A Diamond among Trash

For the past two days, my wife and I were cleaning out our basement.

My wife pulls a little book out of a box and asks me if I want to keep it. The front of the book says "Autographs". I say, "YES!"

I immediately paged through the book. The names leapt out at me: Ron Jaworski...Hal Carmichael...Randy Logan...John Bunting...Wally Henry...Vince Papale...

Back in the late 70's, my mother took me and a friend up to the Philadelphia Eagles training camp in West Chester, PA. I bought that little autograph book to take with me.

The one autograph I remember the most was Harold Carmichael (he signed his name "Hal Carmichael"). When you are a kid standing right next to him, he was HUGE! It felt like the back of my head had to touch my spine to see his face. But he was a complete gentleman, just like the rest of the Eagles.

The whole experience was one that has stuck with me even to this day. Those Eagles were larger than life figures to me, even now. Those men immortalized themselves in my memory, by doing nothing more than taking a few seconds of their time to sign their name in a book for a kid. God bless them.

When I think of all the great teams of the 70's and 80's, the Eagles stand out for me. Not because they were great on the field, but because they were great OFF the field too. If they had any sins as individuals, those were erased in my mind when they took the time to sign my little book.

When I hear about athletes who won't sign autographs for kids, I think of what a disservice they do to their own legacy. What you do as an athlete on the field may put you in the record books, the Hall of Fame, on television, in commercials, and secure your financial future. But the few seconds it takes to sign a piece of paper for a child is a bond that goes beyond all the fame and accolades. It places you on a pantheon above all other athletes in the mind of that child, for the entire lifetime of that child.

And you want an extra $20 for that?

The Attorney General Dead-end, Part 2

As I pointed out in yesterday's post, the whole attorney general firing scandal is a dead-end. Simply put, feel free to complain about it, but don't you dare suggest a solution.

Probably the best example of a similar scandal was Bill Clinton's last minute pardons before he left office. The fact is that he took money for his presidential library in order to issue some of those pardons. We can all agree what he did was highly unethical.

But if we look at it as a problem, what would the solution be? We could amend the Constitution to limit or eliminate the presidential pardon power.

If we limit pardons by giving Congress oversight, what do we gain? Congress is not known for its high ethical standards.

If we eliminate the presidential pardon power, what happens when the court system makes a glaring mistake? Sorry, we will just have to live with it.

Again, we come back to a problem without a solution, or where the solutions are worse than the problem itself.

But if you absolutely positively MUST have a solution to the problem, it is really quite simple: Vote for ethical politicians! Our government does not, and should not, run on auto-pilot. Take responsibility for YOUR VOTE! If you vote for unethical politicians, don't blame the government, because YOU made it!

The Attorney General Dead-end

Over at Ragged Thots, Robert George has once again posted on the so-called attorney general scandal.

In his post, Robert links to a post by Josh Marshall, which makes the case for why this scandal is important:

"Whoever's in power and however intense things get, most of us assume that the party in power won't interfere with the vote count. We also assume that the administration won't use the IRS to harrass or imprison political opponents. And we assume that criminal prosecutions will be undertaken or not undertaken on the facts.

Yes, there's prosecutorial discretion. And the grandstanding, press-hungry DA is almost a cliche. But when a politician gets indicted for corruption we basically all assume it's because they're corrupt -- or, given the assumption of innocence, that the prosecution is undertaken because the prosecutor believes their case is strong and that the defendent committed the crime."

An indictment is NOT a conviction. Incorrect assumptions by the public is NOT a reason to change anything, except possibly public misconceptions. Did we learn NOTHING from the Duke lacrosse case?

"What we seem to see are repeated cases in which US Attorneys were fired for not pursuing bogus prosecutions of persons of the opposite party. Or vice versa. There's little doubt that that is why McKay and Iglesias were fired and there's mounting evidence that this was the case in other firings as well. The idea that a senator calls a US Attorney at home just weeks before a federal elections and tries to jawbone him into indicting someone to help a friend get reelected is shocking. Think about it for a second. It's genuinely shocking. At a minimum one would imagine such bad acts take place with more indirection and deniability. And yet the Domenici-Iglesias call has now been relegated to the status of a footnote in the expanding scandal, notwithstanding the fact that there's now documentary evidence showing that Domenici's substantial calls to the White House and Justice Department played a direct role in getting Iglesias fired.

So what you have here is this basic line being breached. But not only that. What is equally threatening is the systematic nature of the offense. This isn't one US Attorney out to get Democrats or one rogue senator trying to monkey around with the justice system. The same thing happened in Washington state and New Mexico -- with the same sort of complaints being received and acted upon at the White House and the Department of Justice. Indeed, there appears to have been a whole process in place to root out prosecutors who wouldn't prostitute their offices for partisan goals.

We all understand that politics and the law aren't two hermetically sealed domains. And we understand that partisanship may come into play at the margins. But we expect it to be the exception to the rule and a rare one. But here it appears to have become the rule rather than the exception, a systematic effort at the highest levels to hijack the Justice Department and use it to advance the interest of one party over the other by use of selective prosecution."

Well said. Now that we have identified the problem, what shall we do to fix it?

It seems clear: We need more Congressional oversight into the Executive Branch. We will need to give Congress authority (i.e. advise and consent) over all presidential attorney appointments. That will make the president think twice before appointing anyone for strictly political reasons! It will also make him think twice before firing anyone too, because then he will have to appoint someone acceptable to Congress!

Of course, Congress will be able to do with the attorneys what they did with Bush's judicial appointments: filibuster until they are withdrawn. Which means he possibly won't be able to appoint ANY attorneys! Just think how much that would mean to an opposition party which likes to keep their hands in the cookie jar?

Do we REALLY want to give Congress more power? I will grant what Bush did was unethical, but there is a VERY good reason for the president to have this authority. If he misuses it, what happens? He will get plenty of indictments, but no convictions. He will tie up the judicial system with a bunch of frivolous prosecutions.

On the other hand, if the president does NOT have the legal power to pursue corruption in opposition parties, what is to stop Congress from giving itself more immunity than it already has?

Frankly, this is a case where the cure is far worse than the disease. Let the Media have their field day over this "scandal", but don't dare to ask what should be done to fix it.

Friday Trivia! Irish edition

1. Who originally did the song Take Me to the River which was later covered by the Talking Heads?

2. Which food company was originally formed as the Minnesota Valley Canning Company, and later purchased by General Mills?

3. What was the nickname of the Vermont Republic's militia led by Ethan Allen?

4. What Oscar-nominated 1991 film was based on a novel by Fannie Flagg?

5. Who wrote the 1940 novel The Power and the Glory?

ANSWERS:
1. Al Green
2. Green Giant
3. Green Mountain Boys
4. Fried Green Tomatoes
5. Graham Greene

Time to "cut and run" from Detroit?

Gotta love Congressman Tim Walberg. From Freep.com:

A Republican congressman representing rural southern Michigan is taking heat for saying that most of Iraq is at least as under control as Detroit is.

Freshman Rep. Tim Walberg's comments, made Monday on WILS-AM in Lansing, didn't sit well with Democrats -- who issued a news release Wednesday -- or the office of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

"Any reference to Detroit as a war zone is absurd," said Matt Allen, the mayor's spokesman.

Walberg of Tipton didn't quite say Detroit was a war zone. He said most of Iraq "is reasonably under control, at least as well as Detroit."

Walberg's spokesman, Matt Lahr, said the congressman "frequently shares sentiments expressed to him by the soldiers and veterans he meets." He wouldn't say whether a soldier or soldiers made the Detroit remark.

There have been 3,223 U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the war began in 2003, and more than 10,000 Iraqi civilian and security forces killed since January 2006, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. About 1,576 people died as a result of homicide or nonnegligent manslaughter in Detroit since the beginning of 2003.

While the numbers don't equate, they are at least comparable.

When can we expect a timetable for pulling out of Detroit?

I can see the protests now: "Kwame lied! People died!"

Personally, I think this whole thing is a smoke screen. The real problem is Ohio's nuclear ambitions. It wouldn't be so bad if not for their constant threats to "wipe Indiana off the map".

R.I.P. Larry "Bud" Melman

According to CNN.com:

"The balding, bespectacled nebbish who gained cult status as the oddball Larry "Bud" Melman on David Letterman's late-night television shows has died after a long illness.

Brooklyn-born Calvert DeForest, who was 85, died Monday at a hospital on Long Island, the Letterman show announced Wednesday."

I always thought Melman was one of the funniest parts of the Letterman show. Melman's brutal sincerity made a nice complement to Letterman's tongue-in-cheek style. Melman brought a comic sledgehammer to Letterman's straight man setups.

The saddest part of the story:

"There will be no funeral service for DeForest, who left no survivors."

God bless you DeForest. You made a lot of people laugh, and that is a pretty good legacy to leave behind.

Popular Culture?

Define "popular culture"?

In this day and age, that seems a lot harder to do.

Considering that for most of the 20th century, there was a dominance of popular culture by certain mediums:

In the early 20th century, radio, newspapers, and movies tended to dominate. In the mid to late 20th century, television dominated it.

Sometime in the 1990's, the popular culture started to fragment, starting with the rise of the Internet and satellite tv (100's of channels, all at the click of a button).

Nowadays, what people think can be influenced in hundreds of different ways. Unlike 50 years ago, it is no longer controlled by three television networks and the local newspaper.

I'm not saying there isn't a popular culture. What I am saying is that it is significantly harder to use case studies to draw conclusions over the entire culture. We have more "pocket" cultures today than we have had in the past.

Another Global Warming Hole

Yet another hole has been shot into the swiss cheese theory known as Global Warming.

It seems the main basis for Global Warming is flawed: an average global temperature.

Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

..."It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

Does this mean my house in the north Georgia hills won't be beachfront property? Now I'm REALLY disappointed...

(Hat tip to www.sciencedaily.com)

In other news...

From CNN.com:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- About one-third of the people living in the nation's capital are functionally illiterate, compared with about one-fifth nationally, according to a report on the District of Columbia."

...and that's just at Capitol Hill.

The Illogical Extreme of Global Warming

I hope the enviro-nuts are happy now.

Because of the so-called danger of Global Warming, we now have scientists coming up with hare-brained schemes to cool the planet. From CNN.com:

"Scientists are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" to filter carbon dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulfates high in the sky.

These are costly projects of last resort -- in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the solutions could cause problems of their own -- beyond their exorbitant costs -- including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses."

This scares me more than any amount of Global Warming.

For example, what happens if we set off a volcano, and then another one erupts naturally? How does global cooling sound to you?

Friday Trivia! "Friday Night Light" edition

1. In Einstein's equation E=mc^2, what does "c" represent?

2. What poem included the lines:

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die

3. Who played Angela Bower on the sitcom Who's the Boss?

4. Lt. Colonel Henry Lee, who served in the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and was also father to General Robert E. Lee, was better known by what nickname?

5. Cassius Clay won the 1960 Olympic gold medal for boxing in which weight division?

ANSWERS:
1. The speed of light
2. The Charge of the Light Brigade
3. Judith Light
4. Light Horse Harry
5. Light Heavyweight

Global Warming and Religion

Evangelicals seem to be having a little spat amongst themselves over the issue of Global Warming, according to a report from CNN.com:

"A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at this week's meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The group rebuffed complaints from some of the religious right's leading lights about the organization's newfound focus on global warming.

The group, which represents 45,000 churches and more than 60 evangelical denominations, took no action on a letter sent by 25 conservative Christian leaders demanding that the organization restrain its Washington policy director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, from putting forward his views on global warming.

"We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children," said the letter, which was signed by prominent religious conservatives such as James Dobson, Don Wildmon, Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer.

Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God."

But Dobson and the other signatories of the letter to the National Association of Evangelicals board said evidence supporting global warming was not conclusive and that the organization "lacks the expertise to settle the controversy."

"The issue should be addressed scientifically and not theologically," they said, calling on the group's board to either rein in Cizik or encourage him to resign."

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute! "The issue should be addressed scientifically and not theologically"?! If the issue were Creationism vs. Evolution, would they say the same thing? Absolutely not!

Ironic hypocrisy aside, they are right. This is STILL a scientific issue, because science has NOT definitively said this is going to happen. Yes people, Global Warming is a THEORY, not a scientific FACT.

Even the Theory of Evolution has more scientific evidence going for it than Global Warming does. Considering evangelicals don't accept the Theory of Evolution, why on Earth would they EVER accept Global Warming?

Matt Drudge and Jennifer Garner

I enjoy reading the Drudge Report, and consider it one of my main news sources on the Internet. However, Drudge printed a hugely misleading headline to one of his linked stories today: "Actress Jennifer Garner Confesses Climate Change Makes her Cry..." (which links to an article on www.postchronicle.com.

When you go to the linked article, which is about Jennifer Garner, the pertinent section of the article reads:

"Jennifer has also confessed she cries more now she is a mother. The actress believes the experience has made her more caring.

She said: "Since I became a mother, I cry more because I care about things more.

"I can't watch a movie where something happens to a child. And I've always cared about global warming and breast cancer, but now there seems to be an urgency about them.""

If you read her quote closely, she is NOT saying that she cries about Global Warming. She says "now there seems to be an urgency" about it.

I won't say that she doesn't cry about it, but her quote does NOT say that. Drudge is inferring it.

When the government runs your life

I was reading this article on MSN about how FEMA cleared out a trailer park:

"HAMMOND, La. - Shortly after noon, FEMA agents began rapping on the trailer doors, their knocks resounding inside the tinny white homes. Everyone in the park, the agents announced without warning, would have to pack and leave within 48 hours.

Where do we go now?

Why?

What about school?

To the residents of the Yorkshire Mobile Home Park, all of them families displaced by Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency crews offered answers that were uncertain and sometimes contradictory. As residents spilled out of their homes to meet their similarly bewildered neighbors, the adults wondered where they would be sent next, and how far they might wind up from their jobs. Some began sobbing. Then the children, seeing their parents' tears, began crying, too. A woman fainted, and an ambulance came.

"It was like shock and awe," recalled Ron Harrell, 40, a tenant. "We called it Hurricane FEMA."

The Yorkshire residents were eventually scattered to other FEMA parks. But their sudden evacuation last weekend illustrates the upheavals that still accompany life in a government trailer park 18 months after the hurricane struck the Gulf Coast in August 2005."

The key phrase there is "18 months after the hurricane struck". So they are saying that these people cannot find a way to make enough money to pay for their own housing after A YEAR AND A HALF?!

These people have moved out of the "victim" phase, and are now firmly in the "welfare leach" phase.

When you turn responsibility for a part of your life, such as housing, over to the government, don't cry when the government decides to turn your life upside down.

It amazes me there are still people who want to hand responsibility for our health care over to government bureaucrats like FEMA.

Friday Trivia! Headwear edition

Why headwear? Why not!

1. Which Prince song was covered by the band Hindu Love Gods (which was made up of the band members from REM and Warren Zevon) in 1990?

2. Who was the second female to rule Ancient Egypt as pharaoh, although is generally considered the first woman in history to rule as a monarch with all the powers normally reserved for male monarchs?

3. Which famous fictional character did Tom Petty portray in the music video for his song Don't Come Around Here No More?

4. What was the title of the next-to-last film Billy Wilder directed in 1978, which starred William Holden?

5. Which cape is the site of the tallest lighthouse in America?

ANSWERS:
1. Raspberry Beret
2. Hatshepsut
3. The Mad Hatter
4. Fedora
5. Cape Hatteras

Out sick

I'm not feeling very bloggy right now, thanks to a head cold. I'm taking off from blogging until Friday, when I will return with the usual Friday Trivia.

The Blackout of Paris

It seems the Associated Press tried an experiment recently: a week with no news items on Paris Hilton. Apparently, no one noticed. From an AP editorial at CNN.com:

So you may have heard: Paris Hilton was ticketed the other day for driving with a suspended license.

Not huge news, even by celebrity-gossip standards. Here at The Associated Press, we put out an initial item of some 300 words. But it actually meant more to us than that.

It meant the end of our experimental blackout on news about Paris Hilton.

It was only meant to be a weeklong ban -- not the boldest of journalistic initiatives, and one, we realized, that might seem hypocritical once it ended. And it wasn't based on a view of what the public should be focusing on -- the war in Iraq, for example, or the upcoming election of the next leader of the free world, as opposed to the doings of a partygoing celebrity heiress/reality TV star most famous for a grainy sex video.

No, editors just wanted to see what would happen if we didn't cover this media phenomenon, this creature of the Internet gossip age, for a full week. After that, we'd take it day by day. Would anyone care? Would anyone notice? And would that tell us something interesting?

It turned out that people noticed plenty -- but not in the way that might have been expected. None of the thousands of media outlets that depend on AP called in asking for a Paris Hilton story. No one felt a newsworthy event had been ignored.

So why would I bother posting this? Simply for the end of the editorial:

So what have we learned from the ban? "It's hard to tell what this really changes, since we didn't have to make any hard decisions," says Jesse Washington, AP's entertainment editor. "So we'll continue to use our news judgment on each item, individually."

Which means that for the immediate future, if not always, we'll still have Paris.

Friday Trivia! Movie Edition

Sorry folks. No clever answers this week. Just doing straight movie trivia. Enjoy!

1. Which actress starred in different films with the following actors: Orson Welles, Ray Liotta, Telly Savalas, and Stacy Keach?

2. Which Clint Eastwood film was originally titled Il Buono, il brutto, il cattivo?

3. What was the title of the 1986 made-for-tv sequel to the Academy Award winning film Patton?

4. In which film did Linda Blair star with Oscar winner Louise Fletcher, as well as four other Oscar nominees? (Note: This film did NOT receive a single Academy Award nomination.)

5. In 1940, which of the following Best Picture nominees won the Academy Award: Dark Victory, Gone with the Wind, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Love Affair, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach, The Wizard of Oz, or Wuthering Heights?

ANSWERS:
1. Pia Zadora
2. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
3. The Last Days of Patton
4. Exorcist II: The Heretic
5. Gone with the Wind

Ed's NFL Mock Draft

With the NFL scouting combine completed, I thought it might be a good time to do a mock draft:

1. Oakland (2-14)- Calvin Johnson, WR, Georgia Tech
All the mock drafts have the Raiders taking JaMarcus Russell, but Calvin Johnson is the once-in-a-lifetime prospect. To satisfy their quarterback needs, I predict the Raiders will either sign a free agent quarterback or trade for David Carr. Also, considering the Raiders draft history of quarterbacks, Al Davis has to be a little trigger shy on taking a quarterback with this pick (anyone remember Todd Marinovich?).

2. Detroit (3-13)- Joe Thomas, OT, Wisconsin
The Lions have a lot of needs, but Thomas is the best player available at this point.

3. Cleveland (4-12)- JaMarcus Russell, QB, LSU
Russell's invisibility at the scouting combine drops him, but only to here. Rumor has it the Browns are in love with him. He won't last past this point. In fact, don't be surprised if the Browns trade up to the first pick in order to get Russell.

4. Tampa Bay (4-12)- Adrian Peterson, RB, Oklahoma
No, I don't think the Bucs will take a running back. I actually think someone else will trade up for this pick and take Peterson.

5. Arizona (5-11)- Jamaal Anderson, DE, Arkansas
It is safe to say the Cards will pick a defensive player, but which one? Anderson is arguably the most highly rated defensive prospect.

6. Washington (5-11)- Laron Landry, DB, LSU
The Redskins need a receiver or a defensive player who can contribute immediately. Landry may fit that second part. With the expected release of Adam Archuleta, the Skins will need a safety.

7. Minnesota (6-10)- Brady Quinn, QB, Notre Dame
Expect the Vikings to draft some secondary help later in the draft. For now, this team needs some offense.

8. Houston (6-10)- Levi Brown, OT, Penn State
If the Texans don't trade up for Adrian Peterson, Brown is a good pass blocker, which is what they desperately need.

9. Miami (6-10)- Amobi Okoye, DT, Louisville
The Dolphins could also go with DT Alan Branch, but Okoye has more upside.

10. Atlanta (7-9)- Gaines Adams, DE, Clemson
With Patrick Kerney leaving, Adams is the logical pick for the Falcons in a secondary-weak draft. If Laron Landry is still here, they will take him instead.

11. San Fransico (7-9)- Alan Branch, DT, Michigan
Coach Mike Nolan could use Branch like a Tony Siragusa for his defense.

12. Buffalo (7-9) - Marshawn Lynch, RB, California
If the Bills do get rid of Willis McGahee, they almost have to pick Lynch here. They might also try to trade up for Adrian Peterson.

13. St. Louis (8-8)- Ted Ginn Jr, WR, Ohio State
Ginn would fill two needs for the Rams. First, Isaac Bruce isn't getting any younger. Second, the Rams return teams were nothing special last year.

14. Carolina (8-8)- Charles Johnson, DE, Georgia
The Panthers will need a defensive end, and they might also need a wide receiver if Keyshawn Johnson decides to retire. I would go with the obvious need and take Johnson.

15. Pittsburgh (8-8) - Adam Carriker, DE, Nebraska
Carriker is a nice fit for new coach Mike Tomlin, who likes to play a 4-3 defense, even though the Steelers are built to play a 3-4. Carriker is big enough to play DT, but fast enough to play DE. A good tweener that gives the Steelers some flexibility.

16. Green Bay (8-8)- Leon Hall, CB, Michigan
Don't be surprised if the Packers trade up to get one of the top running backs. If they don't do that, expect them to take the top corner in the draft. They need one considering the age of their current starters, Charles Woodson (30) and Al Harris (32).

17. Jacksonville (8-8)- Lawrence Timmons, LB, Florida State
This team got the most out of mediocre talent. They can afford to take the best player available and fill a need. Timmons is probably it, but I could easily be wrong on this one.

18. Cincinnati (8-8)- Patrick Willis, LB, Mississippi
The Bengals need an infusion at linebacker, having cut Brian Simmons, having off-the-field issues with Odell Thurman, and having lost David Pollack to a neck injury. Willis is the value pick here.

19. Tennessee (8-8)- Dwayne Jarrett, WR, USC
Vince Young needs someone to throw to, and Jarrett fills the bill nicely.

20. NY Giants (8-8)- Paul Poslouszny, LB, Penn State
The Giants might reach for this one considering they need linebackers.

21. Denver (9-7)- Greg Olson, TE, Miami (Fl)
I can see the Broncos giving Jay Cutler another target. They haven't had a great tight end since Shannon Sharpe, but Olson could fill that role.

22. Dallas (9-7)- Reggie Nelson, FS, Florida
The Boys need another safety, and Nelson is the value pick here.

23. Kansas City (9-7)- Dwayne Bowe, WR, LSU
The Chiefs best wide receiver is Eddie Kennison. This is a wide receiver heavy draft. They could also take Sidney Rice or Craig Davis here.

24. New England (from Seattle)- Sidney Rice, WR, South Carolina
Pick a receiver, any receiver...

25. NY Jets (10-6))- Robert Meachem, WR, Tennessee
Even though the Jets don't need a receiver, this is too good a value to pass up.

26. Philadelphia (10-6) - Ryan Kalil, C, USC
Andy Reid likes to draft offensive and defensive lineman early. He may also pick OL Arron Sears or DE Jarvis Moss here.

27. New Orleans (10-6) - Jarvis Moss, DE, Florida
The Saints are solid on offense, so expect them to take the best defensive player available. SS Michael Griffin is another possibility here.

28. New England (12-4)- Michael Griffin, SS, Texas
The Patriots always seem to need secondary help.

29. Baltimore (13-3)- Craig Davis, WR, LSU
One of the glaring weaknesses the Ravens showed was an inability to dominate in the passing game. Davis is either a steal or a reach here, depending on which ranking list you look at.

30. San Diego (14-2)- Darrelle Revis, CB, Pittsburgh
The Chargers may also go with CB Aaron Ross.

31. Chicago (13-3)- Drew Stanton, QB, Michigan State
After Rex Grossman's performance in the Super Bowl, this pick is kind of obvious.

32. Indianapolis (12-4)- Aaron Ross, CB, Texas
The Colts don't have any glaring needs, so this is a BPA pick.