the 30+ year-old "perfect season" paradigm this year. Another paradigm goes down this weekend.

New York Giants at Green Bay Packers (Sunday at 6:30 p.m. EST, game temperature estimated at 10°F): The best road team this year (outside of New England) versus the ultimate home field advantage (aka "The Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field"). But the fact the Giants are 7-1 on the road while the Packers are 7-1 at home is more of an interesting statistic than a deciding factor in this game.

Both teams are almost statistically identical on defense. Offense is where this game will be decided, and the Packers rate the edge there. While the Giants are better running the ball, the Packers are better at passing. In a game that figures to come down to the end, who would you rather have at quarterback with two minutes on the clock? As much as I rag on Favre, he is the clear choice. Manning may keep the Giants in the game, but Favre will win it.


(Hat tip to Foxsports.com for game info)

(For the rules, see this post.)

Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Wild Card Results/Divisional Preview

Sorry for the delay, but here are the results from last weekend's NFL playoff picks:

EdMcGon - 3
Bill Barker - 3
Audio Dave - 3
David Stefanini - 3
Robert A. George - 2
J. Mark English - 1

For this week's picks, remember to get them in before 4:30 pm EST on Saturday. Here are my picks:

Seattle Seahawks at Green Bay Packers: I certainly under-rated the Hawks last week, but I cannot see them beating the Pack on the frozen tundra.
Jacksonville Jaguars at New England Patriots: The Jags may give the Pats a hard time, but expect the Pats to pull it out in the end. The Pats just seem to have an extra gear they turn on whenever they need it.
San Diego Chargers at Indianapolis Colts: This one has upset potential, but I can't pick the inconsistent Chargers over the fairly consistent Colts.
New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys: The Giants have the momentum, plus they play better on the road. The Cowboys stumbled at the end of the season, losing two of their last three games. But the Boys are still the better team.

(For the rules, see this post.)

Fantasy Football: Quarterbacks

Now that the fantasy football season is over, time to take a look at how the various position players did, and their prospects for the future.

I have taken the final finish from a keeper league I am in, and assigned each of them a letter grade based on their finish. I have also assigned the following additional ratings for future prospective finishes:

++: Will significantly improve over their finish this year.
+: Will improve a little over their finish this year.
: Will either do about the same, or their future is unknown.
-: Will decline a little from this year.
--: Will decline significantly from this year's performance.

1. Brady, Tom NEP (A-): This year was a monster year for Brady. He can't help but go down a little next year, although he is still the stud of stud quarterbacks.
2. Romo, Tony DAL (A-): Speaking of "stud" quarterbacks (insert Jessica Simpson joke here), I don't see Romo matching his performance either. Plus T.O. ain't getting any younger.
3. Brees, Drew NOS (A-): If the Saints are going to be a winning team, Brees cannot keep carrying the Saints like he did this year.
4. Manning, Peyton IND (A): While Manning still has plenty of upside to his game, Marvin Harrison's absence for most of the season has to put a damper on Manning's future numbers.
5. Favre, Brett GBP (A-): Let the annual Favre retirement watch commence! However, if he does come back, I would not expect him to match this year's numbers.
6. Hasselbeck, Matt SEA (B): Hasselbeck does have a little upside, but circumstances would have to dictate that.
7. Roethlisberger, Ben PIT (B+): Don't be surprised if Big Ben moves into the top 5 next year. With another year of experience in Mike Tomlin's offense, he can only get better.
8. Anderson, Derek CLE (B): Anderson's upside is a bit of a mystery. Have to watch what happens with him and the Browns during the offseason.
9. Palmer, Carson CIN (B): Another mystery quarterback subject to a lot of offseason speculation. While Palmer is capable of being a top 5 quarterback, there are a ton of questions surrounding the Bengals, including: Will Marvin Lewis be back? If so, will Lewis "blow up" the team and start from scratch, like he has threatened is needed?
10. Warner, Kurt ARI (B-): Assuming Warner is still the starter in Arizona next year, expect the Cards to go to a more run-heavy offense.
11. Cutler, Jay DEN (C++): Expect Cutler to improve significantly next season. I can't see Mike Shanahan going into next season with an average offense like this year's Broncos.
12. McNabb, Donovan PHI (C): Between McNabb's injury history and the questions of whether he will even be in Philly next year, I am almost tempted to throw a "minus" after his rating.
13. Kitna, Jon DET (C-): With Mike Martz's firing, Kitna's future with Detroit looks dim. Even if he remains the starter, expect the Lions to try running the ball more.
14. Manning, Eli NYG (C): Manning still has upside, but not as long as Kevin Gilbride is the offensive coordinator in New York. If Tom Coughlin gets booted, we might see some of Manning's upside next season.
15. Rivers, Philip SDC (C+): I cannot see the Chargers bringing back Norv Turner unless they make it to the AFC Championship. I don't see that happening, so whoever the next Chargers coach is should be a step up, meaning Rivers should do better next year.
16. Garrard, David JAC (C+): I really like Garrard. He reminds me of a young Steve McNair. I expect to see him slowly improving over the next few years, with a move into the top 10 somewhere during that time.
17. Young, Vince TEN (C+): Expect the Titans to get Young a REAL wide receiver during the offseason.
18. Garcia, Jeff TBB (C-): Garcia is not getting any younger.
19. Campbell, Jason WAS (C+): Make no mistake: Campbell is the future in Washington. However, I am still not sure how much upside he has.
20. Jackson, Tarvaris MIN (C): My gut feeling is that Jackson will still be the starter in Minnesota next season, but that is no guaranty. In addition, the presence of Adrian Peterson limits Jackson's upside.
21. Bulger, Marc STL (D): The Rams were pretty awful this season, but it is hard to tell what changes will come in St. Louis during the offseason. But the changes WILL be coming.
22. Rosenfels, Sage HOU (D-): Back to the bench, Sage.
23. Schaub, Matt HOU (D+): If Schaub can stay healthy, he could be a good quarterback.
24. Huard, Damon KCC (D-): Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
25. Harrington, Joey ATL (D-): Somewhere, there is a bench with Harrington's name on it.
26. Lemon, Cleo MIA (D+): Mark my words: you WILL see Cleo Lemon again. I won't say he is a great quarterback, but he is certainly good enough to start in the NFL.
27. Pennington, Chad NYJ (D): Some team will undoubtedly give Pennington a chance to start, but I can't see him being much better than this.
28. Griese, Brian CHI (D--): Never was great. Now he's awful.
29. Boller, Kyle BAL (D): This is as good as it gets for Boller. Don't be surprised if Boller is back on the bench next year.
30. Edwards, Trent BUF (D+): I expect the Bills to take a chance on Edwards next season. He can only get better, but I think his upside is limited.
31. McCown, Josh OAK (D--): Josh should make a nice backup for the rest of his career.
32. Culpepper, Daunte OAK (D--): Stick a pitchfork in Daunte. He's done.
33. Gray, Quinn JAC (F-): As long as Garrard is healthy, you won't see Gray.
34. Redman, Chris ATL (F): Redman showed a little potential. But it's hard to say what the next Falcons coaching staff will see in him.
35. Clemens, Kellen NYJ (F): Will the Jets keep banging their head against this wall of limited potential?
36. McCown, Luke TBB (F-): Not even as good as his brother.
37. Croyle, Brodie KCC (F): I have talked to Alabama fans who don't think Croyle can make it in the NFL.
38. Losman, J.P. BUF (F-): I'm not sure Losman is even worth having on the bench.
39. Delhomme, Jake CAR (F++): Delhomme still has what it takes to start in the NFL, but only if he stays healthy.
40. Grossman, Rex CHI (F-): Remember last year when the Bears were defending Grossman as their quarterback? Not anymore.
41. Dilfer, Trent SFO (F-): Hard to believe this guy is a Super Bowl-winning quarterback.
42. Frerotte, Gus STL (F-): Only by the grace of a Marc Bulger injury do we even see Gus's name in print.
43. Green, Trent MIA (F-): Time to call it quits Trent.
44. Collins, Todd WAS (F): The next Mark Rypien. He may have some tiny upside if he goes somewhere else next year, but don't expect miracles.
45. Testaverde, Vinny (F-): As he rides off into the sunset once more...
46. McNair, Steve BAL (F-): McNair doesn't have it anymore.
47. Hill, Shaun SFO (F): The 49ers seemed to like his play in limited action this year. If he goes into next season as the starter, he may have some upside.
48. Smith, Alex SFO (F-): Another failed quarterbacking experiment.
49. Feeley, A.J. PHI (F): A lot of "ifs" here, but he may have some upside if the Eagles dump McNabb and go with Feeley as their starter next year. Feeley won't be great, but he could be servicable.
50. Carr, David CAR (F-): Carr is one of the saddest stories in the NFL this year. All the years of beatings he took behind the inept Houston offensive line have taken their toll on his psyche. He is a textbook case in how to ruin a good quarterback.
51. Moore, Matt CAR (F-): Matt who?
52. Smith, Troy BAL (F): Smith may get a chance to start for the Ravens next year. He can't be any worse than McBoller.
53. Leinart, Matt ARI (F): Is it just me, or does Leinart seem to lack the desire to do well? Even if he gets another chance to start, and I won't be surprised if he does, I just don't see a lot of upside here. The next Ryan Leaf?
54. Orton, Kyle CHI (F-): Back to the bench.
55. Holcomb, Kelly MIN (F-): This guy is still playing?
56. Beck, John MIA (F+): Will probably get a chance to start, but I'm not sure how much upside he can have with Miami.
57. Collins, Kerry TEN (F-): Back to the bench.
58. Wallace, Seneca SEA (F-): Another bench warmer.
59. Bollinger, Brooks MIN (F-): How can a quarterback who fails with the Jets STILL have a job in the NFL?
60. Russell, JaMarcus OAK (F++): Unlimited potential. We'll know more next season.

OTHER QUARTERBACKS TO WATCH: Kevin Kolb (PHI) and Brady Quinn (CLE). Just my opinion, but I think Kolb has the most upside of the two.