Government at work (6/11/08 edition)

I enjoyed my last post about the absurdity of government, I figured I would do it again!

WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU OUR STEENKEENG CRIMINAL RECORDS!
You have to love the un mitigated gall of public school districts. They take our tax dollars to educate our children because they can allegedly do it better.

Take the Austin, Texas school district for example (from 590KLBJ.com):

[The Austin School District] is fighting a ruling that makes them give out statistical information on how many teachers have a criminal history.

The Attorney General has told the district they have to comply with open records requests to give the information to the media. The district is arguing that releasing information of how many people on each campus came back with a criminal record violates employees’ privacy rights and is not in the public interest.

Why would a public entity which is responsible for our childrens' education be allowed to HIRE people with a criminal history, let alone keep that fact confidential?

Obviously, the eyes of Texas missed this one.

FREE SPEECH IS GOOD, BUT ONLY IF ALLAH SAYS SO
Political correctness is legislated north of the border, as columnist Mark Steyn has found out. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has Steyn on trial for spreading hate in a book excerpt that was printed in Canada's newsweekly Maclean's(from Robert Knight at Townhall.com):

A highlighted piece of the case was a comment from an imam, Mullah Krekar, that Steyn drew from an interview in a Norwegian newspaper:

‘“We’re the ones who will change you,’ the cleric said. ‘Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU [European Union] is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. …Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours.’”

Yep, sounds like hate speech to me. The Canadians ought to be trying the imam.

THE BRIDGE TO DISNEYLAND
Thanks to President Bush's signature on the Democratic Congress's transportation bill, $45 million of our tax dollars are going to help pay for a MagLev train from Disneyland to Las Vegas. This from the Associated Press:

...the train would use magnetic levitation technology to carry passengers from Disneyland to Las Vegas in well under two hours, traveling at speeds of up to 300 mph.

...The money is the largest cash infusion in the project's nearly 20-year history. It will pay for environmental studies for the first leg of the project.

...The train is meant to ease traffic on increasingly clogged Interstate 15, the main route for the millions of Southern Californians who make the 250-plus-mile drive to Las Vegas each year. There is no train on the route — Amtrak's Desert Wind between Los Angeles and Las Vegas was canceled in 1997 because of low ridership.

Let me get this straight: The last train route between these areas was cancelled due to low ridership 11 years ago, yet this project has been going on for 20 YEARS?!

In other words, those of us who do NOT live in L.A. or Las Vegas need to help pay for a train between one of the Disney Company's (made $1.1 billion net profit last quarter ALONE) primo amusement parks, and all the casinos (I can't even begin to guess where to look for their profits. Too many of them) in Vegas?

Explain to me why does the federal government need to blow my money in order for Los Angelinos to be able to get to Vegas quicker to blow their money?

If you ever needed it, there is the proof our government is truly "goofy".

The purpose of government

Frequently, when I go on an anti-government tirade, I will receive comments like "Would you prefer anarchy?". I should be clearer: I do believe government has a purpose, and that we need it.

The best description of the purpose of government comes from the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

ESTABLISH JUSTICE
Governments since the beginning of recorded history have carried the burden of resolution dispute. Our legal system is needed for this purpose, and this purpose alone.

People have always had conflicts with other people, ever since the first caveman took a branch to the head of another caveman who angered him. When a justice system fails, it can lead to everything from riots to vigilantism (although there are times when a justice system is put in a no-win situation, and these kinds of things will happen regardless of a court decision).

INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY
Once justice has been established, what is left for the government to do to "insure domestic tranquility"?

Alexander Hamilton described the problem best in "The Federalist Papers":

It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.

The key, as Hamilton describes it, is to maintain a balance of power between the individual states and the federal government. If one state should descend into anarchy, the other states can prop it up. If one state should take advantage of another, then the other states can mediate the dispute.

In addition, Hamilton (quoting Montesquieu) left an opening for the states against the federal government:

Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.

In essence, you have a natural justice system for the states and the federal government, thereby insuring "domestic tranquility".

PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE
If a government cannot defend itself against other governments, it risks becoming a mere vassal to another government, subject to that other government's political sytem and laws.

Obviously, this applies to the military, but it should also include foreign intelligence gathering, as well as counter-intelligence, without which we leave ourselves just as vulnerable to other nations.
If a government does nothing else, it MUST do these things, or else it is pointless.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE
This is the economic aspect of government, applying to everything from coinage to the regulation of interstate and international trade.

To promote the general welfare, the federal government must provide an economic "level playing field" for all the states. But the key is in the word "promote": If the federal government places too many restrictions on trade, then it is working against trade, and no longer promoting the general welfare.

SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY
While this may seem like flowery language, it does serve a point. A government which serves itself is a tyranny, regardless of whether it does so with popular consent. What happens when the consent is no longer popular? In other words, if you hand over your own liberty to the government, you are also handing over the liberties of your children.

Ironically, this last part puts the onus of government on the governed. It is up to YOU to secure the blessings of liberty for yourself, and your children.

But what is "liberty"?

freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

As long as one person's liberty does not impede upon another person's liberty, then that person should be allowed to do whatever they please, within the framework of government as mentioned in the previous sections.

But the key here is that it is up to the individual to utilize their own liberty to keep the government at arm's length.

(NOTE: I could do a whole post on the implications of individual liberty within the framework of government. Suffice it to say that there are many specific situations, as well as subjective views, where individual liberties are called into question, because of the question of whether they impede upon another person's liberties. That is NOT the purpose of this post.)

SUMMARY
It is within the framework of all of these items that we must view government actions. Any government action which falls outside of these purposes should be opposed.

When I go on anti-government tirades, it is because I believe a government action has exceeded the government's purpose. Sadly, there are far too many government actions today to which this applies.

Government at work

It can make you laugh at it's absurdities, or angry that you're paying for it, or even cry in frustration, but government is amazing at it's ability to display incompetence, from the highest elected politician, down to it's lowest bureaucrat.

PORK ALERT!
For all this incompetence, one might ask whether we pay politicians too much, or even not enough. Don't worry: They take what they want. As the Fox News documentary “Porked: Earmarks for Profit” shows, at least three U.S. congressmen (two Republicans and one Democrat) managed to get earmarks for either their own or their family's profit.

Here is one example for you from Fox News:

In February 2004, [former Speaker of the House Dennis] Hastert, with partners and through a trust that did not bear his name, bought up 69 acres of land that adjoined his farm some 60 miles outside Chicago. The price was $340,000. In May 2005, Hastert transferred an additional 69 acres from his farm into the trust.

Two months later, Congress passed a spending bill into which Hastert inserted a $207 million earmark to fund the “Prairie Parkway” which, when completed, would run just a few miles from the 138 acres owned by Hastert’s trust.

After President Bush flew to Hastert’s district in August 2005 to sign the bill, Hastert and his partners flipped the land for what appeared to be a multi-million dollar profit.

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOT POTATO
The issue of man-made Global Warming has been tabled temporarily, thanks to over 31,000 American scientists who have signed a petition which states:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catostrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

So now that we have decided there is NOT a problem which requires immediate attention, what does the U.S. Senate do? They are debating the America's Climate Security Act of 2007, more affectionately called "The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill" by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

What will the bill get us?

...Lieberman-Warner would have virtually no effect on the climate, according to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and now senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute: "Say the U.S. actually does what the law says, though no one knows how to. The result is an additional 0.013 degrees (C) of 'prevented' warming," says Michaels.

And the potential cost? (from Forbes.com)

According to a study released by the National Association of Manufacturers earlier this year, Lieberman-Warner would cause 1.8 million job losses, as much as a $210 billion gross domestic product reduction and possibly a 33% increase in electricity prices by 2020.

But with all this comes good and bad news. The good news is the Senate will probably not pass it. Even if they do, President Bush has already said he will veto it.

The bad news? Both Barack Obama and John McCain have said they want to institute a similar system.

NOT MARRIED IN NEW YORK
What can you say about a court clerk working in an understaffed office who refuses to perform a wedding ceremony because she is "too tired"?

I know what I say. This is your government at work.

Income inequality and the NFL

Steven Malanga over at Realclearmarkets.com actually makes a solid case for income inequality in society by comparing it to the situation in the NFL (I am only quoting part of the article below. I fully recommend reading the whole thing at the link above. It is short.):

I took a look at the salary structure of the team with the biggest payroll in 2007, the Washington Redskins, who paid $123 million in salaries to 59 players, including those on the practice squad, over the course of the year. That’s a rich pot, but what I found was that the top quintile, or 20 percent, of the roster took home 63 percent of the money, and the top two quintiles earned 85 percent. The Skins’ aren’t an anomaly, even though they are one of the richest teams. The other teams at the top of the salary scale—the Pats and the Saints—devoted 62 percent and 60 percent of salaries, respectively, to a fifth of their players.

It was only slightly different at the bottom. The team with the lowest payroll in 2007, the Super Bowl-winning New York Giants (talk about value for your dollar), paid 59 percent of wages to the top 20 percent, and 78 percent to the richest 40 percent of players.

Malanga goes on to show that numbers for other sports leagues, as well as the U.S. in general, are similar.

One place where Malanga fails in his comparison (even though his conclusions are correct) is in completing his comparison.

In the NFL, how many players are responsible for a team's financial success? The top 40% of the team may see the field most of the time, and may win games and draw fans. But in a market where players can change teams, and do so frequently, the cream will rise to the top of the salary scale, either through free agency or fear thereof by the team.

The real world operates similarly. When a company sees an employee outproducing other employees, a company must quickly recognize this, and reward it, or risk losing the employee to another company which does recognize the employee's abilities.

But where do CEO's fit into this comparison? Truth be told, CEO's tend to be like a starting quarterback. A starting quarterback can have a bad day and the rest of the team can still pull out a win, or even a successful season (do I need to mention Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl?). A bad CEO is similar in that a company can only cover his shortcomings for so long.

On the other hand, if a CEO or a quarterback is REALLY bad, they will actually make their company/team worse. Even in these situations, both will probably make a lot of money in comparison to their workers/teammates, but both will end up getting fired in the end.

In the long run, good CEO's will tend to make more than bad CEO's, just as good quarterbacks will make more than bad quarterbacks. But that doesn't explain why CEO's and quarterbacks should make significantly more than the lowest paid employees or the team's lowest paid players.

For that, you have to look at their impact. If a quarterback is making $10 million per year, and a backup player makes $500,000 per year, should the backup make more at the sacrifice of some of the quarterback's salary? With salary cap considerations, this is the question an NFL team faces. The logical answer is "of course not". The quarterback has a far greater impact on the team's success, so he naturally makes significantly more.

Just like an NFL team, companies have a salary cap: it is called the free market. Specifically, a company which spends more than it can afford on a CEO, regardless of how good the CEO may be, runs the risk of putting itself out of business (although there are times when that can be a good strategic maneuver, but those are exceptional cases).

But what value does a good CEO bring to it's company? The best example of CEO value comes from Roberto Goizueta, former CEO of Coca Cola. While he is best remembered for the "New Coke" debacle, he also was the CEO who introduced Diet Coke. In addition, it should be remembered that Goizueta was not so headstrong he couldn't admit his mistakes, bringing back Coke Classic after New Coke flopped.

My point is the New Coke debacle could have crippled Coca Cola under a more headstrong CEO. Instead, Goizueta brought the company back and made it one of the most profitable companies today. Was Goizueta worth the high salary he was paid? Most certainly (according to Wikipedia, he "[b]ecame the first CEO to gain billionaire status from a company which he did not found"). Instead of costing the company thousands of jobs, he instead allowed it to expand.

Was Goizueta worth a $1 billion more to Coca Cola than their lowest paid worker, who may have done more of the "sweaty" work? Absolutely. Ideas move companies. Anybody can do the manual labor, but not everyone can come up with ideas that make money in the free market.

Certainly there are plenty of examples of CEO's who make more than they deserve. The CEO who made $100 million in a year when their company tanked is almost a cliche. But companies that do that all the time tend to go out of business quickly, unless the CEO is much better than the public realizes. But is that situation so much different than a rookie quarterback who gets a huge contract based on his potential?

Actually, it is. If a rookie quarterback fails, he is the one who gets fired. If a CEO fails, there can be tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of jobs lost due to his incompetance. So who is REALLY more important?

Of course, income inequality isn't about comparing quarterbacks and CEO's. Considering the size of modern corporations, and all the responsibility sitting on the shoulders of CEO's, it would be foolish to pay them "a little more" than their lowest paid worker.

Hello Savannah!

Since I've been in Savannah for a month, I figured it is finally time for me to announce it, as well as changing my profile location in the upper right corner of this page.

So far, here are some of the things I love about Savannah:

1. Traffic! As in there is none! Compared to the Atlanta area, Savannah is...well, a drive in the park.
2. The food! I am talking FRESH seafood! There's a restaurant called The Oyster Bar near me, where I had the BEST steamed shrimp I've ever eaten. There's also a greek/italian place called Basil's Pizza and Deli, which makes the best pizza I ever had, not to mention a damn fine greek sausage with peppers and onions and orzo.
3. The beach! A nice ten minute drive from me.
4. The ghettos! Ok, this part surprised me, but Savannah has the nicest looking run-down section of any town I've ever been to. The houses are gorgeous! (even if they are VERY old)
5. 6 Gb DSL! Yes, you can get this most anywhere, but I like it. I gave up tv for this during the move, and it's worth it. (I confess, I'm waiting for NFL preseason before I get the cable hooked up.)
6. My job! (I discussed this previously)

Tom Coburn and the Republican Problem

In an opinion piece at WSJ.com, Tom Coburn nails the Republican problem:

Voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.

...The fruit of these efforts is not the hoped-for Republican governing majority, but the real prospect of a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in 2009. While the K Street Project decimated our brand as the party of reform and limited government, compassionate conservatism convinced the American people to elect the party that was truly skilled at activist government: the Democrats.

Coburn even goes on to explain why "compassionate conservatism" is neither compassionate nor conservative:

Compassionate conservatism's next step – its implicit claim that charity or compassion translates into a particular style of activist government involving massive spending increases and entitlement expansion – was its undoing. Common sense and the Scriptures show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor's possessions. Spending other people's money is not compassionate.

A valid point to George Bush (as well as those who use religion to defend their socialism), who probably isn't listening any more than the rest of the Republicans.

The Not-so-great Political Debate

Have you noticed that on practically EVERY campaign issue between Republicans and Democrats, there is no longer a question of WHETHER government intervention is needed. It is now only a question of how much government intervention.

Even when politicians use the buzz words "free market", it is usually followed up with some government program. Take John McCain's global warming solution. He says we need a free market solution in one breath, while in the very next breath he calls for a "cap and trade" carbon emissions system. And don't even ask about Barack Obama's solution, which offers just about every environmental government program imaginable, short of having "carbon emissions police" carrying CO2 detection devices, breaking into private homes in the middle of the night (although check back next week. Obama might change his mind).

Consider taxes. Do we need an income tax system where we have to report to the government every detail of how we, as individuals, make money? Do we need tax breaks for every special interest lobbyist in D.C.? No one in either party asks whether we should eliminate the income tax for an alternative form of revenue collection (i.e. the FairTax). No one in either party talks about eliminating corporate taxes, even though it would revive the U.S. manufacturing sector. McCain's idea to cut the corporate rate from 35% to 25% is a nice start, but that should be the argument from the Left, not the Right.

Look at healthcare. We got this problem when the government gave companies tax breaks for providing health insurance to employees. Now we have a large segment of the population which expects someone else to pay for their healthcare costs. But nobody asks if we should completely remove government's role from the healthcare issue.

Of course, we cannot forget high gas prices. Nearly every aspect of the high prices can be traced to government actions:

1. Gas taxes which account for more government revenue than oil companies make net profits from the sale of gas.
2. The devaluation of the dollar, which leads to higher prices when we buy gas from overseas.
3. The government's refusal to allow drilling for oil in places like Alaska and off the coasts of Florida and California.
4. The government's support of the biofuel industry (which has also led to higher food prices). Unfortunately, oil companies have no incentive to build new refineries in the U.S. when they see the government supporting an industry which could take a large chunk of their market share in the near future. Why build a refinery which will take 20+ years to see a profit when you may not need it in 20 years? In addition, our insufficient refinery capacity for our oil consumption forces the oil companies to order oil from overseas refineries (also adding to our cost).
5. Whether you agree or disagree, environmental regulations add to the cost. Everything from drilling for oil to refining oil has environmental regulations on it. These costs are all passed along to the consumer.

Aside from numbers 1 and 3 above, no one asks about the other three government interventions. And the taxes are only mentioned in McCain's absurd "summer gas tax holiday" (why not a year-round gas tax holiday?).

This is NOT to suggest getting government out of these issues is the only way, or even a good way. Rather, it begs the question of WHY the possibility is NOT even part of the political debate. Why would politicians ignore it? Unfortunately, this is a question that answers itself. Politicians from both parties can see that their own power rests in the expansion of government. The more government expands, the more power they have over the people.

Even people who think we need more government (i.e. liberals and socialists) would look at the period earlier this decade when the Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress in disgust. But they would happily give the Democrats that kind of control, even though we could expect the same levels of unchecked corruption?

The great irony is that socialism was descended from a political theory, Marxism, which was born from a healthy distrust of aristocratic European government's abuses of power. The even greater irony is that the anti-establishment leftists of the 1960's have become the modern day Democrats who LIKE the idea of more government.

"That government is best which governs not at all" - Henry David Thoreau

How did we go from a society with a healthy disrespect for government power, as exemplified by millenia of monarchical abuse of power, to one where we happily hand over the keys to our lives to government, without even asking "why?"

Ayn Rand, Phyllis Schlafly, and a ditsy coed

I have been reading Atlas Shrugged for awhile now (I know I am past page 400). While I am nowhere near done with it, I must admit that Ayn Rand has the liberals in her book portrayed perfectly. They do everything for altruistic reasons, regardless of how stupid or how many people inevitably end up getting hurt by their actions.

I mention this because I was reading an interview over on the Fox News website today between Laura Ingraham and Jill Strominger, a Washington University student who was one of many students and faculty who protested against Phyllis Schafly's receipt of an honorary degree there (by standing up and turning their backs to the stage):

LAURA INGRAHAM: ...Which conservative, which prominent conservative do you think would deserve an honorary degree at Washington University? Why don't you name a few?

JILL STROMINGER, PROTESTER, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, I absolutely think that's not the issue, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Now what is the issue? And I just ask the questions, Jill. Stay with me here. We only have a few minutes.

You turned your back on one of the leading lights of the conservative movement. Phyllis Schlafly is a pioneer. Whether you agree with her or not, she changed the way people think about politics in this country, period. So I'm asking you: If she is not someone who legitimately should receive an honorary degree, which conservative do you think should?

STROMINGER: Well, I mean, there are many fabulous choices, like Colin Powell. But the issue...

INGRAHAM: He wouldn't qualify as a pioneering conservative. He's a great man though.

STROMINGER: Laura, you're completely mischaracterizing, you know, what happened and what we were standing against, which is actually part of the reason that we chose to protest Schlafly.

Our problem was less her specific viewpoints but more the way that she expresses herself. The way that she mischaracterizes her opponents and how her style of debate changed the debate in such a way that it led people to be oppressed.

INGRAHAM: Jill, do you or do you not believe in free speech on college campus?

STROMINGER: I absolutely believe in free speech, but there's a difference.

James Taggert or Lillian Reardon could not have said it better than Strominger, who would have fit perfectly into Rand's novel. But I haven't gotten to a part in Atlas Shrugged that includes ditsy liberal coeds.

I still want to know who has been led to be oppressed because of Phyllis Schlafly's "style of debate"? And how does one lead people to be oppressed in the first place? "Please, come here. I'm in the mood to oppress someone today, and you look like a jolly good candidate!"

Seriously, I watched the interview afterwards, and Strominger was clearly nervous (and not very Media savvy). Laura Ingraham had her for lunch.

But even with that consideration, Strominger showed where liberal arguments fall apart. I question whether Strominger even knows who Schlafly is, other than Strominger knows Schlafly is a conservative. But for most liberals, that is all they need to hear. Much like a KKK member only needs to know someone is black to hate them, liberals only need to know a person is conservative to hate them.

Liberals tend to be two-dimensional characters in our society, much like the antagonists in Atlas Shrugged. For both, there is what they feel, and what they do. What they think is irrelevant, since reason never enters their mind.

The not-so-gay marriage post

(This post is dedicated to Myrhaf. He inspired me, but not in the way he intended.)

Why do we have marriage at all?

What do WE gain as individuals, or as couples, from the state sanctioning our relationships?

Wikipedia has this somewhat overly simplistic answer:

A marriage, by definition, bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as a consequence. These may include:

*giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s sexual services, labor, and/or property.
*giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.
*giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
*giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
*establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
*establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
*establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

Mind you, all of these things can be obtained or done outside of marriage, although admittedly some of them are more expensive than others. But based on this list, one could easily conclude the purpose of marriage was to save some hefty legal fees.

(Of course, anyone who has been through a divorce knows they get you on the back-end with the legal fees.)

So basically marriage is kind of a no-brainer for any couple, regardless of their sexual orientation. If you completely trust someone, why not marry them? The practicality of marriage extends beyond the answer of "love".

But marriage is NOT just a contract between two people: The state sanctions it. Because of the legal arrangements involved, the institution of marriage is a three-way deal: you, your spouse, and WE THE PEOPLE!

So what benefit do "WE THE PEOPLE" gain from the sanctioning of "love"? If I am going to be paying taxes to keep your marriage license filed as well as a whole bunch of other legal freebies, not to mention your tax breaks, what's in it for me?

If you tell me your "happiness", I'll call you naive on the subject of marriage. Anyway, I am NOT paying money to the government to support your happiness. Get your own.

Now if you tell me you are going to have children, or adopt children, THEN you have my blessing (and my tax dollars). Your children are not only your future, but also the future of our country. Love them, and raise them well.

Unfortunately, that brings us to the issue of gay marriage (the ultimate oxymoron). My answer on this question is similar: If a homosexual couple already has a child from a previous relationship, or if they will adopt a child, or if they want to be artificially inseminated, then I have no problem with them getting married.

Otherwise, they are no different than a heterosexual couple living together. Have your jollies, then move on. But DON'T ask me to sanction your relationship!

This brings us to the question of how is the government supposed to ascertain the intentions of marrying couples. It is quite simple really: When a man and a woman get married, what are the odds of procreation occurring? Now compare those odds with those of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman?

Many years ago, when this issue first came up, I asked a simple question: Would you give a blind man a driver's license? Then why on earth would you give a homosexual couple a marriage license?!

This whole issue is about asking for rights, with none of the responsibilities. When the homosexual community shows me they are serious about the responsibilities of marriage, specifically procreation or raising children, THEN I will support them politically.

Syllogism of the day

If money is the root of all evil, and we should give money to poor people, wouldn't that make poor people evil?

You can quote me on that

Yesterday on my blog, I did a simple post reviewing the NFL draft. Today, I get a voicemail from a friend I used to work with telling me I was quoted in the USAToday.

My initial reaction: Say what?!

So after work, I picked up a USAToday, and darned if they didn't quote me in an aricle about the allegedly "winning" Kansas City Chiefs draft:

A dissenting voice belongs to Ed McGonigal (an Oakland Raiders fan) of the Politics and Pigskins blog. "I am putting the Chiefs in the losers category for now," he writes, "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."

While my little blog appreciates the free publicity, I probably should add something to what I said about the Chiefs draft, since what I said was more of a summary of my opinions of what a lot of teams did.

First off, I am an unashamed Oakland Raiders fan, which the USAToday quote correctly states. However, when it comes to AFC West teams, I don't really hate the Chiefs. Truth be told, I kind of liked them when Dick Vermeil was there. I grew up with Vermeil's Eagles, so I have always been a fan of his.

Then when the Chiefs hired Herm Edwards as head coach, I was overjoyed, after Edward's less than auspicious years with the Jets. I knew the Chiefs were going downhill soon, so I didn't really need to worry about them too much in the AFC West. It is hard to hate, or even dislike, the pitiful.

I far more despise the Broncos. If the Raiders beat the Broncos twice in a season, it's a good year (even if the Raiders go 2-14).

So when I wrote my little blurb about the Chiefs, I was NOT doing it out of spite for a division rival. I was merely going through the various teams and seeing how they did after three rounds.

But there is a final aspect to my comments which I did not mention: Herm Edwards has never developed a potential Hall-of-Famer in his coaching career, let alone a Super Bowl contender. How can anyone be enthusiastic about a team's draft when the head coach has NEVER shown any ability to develop talent?

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.