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)
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
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.Coburn even goes on to explain why "compassionate conservatism" is neither compassionate nor conservative:
...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.
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.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
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:
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.
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?"
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?"
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
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):
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.
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.
Monday, May 19, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
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?
Monday, April 28, 2008
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:
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?
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?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, April 18, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, April 11, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
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:
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
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
Sounds lovely, doesn't it? But as usual with anything Clintonian, the devil is in the details:
Read: more government regulation, which you will pay for at the pump and in your electricity bills.
Read: more oil company taxes, which you will pay for at the pump.
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.
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 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?
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:
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.
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:
In other words, a tax on companies which sell their allowances. It is unclear how much the tax will be.
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.
Aside from the spending aspect of this, is he SURE we can get this done in 5 years?
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 07, 2008
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).
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).
Friday, April 04, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Ed's Sunday Sermon: Happy Earth Hour!
Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it. - Mark TwainI was reading "Cities go dark to mark Earth Hour" over at CNN.com:
From Rome's Colosseum to the Sydney Opera House to the Sears Tower's famous antennas in Chicago, floodlit icons of civilization have gone dark for Earth Hour, a worldwide campaign to highlight the waste of electricity and the threat of climate change.Ah "the threat of climate change". It is almost like being afraid of the sun rising in the morning.
The environmental group WWF has urged governments, businesses and households to turn back to candle power for at least 60 minutes Saturday starting at 8 p.m. wherever they were.Candle power? I don't suppose the brain surgeons at the WWF know what candles produce? Good old carbon dioxide, that infamous cause of "Global Warming". But why let a little science get in the way of a good cause?
The campaign began last year in Australia and traveled this year from the South Pacific to Europe in cadence with the setting of the sun.Stupidity knows no national boundaries.
"What's amazing is that it's transcending political boundaries and happening in places like China, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea," said Andy Ridley, executive director of Earth Hour. "It really seems to have resonated with anybody and everybody."
Earth Hour officials hoped 100 million people would turn off their nonessential lights and electronic goods for the hour. Electricity plants produce greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.Fortunately, the other 5.9 billion people aren't in the dark.
The truth is that Earth Hour isn't about saving the planet. It is about spreading the political belief that humans are responsible for something the Earth does anyway. Climate change has been happening since the Earth was created, and will continue to happen regardless of whether humans are on this planet.
Once more, let me remind everyone that manmade Global Warming is a scientific THEORY, not a fact. Considering the huge number of factors that go into changing the Earth's climate, and considering the limited amount of time we have been measuring the Earth's climate, this subject requires far more objective study before any actions are taken.
Let's move from theories to some simple facts:
What happens when the air is warmer? More water evaporates.
What happens when you get more water in the atmosphere? More clouds are formed.
What happens when more clouds are formed? More of the sun's light is reflected away from the planet.
What happens when the Earth gets less sunlight on the surface of the planet? The planet cools.
What happens when the air is cooler? Less water evaporates.
What happens when you get less water in the atmosphere? Fewer clouds are formed.
What happens when there are fewer clouds? More of the sun's light hits the surface.
What happens when the Earth gets more sunlight on the surface of the planet? The planet warms.
This isn't rocket science folks. This is the never ending cycle of warming and cooling this planet goes through every year.
But at least the Irish got it right in the CNN.com story:
Ireland's more than 7,000 pubs elected not to take part, in part because of the risk that Saturday night revelers could end up smashing glasses, falling down stairs or setting themselves on fire with candles.For the Irish, "Happy hour" is more important than Earth Hour, as well it should be for the rest of us.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Best NFL Quarterback of All-time (Revisited)
Back in September of 2006, I did a blog post on "The best quarterback of all time". At the time, I did not include active quarterbacks. Now that Brett Favre has retired, it is time to revisit this subject.
This time around, I decided to come up with a list of all possible contenders for the best of all-time (feel free to mention in the comments if I overlooked a reasonable contender). As before, I am NOT considering active quarterbacks (sorry Tom Brady and Peyton Manning fans).
The contenders (in alphabetical order by first name): Bart Starr, Brett Favre, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Montana, Joe Namath, John Elway, Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham, Roger Staubach, Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman, Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, and Warren Moon.
The criteria:
ACCURACY
Accuracy is an area where it is difficult to compare quarterbacks from the modern era, where short passes are more frequently thrown, with those from previous eras. on the other hand, quarterbacks from previous eras tended to throw longer passes, so this category tends to balance out with the "arm strength" category below.
Completion percentage is the simplest statistic for accuracy. The top five from the list are:
ARM STRENGTH
By itself, arm strength is nice, but it won't win games.
Early in his career, Doug Williams had the strongest arm I have ever seen. Unfortunately, when he threw little passes into the flat, the ball would bounce off the receiver because it was uncatchable.
For arm strength to be effective, it has to be combined with touch on shorter passes.
In this category, average gain per pass attempted tells us the quarterback is using his arm strength to its ultimate advantage. The top five of all-time:
CHAMPIONSHIPS
In a team sport, the championship stands out as the ultimate test of how much a quarterback is helping his team.
The top five championship winning quarterbacks of all-time:
GAME MANAGEMENT
The first quality all rookie quarterbacks must learn is game management. By this I mean the ability to avoid mistakes, specifically interceptions.
The top five in lowest career interception percentage:
RELEASE
A quick release is not necessary to be a great quarterback, but it seems the great ones tend to have quicker releases than most quarterbacks.
The reason for this is the quicker the ball is gone, and the fewer hits the quarterback has to take, thereby cutting down on fumbles (as well as sacks).
If you take the number of fumbles and divide it by the total number of rush and pass attempts, the overall result shows the two quarterbacks generally considered to have the quickest releases of all-time: Dan Marino and Joe Namath.
The top five quickest releases of all-time (based on fumbles/rush + pass attempts):
RUSHING
The key to any quarterback's running ability is how many times do they score touchdowns? More specifically, does the defense have to respect a quarterback's ability to run with the ball?
The best way to judge this is to take the number of rushing touchdowns and divide it by the number of rushing attempts AND passing attempts. The top five running quarterbacks of all-time:
TOUCHDOWNS
In order to throw a lot of touchdowns, you have to be able to throw the ball in the red zone. You won't make a career out of only lobbing 70 yard bombs. You also have to be able to toss the little two yard pass to the tackle eligible in the end zone.
The top five all-time in touchdown percentage:
WHO IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL-TIME?
If you sum the rankings of all the quarterbacks on the list, the final ranking would then be determined by the lowest total (assuming all categories are weighted equally) of ranking values.
The final ranking of the 17 quarterbacks:
Before everyone starts crying about how their favorite quarterback played on a lot of bad teams or didn't have enough talent around them, consider two things. How good would Archie Manning have been if he had played on a good team instead of the horrible Saints teams of the 70's? Also, if championships are removed as a criteria, the top 4 remain the same (and Steve Young gets an even better score).
As I stated in my previous post, Steve Young is the best of all-time. And now that Brett Favre is retired, we can put to bed the notion that he was somehow the best of all-time.
Let the argument commence.
This time around, I decided to come up with a list of all possible contenders for the best of all-time (feel free to mention in the comments if I overlooked a reasonable contender). As before, I am NOT considering active quarterbacks (sorry Tom Brady and Peyton Manning fans).
The contenders (in alphabetical order by first name): Bart Starr, Brett Favre, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Joe Montana, Joe Namath, John Elway, Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham, Roger Staubach, Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman, Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, and Warren Moon.
The criteria:
ACCURACY
Accuracy is an area where it is difficult to compare quarterbacks from the modern era, where short passes are more frequently thrown, with those from previous eras. on the other hand, quarterbacks from previous eras tended to throw longer passes, so this category tends to balance out with the "arm strength" category below.
Completion percentage is the simplest statistic for accuracy. The top five from the list are:
1. Steve Young - 64.3%
2. Joe Montana - 63.2%
3. Troy Aikman - 61.5%
4. Brett Favre - 61.4%
5. Dan Marino - 59.4%
ARM STRENGTH
By itself, arm strength is nice, but it won't win games.
Early in his career, Doug Williams had the strongest arm I have ever seen. Unfortunately, when he threw little passes into the flat, the ball would bounce off the receiver because it was uncatchable.
For arm strength to be effective, it has to be combined with touch on shorter passes.
In this category, average gain per pass attempted tells us the quarterback is using his arm strength to its ultimate advantage. The top five of all-time:
1. Otto Graham - 8.98 yards/attempt
2. Sid Luckman - 8.42
3. Steve Young - 7.98
4. Bart Starr - 7.85
5. Johnny Unitas - 7.76
CHAMPIONSHIPS
In a team sport, the championship stands out as the ultimate test of how much a quarterback is helping his team.
The top five championship winning quarterbacks of all-time:
1. Otto Graham - 8
2. Bart Starr - 5
3t. Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, and Sid Luckman - 4
GAME MANAGEMENT
The first quality all rookie quarterbacks must learn is game management. By this I mean the ability to avoid mistakes, specifically interceptions.
The top five in lowest career interception percentage:
1. Joe Montana - 2.5783%
2. Steve Young - 2.5789%
3. Troy Aikman - 2.99%
4. Dan Marino - 3.01%
5. John Elway - 3.12%
RELEASE
A quick release is not necessary to be a great quarterback, but it seems the great ones tend to have quicker releases than most quarterbacks.
The reason for this is the quicker the ball is gone, and the fewer hits the quarterback has to take, thereby cutting down on fumbles (as well as sacks).
If you take the number of fumbles and divide it by the total number of rush and pass attempts, the overall result shows the two quarterbacks generally considered to have the quickest releases of all-time: Dan Marino and Joe Namath.
The top five quickest releases of all-time (based on fumbles/rush + pass attempts):
1. Dan Marino - 0.48%
2. Joe Namath - 0.86%
3. Joe Montana - 0.91%
4. Troy Aikman - 1.15%
5. Fran Tarkenton - 1.18%
RUSHING
The key to any quarterback's running ability is how many times do they score touchdowns? More specifically, does the defense have to respect a quarterback's ability to run with the ball?
The best way to judge this is to take the number of rushing touchdowns and divide it by the number of rushing attempts AND passing attempts. The top five running quarterbacks of all-time:
1. Otto Graham - 1.45% rushing td's/total attempts
2. Steve Young - 0.88%
3. Terry Bradshaw - 0.74%
4. Roger Staubach - 0.59%
5. Fran Tarkenton - 0.45%
TOUCHDOWNS
In order to throw a lot of touchdowns, you have to be able to throw the ball in the red zone. You won't make a career out of only lobbing 70 yard bombs. You also have to be able to toss the little two yard pass to the tackle eligible in the end zone.
The top five all-time in touchdown percentage:
1. Sid Luckman - 7.24%
2. Otto Graham - 7.19%
3. Sammy Baugh - 5.91%
4. Steve Young - 5.65%
5. Terry Bradshaw - 5.62%
WHO IS THE BEST QUARTERBACK OF ALL-TIME?
If you sum the rankings of all the quarterbacks on the list, the final ranking would then be determined by the lowest total (assuming all categories are weighted equally) of ranking values.
The final ranking of the 17 quarterbacks:
Rank. QB - Overall score (lower is better)
1. Steve Young - 29
2. Joe Montana - 34
3. Otto Graham - 38
4. Roger Staubach - 54
5. Bart Starr - 56
6t. Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton - 61
8. Johnny Unitas - 64
9t. Sid Luckman, Troy Aikman - 65
11. Terry Bradshaw - 69
12t. Brett Favre, John Elway - 73
14. Dan Fouts - 74
15. Sammy Baugh - 77
16t. Joe Namath, Warren Moon - 81
Before everyone starts crying about how their favorite quarterback played on a lot of bad teams or didn't have enough talent around them, consider two things. How good would Archie Manning have been if he had played on a good team instead of the horrible Saints teams of the 70's? Also, if championships are removed as a criteria, the top 4 remain the same (and Steve Young gets an even better score).
As I stated in my previous post, Steve Young is the best of all-time. And now that Brett Favre is retired, we can put to bed the notion that he was somehow the best of all-time.
Let the argument commence.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Favre beaned
This post is my way of giving a bloggy high five to ESPN's Sal Paolantonio. Finally, somebody in the Media gets it! Brett Favre is overrated!
In a recent column for ESPN.com, Paolantonio had this to say:
Sal even goes on to point out something I have already said: Favre is NOT even the best Packers quarterback of all-time. That honor belongs to Bart Starr.
By the way, how do you think Favre would have done playing for Vince Lombardi? Frankly, Lombardi would have benched Favre a long time ago for throwing too many interceptions. Gunslingers don't make great quarterbacks, because they don't win championships.
If you look at Favre's career numbers, you will see that after Mike Holmgren left the Packers, Favre's interceptions went up each year, and his touchdowns went down. Holmgren made Favre play within his own limitations. After Holmgren, Favre became the gunslinger, throwing way too many passes he shouldn't because none of the succeeding Packers coaches could control him. Favre became larger than life, and woe be to the coach who might criticize the almighty Favre.
Of course, the Packer fans didn't help the situation by deifying Favre, thereby making it harder on the Packer coaching staffs to try and control Favre's interceptions, which were fueled by Favre's out-of-control ego.
But that brings us back to Sal Paolantionio, who got his start as a sports reporter in Philadelphia. Try to picture what would have happened to Favre if he had been a quarterback in Philadelphia instead of Green Bay? The Eagles fans would have run Favre out of town years ago, with all those playoff interceptions.
Kudos to Sal for giving Favre the Philly treatment. Favre has been playing Santa Claus for too many Packer opponents for too long, and we all know what the Philly fans did to Santa.
In a recent column for ESPN.com, Paolantonio had this to say:
We interrupt the continued deification of Brett Favre -- a first-ballot Hall of Famer and the most durable player in NFL history -- with the following reality check.
Yes, Favre played long enough to throw the most touchdown passes and collect the most wins by an NFL quarterback. But let's examine the second half of No. 4's career. The truth is, Favre did little over the past decade to earn the gushing praise heaped upon him by our fawning brethren in the media.
Sal even goes on to point out something I have already said: Favre is NOT even the best Packers quarterback of all-time. That honor belongs to Bart Starr.
Oh, you say Starr was surrounded by a Hall of Fame roster with a legendary coach. But Starr still is the NFL record holder with a 104.8 career playoff passer rating, nearly 20 points higher than Favre's. That wasn't Vince Lombardi or Ray Nitschke throwing those passes for Starr, whose career postseason passer rating, by the way, is 38 points higher than Johnny Unitas'.
Favre's career playoff record was 12-10. Starr's was 9-1 -- without the benefit of wild-card games. Favre threw 28 interceptions in 22 playoff games. Starr threw three in 10. Think about that -- just three picks in 213 postseason attempts.
But Bart Starr gets the Ringo Starr treatment -- underappreciated and overlooked. Favre gets put on a pedestal. Yes, he had a Pro Bowl season in 2007 with the youngest roster in the NFL. But his final moment on Lambeau Field was a wildly errant pass that turned into the NFC title for the Giants.
By the way, how do you think Favre would have done playing for Vince Lombardi? Frankly, Lombardi would have benched Favre a long time ago for throwing too many interceptions. Gunslingers don't make great quarterbacks, because they don't win championships.
If you look at Favre's career numbers, you will see that after Mike Holmgren left the Packers, Favre's interceptions went up each year, and his touchdowns went down. Holmgren made Favre play within his own limitations. After Holmgren, Favre became the gunslinger, throwing way too many passes he shouldn't because none of the succeeding Packers coaches could control him. Favre became larger than life, and woe be to the coach who might criticize the almighty Favre.
Of course, the Packer fans didn't help the situation by deifying Favre, thereby making it harder on the Packer coaching staffs to try and control Favre's interceptions, which were fueled by Favre's out-of-control ego.
But that brings us back to Sal Paolantionio, who got his start as a sports reporter in Philadelphia. Try to picture what would have happened to Favre if he had been a quarterback in Philadelphia instead of Green Bay? The Eagles fans would have run Favre out of town years ago, with all those playoff interceptions.
Kudos to Sal for giving Favre the Philly treatment. Favre has been playing Santa Claus for too many Packer opponents for too long, and we all know what the Philly fans did to Santa.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Oh Glorious Happy Day!!!
Packers QB Brett Favre retiring!
I'm looking forward to next season already. I won't have to listen to announcers gushing over him any more.
I'm looking forward to next season already. I won't have to listen to announcers gushing over him any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)