(Hat tip to Reuters)
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
RIP: Global Warming?
"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming"
This is how Michael Asher's blog over at Dailytech.com begins. While the blog (which was reported by Drudge Report) is a bit over the top in it's declaration of the end of Global Warming, if you go to the sources Asher is using for this epithet, you will see there is a SIGNIFICANT trend in global cooling. Whether it is an actual trend, or just a blip, only time will tell.
Unless you listen to the "Religion of the Global Warming Scare" (headed by Pope Al Gore), you will realize that global cooling is a far greater threat to mankind than any amount of warming we have seen historically, with the "Little Ice Age" being the best example of how global cooling can hurt mankind.
Mind you, I am NOT sounding the alarms on global cooling. Nor am I heeding the scare tactics of the Global Warming crowd. The plain simple fact is that Global Warming was, and is, a scientific theory. If climatologists begin claiming that global cooling is happening based on the data, that too will be a scientific theory. The FACT is that climatology has NOT been able to accurately predict what global temperatures will do in the past (the Global Cooling scare of the 1970's is a prime example of this).
Ironically, in both the Global Cooling and the current Global Warming scares, mankind was blamed as the primary cause, in spite of the fact that significant global warming and cooling have occurred throughout the history of this planet prior to mankind's industrialization. Yet we still view ourselves as the center of the universe, with all things happening because of US.
I have said it before, but it is worth repeating:
If you look back on mankind's history, whenever something bad happened, such as famine or disease, mankind's natural reaction was that the gods were causing it to happen because they were displeased with humans. In essence, mankind was responsible for the famines or diseases they experienced.
To this day, we assume nothing happens in the universe unless mankind causes it.
In psychology, a human infant assumes they are the center of the universe, since they know nothing else except themselves. As a species, humans are being infantile when we assume that everything that happens in the universe is caused by us.
Grow up people.
My daughter and Egypt
My family got a Wii yesterday, and my 10 year-old daughter was playing her "Hannah Montana" game on it this morning before school. I was on my computer when my daughter came charging in, quite pleased with herself.
DAUGHTER: I'm going to "kayrow"! (that's the way she pronounced it)
ME: You mean Cairo?
DAUGHTER: Yes. Where's that?
ME: Egypt.
DAUGHTER: Oh...that must be why they have that dog-looking thing on the screen.
ME: Dog-looking thing?
DAUGHTER: Yeah. (then she proceeds to make herself look like the front of the Sphinx)
ME: Oh, that's the Sphinx.
DAUGHTER: Is that what it's called?
ME: Yes, and it's not a dog, it's a lion. With a man's head. Specifically, the pharaoh's head.
She proceeded to run off and continue playing.
I am still scratching my head over that exchange.
DAUGHTER: I'm going to "kayrow"! (that's the way she pronounced it)
ME: You mean Cairo?
DAUGHTER: Yes. Where's that?
ME: Egypt.
DAUGHTER: Oh...that must be why they have that dog-looking thing on the screen.
ME: Dog-looking thing?
DAUGHTER: Yeah. (then she proceeds to make herself look like the front of the Sphinx)
ME: Oh, that's the Sphinx.
DAUGHTER: Is that what it's called?
ME: Yes, and it's not a dog, it's a lion. With a man's head. Specifically, the pharaoh's head.
She proceeded to run off and continue playing.
I am still scratching my head over that exchange.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
John "Kerry" McCain
There is a good editorial in the Wall Street Journal today by Kevin Stach about John McCain's fiscal record.
There is an interesting tidbit about the infamous Bush tax cuts which McCain voted against:
In other words, McCain voted for it before he voted against it. But I guess we won't hear him saying that.
There is an interesting tidbit about the infamous Bush tax cuts which McCain voted against:
"In 2001, with the bitter primary battle still fresh, Mr. McCain voted against the final Bush tax-cut package. Why would he deviate from a pro-growth, tax-cutting position, built up over 17 years in Congress and dozens of votes, even after running on a tax-cut plan himself in 2000?
Mr. McCain's protest that he wanted spending cuts to accompany the Bush tax cuts has persuaded few conservatives. But what is not remembered is that, two weeks earlier, Mr. McCain voted to approve the final version of the Budget Resolution -- the blueprint used by congressional committees for spending and tax bills -- which included $1.35 trillion in tax cuts (the Bush proposal) coupled with a $661 billion cap on discretionary spending. When the promised spending cap never materialized, Mr. McCain denounced the wasteful earmarks and pork-barrel spending that he felt jeopardized the budget, and lodged the now famous protest vote against the tax cuts."
In other words, McCain voted for it before he voted against it. But I guess we won't hear him saying that.
Obama-mania: Part 2
Continued from Part 1. As before, all quotes are taken from Obama's website.
HEALTHCARE
And his plan to do this? First:
This is an idea I both like and dislike at the same time.
I like this idea because I personally believe that catastrophic healthcare costs should be handled by the government, and Obama's plan actually works in a good way.
I dislike this idea because it leaves the impression that we will somehow be paying less. While it may save us money in premiums, it will also cost us money in taxes. Moving an expense to a different column doesn't save money.
The second part of Obama's plan, called "Helping Patients", is mostly a bunch of nice sounding ideas that are pretty vague on specifics. However, one part is worth noting:
Great idea! More government paperwork to fill out! Of course, compliance with this WILL cost money. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies will have to hire staff to fill out the new paperwork, which means another increase in healthcare costs passed along to the consumer. Not to mention another layer of government bureaucracy to process all this paperwork, which will be paid for by your taxes.
But what is truly great about this part is the "quality" aspect. Fear of malpractice lawsuits clearly don't do enough to prevent "medical errors". We need more government to do that!
Unfortunately, Obama is big on the "quality" healthcare thing, as his third part is dedicated to it. Most of the third part sounds nice, but is light on specifics. But one part scares me:
Note the last part in bold. Exactly how will affirmative action programs for our healthcare workers help anything? We will get better quality healthcare if we lower the standards to allow more minorities into healthcare?
The fourth part of Obama's plan is actually a decent idea:
This is one of those rare cases where spending public money could result in something useful.
The fifth part of Obama's plan is flawed in it's reasoning:
The reason premiums have skyrocketed is NOT because of insurance company mergers. The reason is because most Americans have public or private health insurance, and little reason to shop their healthcare around. So they go to doctors or pharmacies who take their insurance, with no regard to cost. They use the healthcare system regardless of whether they NEED it, thereby creating a greater demand for healthcare. Under the very simple laws of supply and demand, we know that when demand goes up while supply remains constant, prices will also rise. Obama (and most of Washington) ignore this fact.
Let's see where Obama's ignorance will take us:
By limiting profits for these companies, he will also restrict investment capital in new companies to compete with the existing companies. The great irony here is that he will be ensuring the monopoly status of the existing companies. His own idea shoots itself in the foot.
The next part is almost as stupid:
Tha last part in bold is the truly insane idea, because that will kill drug research in this country. Without the ability to market new drugs exclusively for a period of time, drug companies will have no incentive to research new drugs. The pipeline of innovative new drugs will come to a screeching halt.
Which brings us to Obama's "Fight for New Intiatives":
So as soon as Obama kills all private investment in medical research, federal funding will be the only source of new treatments. Translation: Instead of wealthy investors taking risks on researching new treatments, the risk will be transferred to the American taxpayer. Instead of stockholders holding companies accountable, it will fall to government bureaucrats instead.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Personally, I consider these two separate issues which he lumps into one because of "climate change" (note that it is no longer called "global warming").
Actually, this is one of the few areas I agree with Obama's plan, even if I don't agree with his reasons for it. We do need other energy sources. If government funding and tax incentives will help get us there, so be it.
The only areas I take exception with Obama's plan is his lack of any plans for expanding oil drilling within the U.S., as well as ignoring nuclear power as a potential source of power generation in this country.
IMMIGRATION
Obama's plan here is right on the money, except for the last part below:
In order to "fix" Mexico's economic problems, he will first have to rid their government of corruption. Short of taking over Mexico, I don't see that happening.
To be continued...
HEALTHCARE
"My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less." - Barack Obama
And his plan to do this? First:
"Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums." - Obama's website
This is an idea I both like and dislike at the same time.
I like this idea because I personally believe that catastrophic healthcare costs should be handled by the government, and Obama's plan actually works in a good way.
I dislike this idea because it leaves the impression that we will somehow be paying less. While it may save us money in premiums, it will also cost us money in taxes. Moving an expense to a different column doesn't save money.
The second part of Obama's plan, called "Helping Patients", is mostly a bunch of nice sounding ideas that are pretty vague on specifics. However, one part is worth noting:
"Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs." - Obama's website
Great idea! More government paperwork to fill out! Of course, compliance with this WILL cost money. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies will have to hire staff to fill out the new paperwork, which means another increase in healthcare costs passed along to the consumer. Not to mention another layer of government bureaucracy to process all this paperwork, which will be paid for by your taxes.
But what is truly great about this part is the "quality" aspect. Fear of malpractice lawsuits clearly don't do enough to prevent "medical errors". We need more government to do that!
Unfortunately, Obama is big on the "quality" healthcare thing, as his third part is dedicated to it. Most of the third part sounds nice, but is light on specifics. But one part scares me:
"[Obama] will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce." - Obama's website
Note the last part in bold. Exactly how will affirmative action programs for our healthcare workers help anything? We will get better quality healthcare if we lower the standards to allow more minorities into healthcare?
The fourth part of Obama's plan is actually a decent idea:
"Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected." - Obama's website
This is one of those rare cases where spending public money could result in something useful.
The fifth part of Obama's plan is flawed in it's reasoning:
"The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent." - Obama's website
The reason premiums have skyrocketed is NOT because of insurance company mergers. The reason is because most Americans have public or private health insurance, and little reason to shop their healthcare around. So they go to doctors or pharmacies who take their insurance, with no regard to cost. They use the healthcare system regardless of whether they NEED it, thereby creating a greater demand for healthcare. Under the very simple laws of supply and demand, we know that when demand goes up while supply remains constant, prices will also rise. Obama (and most of Washington) ignore this fact.
Let's see where Obama's ignorance will take us:
"Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers." - Obama's website
By limiting profits for these companies, he will also restrict investment capital in new companies to compete with the existing companies. The great irony here is that he will be ensuring the monopoly status of the existing companies. His own idea shoots itself in the foot.
The next part is almost as stupid:
"The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets."
Tha last part in bold is the truly insane idea, because that will kill drug research in this country. Without the ability to market new drugs exclusively for a period of time, drug companies will have no incentive to research new drugs. The pipeline of innovative new drugs will come to a screeching halt.
Which brings us to Obama's "Fight for New Intiatives":
"As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships." - Obama's website
So as soon as Obama kills all private investment in medical research, federal funding will be the only source of new treatments. Translation: Instead of wealthy investors taking risks on researching new treatments, the risk will be transferred to the American taxpayer. Instead of stockholders holding companies accountable, it will fall to government bureaucrats instead.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Personally, I consider these two separate issues which he lumps into one because of "climate change" (note that it is no longer called "global warming").
Actually, this is one of the few areas I agree with Obama's plan, even if I don't agree with his reasons for it. We do need other energy sources. If government funding and tax incentives will help get us there, so be it.
The only areas I take exception with Obama's plan is his lack of any plans for expanding oil drilling within the U.S., as well as ignoring nuclear power as a potential source of power generation in this country.
IMMIGRATION
Obama's plan here is right on the money, except for the last part below:
"Create Secure Borders
Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
Work with Mexico
Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration." - Obama's website
In order to "fix" Mexico's economic problems, he will first have to rid their government of corruption. Short of taking over Mexico, I don't see that happening.
To be continued...
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obama-mania: Part 1
As Obama-mania seems to be picking up steam, I decided now would be a good time to see where he stands on the issues. The logical starting point is his campaign's website, where all of his quotes are taken below.
THE ECONOMY
As the Clinton campaign once said, "It's the economy, stupid!" This is the primary issue with which any candidate has to deal.
The great irony is Obama can tell HOW we developed a strong economy, and yet he plans to restrain the free market as much as possible.
Following are the problems as the website describes them, and Obama's solutions.
SOLUTION(S): I will give Obama credit for attacking the economic problems on multiple fronts. Unfortunately, his ideas range from the same old sorry liberal ideas we have heard for decades (i.e. raise the minimum wage, more unions, more paid leave for workers, and more federal funding for education and job training programs), to brand new bad ideas. For example:
And when the IRS screws up my tax forms, who gets held liable for it? I thought so.
That's all well and good, but we are losing jobs to China and India, which brings us to:
This is great, but he will actually have to get other countries to agree to this. Exactly how does he plan to bribe them?
"America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce"? You mean the one in India?
The fact is that if you want to improve the economy, there are other ways besides Obama's "quick fix" solutions. We can start with improved basic education, not just offering retraining to workers who have already been ruined by our pitiful public education (more about his plans for that later).
Another way is to reduce unnecessary government regulations on businesses, especially small businesses. Unfortunately, Obama plans to INCREASE these regulations:
In other words, let's hit even smaller businesses with more government regulations and expenses. This will make it even harder for smaller businesses to grow and compete with larger businesses. Keep in mind that larger businesses have the income to be able to handle more government regulation. This kind of burden placed on small businesses actually PROTECTS big businesses from competition. This goes against the free market which Obama himself has said made this country great. He is either an idiot or a liar (or both).
EDUCATION
Most of Obama's education plan is fairly uneventful. Although one thing did strike me:
How long before we see a Democratic candidate promising government-funded prenatal educational cd's?
Seriously though, at what point will parents be responsible for raising their kids? With ideas like this, you will get to hold your child for two minutes after birth, then they will be off to school!
Even more seriously, why would we hand our kids over EARLIER to an educational system that doesn't work NOW?
IRAQ
Obama was clearly against the Iraq War from the beginning, claiming:
Even though Obama promises to get our troops out of Iraq "within 16 months", he leaves himself an out:
In other words, you can expect our troops to be in Iraq for some time to come. Don't believe me? Check out this idea from Obama:
Exactly HOW do you "ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven"? Pull out the military and throw money at the problem! Brilliant!
To be continued...
THE ECONOMY
As the Clinton campaign once said, "It's the economy, stupid!" This is the primary issue with which any candidate has to deal.
“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.” - Barack Obama
The great irony is Obama can tell HOW we developed a strong economy, and yet he plans to restrain the free market as much as possible.
Following are the problems as the website describes them, and Obama's solutions.
PROBLEM:"While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression." - Obama's website
SOLUTION(S): I will give Obama credit for attacking the economic problems on multiple fronts. Unfortunately, his ideas range from the same old sorry liberal ideas we have heard for decades (i.e. raise the minimum wage, more unions, more paid leave for workers, and more federal funding for education and job training programs), to brand new bad ideas. For example:
"Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees." - Obama's website
And when the IRS screws up my tax forms, who gets held liable for it? I thought so.
"Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers." - Obama's website
That's all well and good, but we are losing jobs to China and India, which brings us to:
"Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports. - Obama's website
This is great, but he will actually have to get other countries to agree to this. Exactly how does he plan to bribe them?
"The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world." - Obama's website
"America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce"? You mean the one in India?
The fact is that if you want to improve the economy, there are other ways besides Obama's "quick fix" solutions. We can start with improved basic education, not just offering retraining to workers who have already been ruined by our pitiful public education (more about his plans for that later).
Another way is to reduce unnecessary government regulations on businesses, especially small businesses. Unfortunately, Obama plans to INCREASE these regulations:
The [Family and Medical Leave Act] covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence. - Obama's website
In other words, let's hit even smaller businesses with more government regulations and expenses. This will make it even harder for smaller businesses to grow and compete with larger businesses. Keep in mind that larger businesses have the income to be able to handle more government regulation. This kind of burden placed on small businesses actually PROTECTS big businesses from competition. This goes against the free market which Obama himself has said made this country great. He is either an idiot or a liar (or both).
EDUCATION
Most of Obama's education plan is fairly uneventful. Although one thing did strike me:
"Obama's comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, Obama's plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school." - Obama's website
How long before we see a Democratic candidate promising government-funded prenatal educational cd's?
Seriously though, at what point will parents be responsible for raising their kids? With ideas like this, you will get to hold your child for two minutes after birth, then they will be off to school!
Even more seriously, why would we hand our kids over EARLIER to an educational system that doesn't work NOW?
IRAQ
Obama was clearly against the Iraq War from the beginning, claiming:
"I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, ‘an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.’ The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus." - Barack Obama
Even though Obama promises to get our troops out of Iraq "within 16 months", he leaves himself an out:
"[Obama] will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." - Obama's website
In other words, you can expect our troops to be in Iraq for some time to come. Don't believe me? Check out this idea from Obama:
"Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven." - Obama's website
Exactly HOW do you "ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven"? Pull out the military and throw money at the problem! Brilliant!
To be continued...
And When I Die: "Blood, Sweat & Tears" and David Clayton-Thomas
Last year on American Idol, contestant Melinda Doolittle reminded me of Gladys Knight. That is the great thing about American Idol for someone like me who used to work as a DJ: Hearing a new vocalist who brings back the memories of another great vocalist.
Last night, another contestant (I think his name was Michael Johns) reminded me of a vocalist I haven't heard in years: David Clayton-Thomas, former lead singer of Blood, Sweat & Tears, which was one of the most unique bands to come out of the 60's. Most people have heard their standard hits, such as "And When I Die", "You've Made Me So Very Happy", and "Spinning Wheel". Between the band's unique fusion of multiple musical styles, including big band, rock, pop, and jazz, and Clayton-Thomas's strong vocal style, Blood, Sweat & Tears was a one-of-a-kind band. I won't call them the best of all-time, but I cannot honestly say I have ever heard anyone do what they did, as well as they did it. They certainly deserve kudos as a band that stands out in the history of music.
Consider this: How many other bands could take "And When I Die", and make it fun, without turning it into satire?
The key, in my opinion, was Clayton-Thomas. The band was good, but his voice gave the music the "gravitas" it needed.
For example, check out this video from 1972, with Jerry Fisher doing the lead vocals on "And When I Die":
Now check out this performance from 1970, with Clayton-Thomas doing the lead vocals:
Even considering the poor quality of the second video, the difference is obvious. Clayton-Thomas's "lounge singer with a growl" vocals were sorely needed to make the song work.
But don't get me wrong. Clayton-Thomas can't do ANY song and make it work. On the following video, from 1993, he does Carole King's "Hi-De-Ho", and it's pretty bad. Personally, I recommend skipping to about 6:27 into the video, where there is a good quality copy of "And When I Die":
From that video, Clayton-Thomas has lost a little of the power in his vocals, but he is still better than most vocalists today. But his voice is still unique among vocalists.
And if another vocalist makes it on American Idol with Clayton-Thomas's sound, I won't shed a tear (or any blood and sweat).
P.S. If you're interested, here are some links to other butchered versions of "And When I Die" by different "artists" (and I use the term VERY loosely): link, link, and link. It is amazing what people will shamelessly put on Youtube.
(Hat tip to Youtube.com for the videos.)
Last night, another contestant (I think his name was Michael Johns) reminded me of a vocalist I haven't heard in years: David Clayton-Thomas, former lead singer of Blood, Sweat & Tears, which was one of the most unique bands to come out of the 60's. Most people have heard their standard hits, such as "And When I Die", "You've Made Me So Very Happy", and "Spinning Wheel". Between the band's unique fusion of multiple musical styles, including big band, rock, pop, and jazz, and Clayton-Thomas's strong vocal style, Blood, Sweat & Tears was a one-of-a-kind band. I won't call them the best of all-time, but I cannot honestly say I have ever heard anyone do what they did, as well as they did it. They certainly deserve kudos as a band that stands out in the history of music.
Consider this: How many other bands could take "And When I Die", and make it fun, without turning it into satire?
The key, in my opinion, was Clayton-Thomas. The band was good, but his voice gave the music the "gravitas" it needed.
For example, check out this video from 1972, with Jerry Fisher doing the lead vocals on "And When I Die":
Now check out this performance from 1970, with Clayton-Thomas doing the lead vocals:
Even considering the poor quality of the second video, the difference is obvious. Clayton-Thomas's "lounge singer with a growl" vocals were sorely needed to make the song work.
But don't get me wrong. Clayton-Thomas can't do ANY song and make it work. On the following video, from 1993, he does Carole King's "Hi-De-Ho", and it's pretty bad. Personally, I recommend skipping to about 6:27 into the video, where there is a good quality copy of "And When I Die":
From that video, Clayton-Thomas has lost a little of the power in his vocals, but he is still better than most vocalists today. But his voice is still unique among vocalists.
And if another vocalist makes it on American Idol with Clayton-Thomas's sound, I won't shed a tear (or any blood and sweat).
P.S. If you're interested, here are some links to other butchered versions of "And When I Die" by different "artists" (and I use the term VERY loosely): link, link, and link. It is amazing what people will shamelessly put on Youtube.
(Hat tip to Youtube.com for the videos.)
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Primary Endorsement
Today, I voted for John McCain.
I know my blog buddy Myrhaf would object to my selection. While I would agree with Myrhaf that McCain is not the best choice, he IS the best choice available among the major candidates from both parties.
In choosing McCain, I had to first look at my own political values. First and foremost, I am a fiscal conservative. I want the government to take less of my money and be more frugal about how they spend it. Of all the candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who is, and has always been, a fiscal conservative.
McCain has been "porkbusting" since before his failed 2000 presidential campaign. Even though McCain has since said he was wrong, he was at least against the Bush tax cuts for a good reason. Most importantly, McCain was against the Bush Medicare fiasco for one simple reason: we didn't have the money for it.
What about the current economic stimulus package? As Bill Barker pointed out in the comments section over at Ragged Thots:
To this I respond: Are there EVER circumstances where our government should borrow money? I am sure most of us would agree that war is one of those circumstances. What about an economic recession? I can only speak for myself, but pulling money out of the government and giving it back to the public during economic hard times seems like a smart thing to do. (Pulling it out of the government permenantly is even smarter, but that's another topic.)
According to some economists (from an article at CNNMoney.com), we are already in a recession. The last time we were in a recession, the government used a similar economic stimulus package, and it worked quite well. Even a fiscal conservative such as myself has to defer to history where it shows that government spending CAN be effective. In this case, I tip my hat to our government, and I applaud McCain for also being willing to stifle his fiscal conservatism in the face of needed government spending.
All in all, McCain is still the best choice. Romney and Huckabee are nowhere close to fiscal conservatism. And don't even consider using the word "conservative" in any context related to Clinton or Obama.
That said, I still reserve the right to change my pick in November.
I know my blog buddy Myrhaf would object to my selection. While I would agree with Myrhaf that McCain is not the best choice, he IS the best choice available among the major candidates from both parties.
In choosing McCain, I had to first look at my own political values. First and foremost, I am a fiscal conservative. I want the government to take less of my money and be more frugal about how they spend it. Of all the candidates, McCain is the ONLY one who is, and has always been, a fiscal conservative.
McCain has been "porkbusting" since before his failed 2000 presidential campaign. Even though McCain has since said he was wrong, he was at least against the Bush tax cuts for a good reason. Most importantly, McCain was against the Bush Medicare fiasco for one simple reason: we didn't have the money for it.
What about the current economic stimulus package? As Bill Barker pointed out in the comments section over at Ragged Thots:
...but I do have a problem - a lack of respect - for anyone who would simply ignore McCain's support of this $150-billion mainly middle class giveaway using borrowed (with interest due!) money for the largess by a man who you claim to support mainly because he's supposedly a budget hawk.
To this I respond: Are there EVER circumstances where our government should borrow money? I am sure most of us would agree that war is one of those circumstances. What about an economic recession? I can only speak for myself, but pulling money out of the government and giving it back to the public during economic hard times seems like a smart thing to do. (Pulling it out of the government permenantly is even smarter, but that's another topic.)
According to some economists (from an article at CNNMoney.com), we are already in a recession. The last time we were in a recession, the government used a similar economic stimulus package, and it worked quite well. Even a fiscal conservative such as myself has to defer to history where it shows that government spending CAN be effective. In this case, I tip my hat to our government, and I applaud McCain for also being willing to stifle his fiscal conservatism in the face of needed government spending.
All in all, McCain is still the best choice. Romney and Huckabee are nowhere close to fiscal conservatism. And don't even consider using the word "conservative" in any context related to Clinton or Obama.
That said, I still reserve the right to change my pick in November.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Final Results
And the winner of the Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs is (drumroll please):
Congrats Bill! Sometimes, playing the "homer" works!
Bill Barker - 9
Audio Dave - 8
Robert A. George - 8
EdMcGon - 6
David Stefanini - 6
J. Mark English - 2
Congrats Bill! Sometimes, playing the "homer" works!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Be careful how you vote!
My dad emailed me this joke:
While walking down the street one day a US Senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the man.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted."
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - The Super Bowl
I was going to do a long post, completely overanalyzing the Super Bowl. Fortunately, the New York Giants have saved me the trouble by shooting off their mouths. For example (the following quotes are from the New York Post's website):
Or even better:
How about a quote from Giants chairman Steve Tisch, when asked to predict a winner? (quote from Northjersey.com)
All analysis of this game is moot. The Patriots will win, and it might even get ugly.
As he pulled his car up to the Giants Stadium tunnel to unload his bags, [Plaxico] Burress was asked...a direct question: Are you ready to make history? "You better believe it," the towering Giants receiver said.
And then, as he entered the stadium and turned left toward the Giants locker room, Burress was asked for his prediction. Burress never hesitated, flatly stating "23-17."
He didn't identify the winning team. He didn't have to.
Or even better:
Next came Michael Strahan...The same question: Are you ready to make history? "Yes sir," said Strahan, who for 15 years has chased the dream of winning the Super Bowl.
"History will be ours."
How about a quote from Giants chairman Steve Tisch, when asked to predict a winner? (quote from Northjersey.com)
"I'm not going to give you the score...We'll have more points than they do. That's my score."
All analysis of this game is moot. The Patriots will win, and it might even get ugly.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Championship Results
Audio Dave pulled the "two-fer" last weekend to tie Barker for first place going into the Super Bowl. In addition, Robert George pulled a "two-fer" to move into second place, one game back. The playoff results:
Stay tuned for Super Bowl picks next week!
Bill Barker - 8
Audio Dave - 8
Robert A. George - 7
EdMcGon - 6
David Stefanini - 6
J. Mark English - 2
Stay tuned for Super Bowl picks next week!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Divisional Results/Championship Preview
Time to give Bill Barker some kudos (try to keep your breakfast down people): Barker aced last weekend's games. On the other hand, Mark English swung for the fences and struck out. Here are the playoff results so far:
With only three games left, it looks like a Barker vs. Audio Dave horse race, with the rest of us as the "Fred" (as in Thompson) in the race.
Here are my picks for this weekend's games (with other pertinent info):
San Diego Chargers at New England Patriots (Sunday at 3:00 p.m. EST, game temperature estimated at 22°F): The paradigm of recent times versus possible all-time perfection?
The Chargers represent the "paradigm of recent times", where a team follows up an outstanding season where they failed in the playoffs with a good season where they win the Super Bowl. Last year, the 12-4 Colts won the Super Bowl after going 14-2 the previous season and losing in the playoffs to the 11-5 Steelers, who had gone 15-1 the previous season. Ironically, the 15-1 Steelers lost in the AFC Championship to the Patriots, who were the last team to win consecutive Super Bowls.
The Chargers went 14-2 last year, losing to the Patriots in the Divisional Round. Is this year's 11-5 Charger team good enough to keep the paradigm going, or will they fall to the Patriots' pursuit of perfection?
There is one important difference between the Chargers this year and last year: Norv Turner. That alone may be enough to keep the Chargers from going any further in the playoffs.
While the Chargers surprised a lot of people, me included, by beating the Colts last weekend, that game was clearly a case of the hungrier team winning. The Colts did not have the "fire in the belly" after winning the Super Bowl last year.
As for the Patriots, they have busted paradigms before by being the last team to win consecutive Super Bowls. They busted the 30+ year-old "perfect season" paradigm this year. Another paradigm goes down this weekend.
New York Giants at Green Bay Packers (Sunday at 6:30 p.m. EST, game temperature estimated at 10°F): The best road team this year (outside of New England) versus the ultimate home field advantage (aka "The Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field"). But the fact the Giants are 7-1 on the road while the Packers are 7-1 at home is more of an interesting statistic than a deciding factor in this game.
Both teams are almost statistically identical on defense. Offense is where this game will be decided, and the Packers rate the edge there. While the Giants are better running the ball, the Packers are better at passing. In a game that figures to come down to the end, who would you rather have at quarterback with two minutes on the clock? As much as I rag on Favre, he is the clear choice. Manning may keep the Giants in the game, but Favre will win it.
(Hat tip to Foxsports.com for game info)
(For the rules, see this post.)
Bill Barker - 7
Audio Dave - 6
EdMcGon - 5
David Stefanini - 5
Robert A. George - 5
J. Mark English - 1
With only three games left, it looks like a Barker vs. Audio Dave horse race, with the rest of us as the "Fred" (as in Thompson) in the race.
Here are my picks for this weekend's games (with other pertinent info):
San Diego Chargers at New England Patriots (Sunday at 3:00 p.m. EST, game temperature estimated at 22°F): The paradigm of recent times versus possible all-time perfection?
The Chargers represent the "paradigm of recent times", where a team follows up an outstanding season where they failed in the playoffs with a good season where they win the Super Bowl. Last year, the 12-4 Colts won the Super Bowl after going 14-2 the previous season and losing in the playoffs to the 11-5 Steelers, who had gone 15-1 the previous season. Ironically, the 15-1 Steelers lost in the AFC Championship to the Patriots, who were the last team to win consecutive Super Bowls.
The Chargers went 14-2 last year, losing to the Patriots in the Divisional Round. Is this year's 11-5 Charger team good enough to keep the paradigm going, or will they fall to the Patriots' pursuit of perfection?
There is one important difference between the Chargers this year and last year: Norv Turner. That alone may be enough to keep the Chargers from going any further in the playoffs.
While the Chargers surprised a lot of people, me included, by beating the Colts last weekend, that game was clearly a case of the hungrier team winning. The Colts did not have the "fire in the belly" after winning the Super Bowl last year.
As for the Patriots, they have busted paradigms before by being the last team to win consecutive Super Bowls. They busted the 30+ year-old "perfect season" paradigm this year. Another paradigm goes down this weekend.
New York Giants at Green Bay Packers (Sunday at 6:30 p.m. EST, game temperature estimated at 10°F): The best road team this year (outside of New England) versus the ultimate home field advantage (aka "The Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field"). But the fact the Giants are 7-1 on the road while the Packers are 7-1 at home is more of an interesting statistic than a deciding factor in this game.
Both teams are almost statistically identical on defense. Offense is where this game will be decided, and the Packers rate the edge there. While the Giants are better running the ball, the Packers are better at passing. In a game that figures to come down to the end, who would you rather have at quarterback with two minutes on the clock? As much as I rag on Favre, he is the clear choice. Manning may keep the Giants in the game, but Favre will win it.
(Hat tip to Foxsports.com for game info)
(For the rules, see this post.)
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Wild Card Results/Divisional Preview
Sorry for the delay, but here are the results from last weekend's NFL playoff picks:
For this week's picks, remember to get them in before 4:30 pm EST on Saturday. Here are my picks:
Seattle Seahawks at Green Bay Packers: I certainly under-rated the Hawks last week, but I cannot see them beating the Pack on the frozen tundra.
Jacksonville Jaguars at New England Patriots: The Jags may give the Pats a hard time, but expect the Pats to pull it out in the end. The Pats just seem to have an extra gear they turn on whenever they need it.
San Diego Chargers at Indianapolis Colts: This one has upset potential, but I can't pick the inconsistent Chargers over the fairly consistent Colts.
New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys: The Giants have the momentum, plus they play better on the road. The Cowboys stumbled at the end of the season, losing two of their last three games. But the Boys are still the better team.
(For the rules, see this post.)
EdMcGon - 3
Bill Barker - 3
Audio Dave - 3
David Stefanini - 3
Robert A. George - 2
J. Mark English - 1
For this week's picks, remember to get them in before 4:30 pm EST on Saturday. Here are my picks:
Seattle Seahawks at Green Bay Packers: I certainly under-rated the Hawks last week, but I cannot see them beating the Pack on the frozen tundra.
Jacksonville Jaguars at New England Patriots: The Jags may give the Pats a hard time, but expect the Pats to pull it out in the end. The Pats just seem to have an extra gear they turn on whenever they need it.
San Diego Chargers at Indianapolis Colts: This one has upset potential, but I can't pick the inconsistent Chargers over the fairly consistent Colts.
New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys: The Giants have the momentum, plus they play better on the road. The Cowboys stumbled at the end of the season, losing two of their last three games. But the Boys are still the better team.
(For the rules, see this post.)
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Fantasy Football: Quarterbacks
Now that the fantasy football season is over, time to take a look at how the various position players did, and their prospects for the future.
I have taken the final finish from a keeper league I am in, and assigned each of them a letter grade based on their finish. I have also assigned the following additional ratings for future prospective finishes:
1. Brady, Tom NEP (A-): This year was a monster year for Brady. He can't help but go down a little next year, although he is still the stud of stud quarterbacks.
2. Romo, Tony DAL (A-): Speaking of "stud" quarterbacks (insert Jessica Simpson joke here), I don't see Romo matching his performance either. Plus T.O. ain't getting any younger.
3. Brees, Drew NOS (A-): If the Saints are going to be a winning team, Brees cannot keep carrying the Saints like he did this year.
4. Manning, Peyton IND (A): While Manning still has plenty of upside to his game, Marvin Harrison's absence for most of the season has to put a damper on Manning's future numbers.
5. Favre, Brett GBP (A-): Let the annual Favre retirement watch commence! However, if he does come back, I would not expect him to match this year's numbers.
6. Hasselbeck, Matt SEA (B): Hasselbeck does have a little upside, but circumstances would have to dictate that.
7. Roethlisberger, Ben PIT (B+): Don't be surprised if Big Ben moves into the top 5 next year. With another year of experience in Mike Tomlin's offense, he can only get better.
8. Anderson, Derek CLE (B): Anderson's upside is a bit of a mystery. Have to watch what happens with him and the Browns during the offseason.
9. Palmer, Carson CIN (B): Another mystery quarterback subject to a lot of offseason speculation. While Palmer is capable of being a top 5 quarterback, there are a ton of questions surrounding the Bengals, including: Will Marvin Lewis be back? If so, will Lewis "blow up" the team and start from scratch, like he has threatened is needed?
10. Warner, Kurt ARI (B-): Assuming Warner is still the starter in Arizona next year, expect the Cards to go to a more run-heavy offense.
11. Cutler, Jay DEN (C++): Expect Cutler to improve significantly next season. I can't see Mike Shanahan going into next season with an average offense like this year's Broncos.
12. McNabb, Donovan PHI (C): Between McNabb's injury history and the questions of whether he will even be in Philly next year, I am almost tempted to throw a "minus" after his rating.
13. Kitna, Jon DET (C-): With Mike Martz's firing, Kitna's future with Detroit looks dim. Even if he remains the starter, expect the Lions to try running the ball more.
14. Manning, Eli NYG (C): Manning still has upside, but not as long as Kevin Gilbride is the offensive coordinator in New York. If Tom Coughlin gets booted, we might see some of Manning's upside next season.
15. Rivers, Philip SDC (C+): I cannot see the Chargers bringing back Norv Turner unless they make it to the AFC Championship. I don't see that happening, so whoever the next Chargers coach is should be a step up, meaning Rivers should do better next year.
16. Garrard, David JAC (C+): I really like Garrard. He reminds me of a young Steve McNair. I expect to see him slowly improving over the next few years, with a move into the top 10 somewhere during that time.
17. Young, Vince TEN (C+): Expect the Titans to get Young a REAL wide receiver during the offseason.
18. Garcia, Jeff TBB (C-): Garcia is not getting any younger.
19. Campbell, Jason WAS (C+): Make no mistake: Campbell is the future in Washington. However, I am still not sure how much upside he has.
20. Jackson, Tarvaris MIN (C): My gut feeling is that Jackson will still be the starter in Minnesota next season, but that is no guaranty. In addition, the presence of Adrian Peterson limits Jackson's upside.
21. Bulger, Marc STL (D): The Rams were pretty awful this season, but it is hard to tell what changes will come in St. Louis during the offseason. But the changes WILL be coming.
22. Rosenfels, Sage HOU (D-): Back to the bench, Sage.
23. Schaub, Matt HOU (D+): If Schaub can stay healthy, he could be a good quarterback.
24. Huard, Damon KCC (D-): Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
25. Harrington, Joey ATL (D-): Somewhere, there is a bench with Harrington's name on it.
26. Lemon, Cleo MIA (D+): Mark my words: you WILL see Cleo Lemon again. I won't say he is a great quarterback, but he is certainly good enough to start in the NFL.
27. Pennington, Chad NYJ (D): Some team will undoubtedly give Pennington a chance to start, but I can't see him being much better than this.
28. Griese, Brian CHI (D--): Never was great. Now he's awful.
29. Boller, Kyle BAL (D): This is as good as it gets for Boller. Don't be surprised if Boller is back on the bench next year.
30. Edwards, Trent BUF (D+): I expect the Bills to take a chance on Edwards next season. He can only get better, but I think his upside is limited.
31. McCown, Josh OAK (D--): Josh should make a nice backup for the rest of his career.
32. Culpepper, Daunte OAK (D--): Stick a pitchfork in Daunte. He's done.
33. Gray, Quinn JAC (F-): As long as Garrard is healthy, you won't see Gray.
34. Redman, Chris ATL (F): Redman showed a little potential. But it's hard to say what the next Falcons coaching staff will see in him.
35. Clemens, Kellen NYJ (F): Will the Jets keep banging their head against this wall of limited potential?
36. McCown, Luke TBB (F-): Not even as good as his brother.
37. Croyle, Brodie KCC (F): I have talked to Alabama fans who don't think Croyle can make it in the NFL.
38. Losman, J.P. BUF (F-): I'm not sure Losman is even worth having on the bench.
39. Delhomme, Jake CAR (F++): Delhomme still has what it takes to start in the NFL, but only if he stays healthy.
40. Grossman, Rex CHI (F-): Remember last year when the Bears were defending Grossman as their quarterback? Not anymore.
41. Dilfer, Trent SFO (F-): Hard to believe this guy is a Super Bowl-winning quarterback.
42. Frerotte, Gus STL (F-): Only by the grace of a Marc Bulger injury do we even see Gus's name in print.
43. Green, Trent MIA (F-): Time to call it quits Trent.
44. Collins, Todd WAS (F): The next Mark Rypien. He may have some tiny upside if he goes somewhere else next year, but don't expect miracles.
45. Testaverde, Vinny (F-): As he rides off into the sunset once more...
46. McNair, Steve BAL (F-): McNair doesn't have it anymore.
47. Hill, Shaun SFO (F): The 49ers seemed to like his play in limited action this year. If he goes into next season as the starter, he may have some upside.
48. Smith, Alex SFO (F-): Another failed quarterbacking experiment.
49. Feeley, A.J. PHI (F): A lot of "ifs" here, but he may have some upside if the Eagles dump McNabb and go with Feeley as their starter next year. Feeley won't be great, but he could be servicable.
50. Carr, David CAR (F-): Carr is one of the saddest stories in the NFL this year. All the years of beatings he took behind the inept Houston offensive line have taken their toll on his psyche. He is a textbook case in how to ruin a good quarterback.
51. Moore, Matt CAR (F-): Matt who?
52. Smith, Troy BAL (F): Smith may get a chance to start for the Ravens next year. He can't be any worse than McBoller.
53. Leinart, Matt ARI (F): Is it just me, or does Leinart seem to lack the desire to do well? Even if he gets another chance to start, and I won't be surprised if he does, I just don't see a lot of upside here. The next Ryan Leaf?
54. Orton, Kyle CHI (F-): Back to the bench.
55. Holcomb, Kelly MIN (F-): This guy is still playing?
56. Beck, John MIA (F+): Will probably get a chance to start, but I'm not sure how much upside he can have with Miami.
57. Collins, Kerry TEN (F-): Back to the bench.
58. Wallace, Seneca SEA (F-): Another bench warmer.
59. Bollinger, Brooks MIN (F-): How can a quarterback who fails with the Jets STILL have a job in the NFL?
60. Russell, JaMarcus OAK (F++): Unlimited potential. We'll know more next season.
OTHER QUARTERBACKS TO WATCH: Kevin Kolb (PHI) and Brady Quinn (CLE). Just my opinion, but I think Kolb has the most upside of the two.
I have taken the final finish from a keeper league I am in, and assigned each of them a letter grade based on their finish. I have also assigned the following additional ratings for future prospective finishes:
++: Will significantly improve over their finish this year.
+: Will improve a little over their finish this year.: Will either do about the same, or their future is unknown.
-: Will decline a little from this year.
--: Will decline significantly from this year's performance.
1. Brady, Tom NEP (A-): This year was a monster year for Brady. He can't help but go down a little next year, although he is still the stud of stud quarterbacks.
2. Romo, Tony DAL (A-): Speaking of "stud" quarterbacks (insert Jessica Simpson joke here), I don't see Romo matching his performance either. Plus T.O. ain't getting any younger.
3. Brees, Drew NOS (A-): If the Saints are going to be a winning team, Brees cannot keep carrying the Saints like he did this year.
4. Manning, Peyton IND (A): While Manning still has plenty of upside to his game, Marvin Harrison's absence for most of the season has to put a damper on Manning's future numbers.
5. Favre, Brett GBP (A-): Let the annual Favre retirement watch commence! However, if he does come back, I would not expect him to match this year's numbers.
6. Hasselbeck, Matt SEA (B): Hasselbeck does have a little upside, but circumstances would have to dictate that.
7. Roethlisberger, Ben PIT (B+): Don't be surprised if Big Ben moves into the top 5 next year. With another year of experience in Mike Tomlin's offense, he can only get better.
8. Anderson, Derek CLE (B): Anderson's upside is a bit of a mystery. Have to watch what happens with him and the Browns during the offseason.
9. Palmer, Carson CIN (B): Another mystery quarterback subject to a lot of offseason speculation. While Palmer is capable of being a top 5 quarterback, there are a ton of questions surrounding the Bengals, including: Will Marvin Lewis be back? If so, will Lewis "blow up" the team and start from scratch, like he has threatened is needed?
10. Warner, Kurt ARI (B-): Assuming Warner is still the starter in Arizona next year, expect the Cards to go to a more run-heavy offense.
11. Cutler, Jay DEN (C++): Expect Cutler to improve significantly next season. I can't see Mike Shanahan going into next season with an average offense like this year's Broncos.
12. McNabb, Donovan PHI (C): Between McNabb's injury history and the questions of whether he will even be in Philly next year, I am almost tempted to throw a "minus" after his rating.
13. Kitna, Jon DET (C-): With Mike Martz's firing, Kitna's future with Detroit looks dim. Even if he remains the starter, expect the Lions to try running the ball more.
14. Manning, Eli NYG (C): Manning still has upside, but not as long as Kevin Gilbride is the offensive coordinator in New York. If Tom Coughlin gets booted, we might see some of Manning's upside next season.
15. Rivers, Philip SDC (C+): I cannot see the Chargers bringing back Norv Turner unless they make it to the AFC Championship. I don't see that happening, so whoever the next Chargers coach is should be a step up, meaning Rivers should do better next year.
16. Garrard, David JAC (C+): I really like Garrard. He reminds me of a young Steve McNair. I expect to see him slowly improving over the next few years, with a move into the top 10 somewhere during that time.
17. Young, Vince TEN (C+): Expect the Titans to get Young a REAL wide receiver during the offseason.
18. Garcia, Jeff TBB (C-): Garcia is not getting any younger.
19. Campbell, Jason WAS (C+): Make no mistake: Campbell is the future in Washington. However, I am still not sure how much upside he has.
20. Jackson, Tarvaris MIN (C): My gut feeling is that Jackson will still be the starter in Minnesota next season, but that is no guaranty. In addition, the presence of Adrian Peterson limits Jackson's upside.
21. Bulger, Marc STL (D): The Rams were pretty awful this season, but it is hard to tell what changes will come in St. Louis during the offseason. But the changes WILL be coming.
22. Rosenfels, Sage HOU (D-): Back to the bench, Sage.
23. Schaub, Matt HOU (D+): If Schaub can stay healthy, he could be a good quarterback.
24. Huard, Damon KCC (D-): Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
25. Harrington, Joey ATL (D-): Somewhere, there is a bench with Harrington's name on it.
26. Lemon, Cleo MIA (D+): Mark my words: you WILL see Cleo Lemon again. I won't say he is a great quarterback, but he is certainly good enough to start in the NFL.
27. Pennington, Chad NYJ (D): Some team will undoubtedly give Pennington a chance to start, but I can't see him being much better than this.
28. Griese, Brian CHI (D--): Never was great. Now he's awful.
29. Boller, Kyle BAL (D): This is as good as it gets for Boller. Don't be surprised if Boller is back on the bench next year.
30. Edwards, Trent BUF (D+): I expect the Bills to take a chance on Edwards next season. He can only get better, but I think his upside is limited.
31. McCown, Josh OAK (D--): Josh should make a nice backup for the rest of his career.
32. Culpepper, Daunte OAK (D--): Stick a pitchfork in Daunte. He's done.
33. Gray, Quinn JAC (F-): As long as Garrard is healthy, you won't see Gray.
34. Redman, Chris ATL (F): Redman showed a little potential. But it's hard to say what the next Falcons coaching staff will see in him.
35. Clemens, Kellen NYJ (F): Will the Jets keep banging their head against this wall of limited potential?
36. McCown, Luke TBB (F-): Not even as good as his brother.
37. Croyle, Brodie KCC (F): I have talked to Alabama fans who don't think Croyle can make it in the NFL.
38. Losman, J.P. BUF (F-): I'm not sure Losman is even worth having on the bench.
39. Delhomme, Jake CAR (F++): Delhomme still has what it takes to start in the NFL, but only if he stays healthy.
40. Grossman, Rex CHI (F-): Remember last year when the Bears were defending Grossman as their quarterback? Not anymore.
41. Dilfer, Trent SFO (F-): Hard to believe this guy is a Super Bowl-winning quarterback.
42. Frerotte, Gus STL (F-): Only by the grace of a Marc Bulger injury do we even see Gus's name in print.
43. Green, Trent MIA (F-): Time to call it quits Trent.
44. Collins, Todd WAS (F): The next Mark Rypien. He may have some tiny upside if he goes somewhere else next year, but don't expect miracles.
45. Testaverde, Vinny (F-): As he rides off into the sunset once more...
46. McNair, Steve BAL (F-): McNair doesn't have it anymore.
47. Hill, Shaun SFO (F): The 49ers seemed to like his play in limited action this year. If he goes into next season as the starter, he may have some upside.
48. Smith, Alex SFO (F-): Another failed quarterbacking experiment.
49. Feeley, A.J. PHI (F): A lot of "ifs" here, but he may have some upside if the Eagles dump McNabb and go with Feeley as their starter next year. Feeley won't be great, but he could be servicable.
50. Carr, David CAR (F-): Carr is one of the saddest stories in the NFL this year. All the years of beatings he took behind the inept Houston offensive line have taken their toll on his psyche. He is a textbook case in how to ruin a good quarterback.
51. Moore, Matt CAR (F-): Matt who?
52. Smith, Troy BAL (F): Smith may get a chance to start for the Ravens next year. He can't be any worse than McBoller.
53. Leinart, Matt ARI (F): Is it just me, or does Leinart seem to lack the desire to do well? Even if he gets another chance to start, and I won't be surprised if he does, I just don't see a lot of upside here. The next Ryan Leaf?
54. Orton, Kyle CHI (F-): Back to the bench.
55. Holcomb, Kelly MIN (F-): This guy is still playing?
56. Beck, John MIA (F+): Will probably get a chance to start, but I'm not sure how much upside he can have with Miami.
57. Collins, Kerry TEN (F-): Back to the bench.
58. Wallace, Seneca SEA (F-): Another bench warmer.
59. Bollinger, Brooks MIN (F-): How can a quarterback who fails with the Jets STILL have a job in the NFL?
60. Russell, JaMarcus OAK (F++): Unlimited potential. We'll know more next season.
OTHER QUARTERBACKS TO WATCH: Kevin Kolb (PHI) and Brady Quinn (CLE). Just my opinion, but I think Kolb has the most upside of the two.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs - Wild Card Round
As I mentioned in my previous post, it is time for the Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs!
My picks for this weekend's games (with the game time shown):
Redskins at Seahawks, Saturday, 4:30 p.m. ET: The Skins have the "mo", plus they are a better overall team.
Jaguars at Steelers, Saturday, 8 p.m. ET: The Jags have already beaten the Steelers in Pittsburgh once this season. This will make twice.
Giants at Buccaneers, Sunday, 1 p.m. ET: Both teams lost their last game of the season, but the Giants at least have to feel good about their performance. Add in the fact they get a road game to start the playoffs, and the Giants seem like a good pick to advance.
Titans at Chargers, Sunday, 4:30 p.m. ET: The Chargers remind me of the recent Super Bowl winners who have charged out of the Wild Card round to win it all. They have all the talent to win it and they have the momentum going into the playoffs (a six game winning streak). If only Norv Turner wasn't their head coach. Still, they should have no trouble with the Titans, even though they only managed to squeak out an overtime win against the Titans on December 9th.
Pigskin Pick'em Playoff rules:
1. The top six pickers from the regular season (EdMcGon, David Stefanini, Robert A. George, Bill Barker, J. Mark English, and Audio Dave) are all in the playoffs. Like in the real playoffs, everyone starts from 0. Anyone else is welcome to pick the games, but only the top six from the regular season will be counted towards the final score.
2. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL playoff games. Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by the kickoff of the first NFL playoff game each week (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule").
3. The person who has the most playoff picks correct by the end of the Super Bowl gets...bragging rights! (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)
My picks for this weekend's games (with the game time shown):
Redskins at Seahawks, Saturday, 4:30 p.m. ET: The Skins have the "mo", plus they are a better overall team.
Jaguars at Steelers, Saturday, 8 p.m. ET: The Jags have already beaten the Steelers in Pittsburgh once this season. This will make twice.
Giants at Buccaneers, Sunday, 1 p.m. ET: Both teams lost their last game of the season, but the Giants at least have to feel good about their performance. Add in the fact they get a road game to start the playoffs, and the Giants seem like a good pick to advance.
Titans at Chargers, Sunday, 4:30 p.m. ET: The Chargers remind me of the recent Super Bowl winners who have charged out of the Wild Card round to win it all. They have all the talent to win it and they have the momentum going into the playoffs (a six game winning streak). If only Norv Turner wasn't their head coach. Still, they should have no trouble with the Titans, even though they only managed to squeak out an overtime win against the Titans on December 9th.
Pigskin Pick'em Playoff rules:
1. The top six pickers from the regular season (EdMcGon, David Stefanini, Robert A. George, Bill Barker, J. Mark English, and Audio Dave) are all in the playoffs. Like in the real playoffs, everyone starts from 0. Anyone else is welcome to pick the games, but only the top six from the regular season will be counted towards the final score.
2. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL playoff games. Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by the kickoff of the first NFL playoff game each week (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule").
3. The person who has the most playoff picks correct by the end of the Super Bowl gets...bragging rights! (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)
NFL Team Rankings
Only the playoff teams and non-playoff teams (indicated with an asterisk) ranked above them are shown:
ELITE
Patriots: The only team that can beat the Pats is themselves.
EXCELLENT
Colts
Cowboys: Their loss to the Skins made their season series a wash. But Cowboys fans should be concerned because this team looked flat.
GOOD
Jaguars: They beat the Texans back when they had something to play for.
Packers
Chargers
AVERAGE
Steelers: The Steelers did beat the Ravens when it counted. That said, losing to the Ravens does not bode well for their playoff chances.
*Browns: The best team not to make the playoffs.
Redskins: No bump for the Skins win over the Cowboys because the game was meaningless to the Cowboys. But they still have the most momentum going into the playoffs.
*Vikings: They overachieved this year. However, they will still be a team to watch next year.
Giants
Seahawks
*Eagles: The Eagles played well when the games meant nothing. They should be a terror in the preseason next year.
*Bills: In the NFC, this team would be dangerous. In the AFC, they're just another also-ran.
*Lions: Something is just wrong with this team. There is no team chemistry, but lots of talent.
*Bears: I have to give Lovie Smith credit. Getting 7 wins out of a team with no passing game, no running game, and an aging defense, is pretty darned impressive. Of course, having Devin Hester doesn't hurt either.
Titans: Beating the Colts with Jim Sorgi under center doesn't get you any credit.
*Texans: The Texans need to fill a few holes, but they are in the toughest division in the NFL.
*Broncos: I think Jay Cutler could be a great quarterback, but the Broncos need a running game. The "plug in no-name running back" running game didn't work this year. They also need a defense desperately.
Buccaneers: The Bucs split the season series with the Panthers, so no moves here. That said, they have to be considered THE least impressive team entering the playoffs this year.
ELITE
Patriots: The only team that can beat the Pats is themselves.
EXCELLENT
Colts
Cowboys: Their loss to the Skins made their season series a wash. But Cowboys fans should be concerned because this team looked flat.
GOOD
Jaguars: They beat the Texans back when they had something to play for.
Packers
Chargers
AVERAGE
Steelers: The Steelers did beat the Ravens when it counted. That said, losing to the Ravens does not bode well for their playoff chances.
*Browns: The best team not to make the playoffs.
Redskins: No bump for the Skins win over the Cowboys because the game was meaningless to the Cowboys. But they still have the most momentum going into the playoffs.
*Vikings: They overachieved this year. However, they will still be a team to watch next year.
Giants
Seahawks
*Eagles: The Eagles played well when the games meant nothing. They should be a terror in the preseason next year.
*Bills: In the NFC, this team would be dangerous. In the AFC, they're just another also-ran.
*Lions: Something is just wrong with this team. There is no team chemistry, but lots of talent.
*Bears: I have to give Lovie Smith credit. Getting 7 wins out of a team with no passing game, no running game, and an aging defense, is pretty darned impressive. Of course, having Devin Hester doesn't hurt either.
Titans: Beating the Colts with Jim Sorgi under center doesn't get you any credit.
*Texans: The Texans need to fill a few holes, but they are in the toughest division in the NFL.
*Broncos: I think Jay Cutler could be a great quarterback, but the Broncos need a running game. The "plug in no-name running back" running game didn't work this year. They also need a defense desperately.
Buccaneers: The Bucs split the season series with the Panthers, so no moves here. That said, they have to be considered THE least impressive team entering the playoffs this year.
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 17 Results
We have two winners this week! Yours truly (of course) and David Stefanini:
As for the YTD standings, no great shocks here:
With only 11 playoff games left, and an overwhelming 7 game lead, I have decided to call the Pigskin Pick'em season officially over. However, I have decided to begin the Pigskin Playoffs! Here are the new rules:
1. The top six pickers from the regular season (EdMcGon, David Stefanini, Robert A. George, Bill Barker, J. Mark English, and Audio Dave) are all in the playoffs. Like in the real playoffs, everyone starts from 0. Anyone else is welcome to pick the games, but only the top six from the regular season will be counted towards the final score.
2. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL playoff games. Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by the kickoff of the first NFL playoff game each week (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule").
3. The person who has the most playoff picks correct by the end of the Super Bowl gets...bragging rights! (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)
Good luck, and let the new season begin!
EdMcGon - 12
David Stefanini - 12
Bill Barker - 11
Robert A. George - 9
Audio Dave - 8
As for the YTD standings, no great shocks here:
EdMcGon(4.5) - 152
David Stefanini(2.5) - 145
Robert A. George(2) - 143
Bill Barker(1) - 123
J. Mark English(1) - 114
Audio Dave(2.5) - 84
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 76
BL(2) - 74
SoloD(1) - 53
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Jay - 9
Snave - 8
Mike - 8
Moose - 2
With only 11 playoff games left, and an overwhelming 7 game lead, I have decided to call the Pigskin Pick'em season officially over. However, I have decided to begin the Pigskin Playoffs! Here are the new rules:
1. The top six pickers from the regular season (EdMcGon, David Stefanini, Robert A. George, Bill Barker, J. Mark English, and Audio Dave) are all in the playoffs. Like in the real playoffs, everyone starts from 0. Anyone else is welcome to pick the games, but only the top six from the regular season will be counted towards the final score.
2. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL playoff games. Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by the kickoff of the first NFL playoff game each week (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule").
3. The person who has the most playoff picks correct by the end of the Super Bowl gets...bragging rights! (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)
Good luck, and let the new season begin!
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 17 Picks
SATURDAY GAME ALERT! PLEASE HAVE ALL PICKS IN BY 8:15 PM EST ON SATURDAY!
It may be the last week of the regular season, but we will be continuing the Pigskin Pick'em through the playoffs and the Super Bowl, to give all you losers...er, I mean to give all you fine people a chance to catch up to my overwhelming YTD totals. Of course, you could still take the weekly "bragging rights" prize.
My picks (otherwise known as the correct picks):
New England Patriots at New York Giants: At least the NFL made the right decision to simulcast this NFL Network game on both CBS and NBC. However, don't expect to see great football here. The Pats will get to 16-0, the Giants will rest their starters early, and the second half should be a yawn-fest.
Seattle Seahawks at Atlanta Falcons: Speaking of "yawn-fests"...
New Orleans Saints at Chicago Bears: Don't let the records fool you. The Bears are the better team here.
San Francisco 49ers at Cleveland Browns: The Browns need the win and a lot of help to make it to the playoffs.
Detroit Lions at Green Bay Packers: This one could go either way. The Packers decided their own playoff fate last week, so this game is meaningless to them. The Lions, with a win here, could at least make it to .500 on the year. If history is any indicator, expect the Lions to choke here.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Houston Texans: The Texans win this one for pride.
Cincinnati Bengals at Miami Dolphins: A meaningless game for two teams that disappointed their fans all year.
Buffalo Bills at Philadelphia Eagles: The Eagles have been playing with a lot of pride the last few weeks. The irony in this game is both of these teams may have new quarterbacks next year. This may also be Andy Reid's last game, since rumors about his retirement have been swirling for months. It is a shame that Reid's retirement might get lost in the hype over the Pats-Giants, although Reid has NOT made it official. But if it is his last game, let me say for the record, I'll miss you Andy. You were one of the great coaches of this era. (Of course, if it isn't your last game Andy, then you need to get off your duff and fix this team!)
Carolina Panthers at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Meaningless game for the Bucs. But the Panthers are good enough to beat the Bucs IF the Bucs dog it, or if the Panthers play their best game.
St. Louis Rams at Arizona Cardinals: Did anyone get the score from that Paraguay-Ukraine soccer match? This game is about as interesting.
Pittsburgh Steelers at Baltimore Ravens: Remember how close the Ravens came to beating the Pats? I can just see the Ravens playing spoilers here.
Minnesota Vikings at Denver Broncos: The Vikes need the win, while the Broncos mail it in. (rhyme intended)
Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets: In the "Herm Edwards Bowl", I will go with his new team over his old team.
San Diego Chargers at Oakland Raiders: The "Norv Turner Bowl". I would love to see the Raiders win this one, but even the Chargers second string should give the Raiders some fits.
Dallas Cowboys at Washington Redskins: Don't think for a second that the Redskins wouldn't love to make it to the playoffs on the backs of the Cowboys.
Tennessee Titans at Indianapolis Colts: The Titans win, they're in. Add to that the fact the Colts will be resting their starters early, and the Titans should take it.
It may be the last week of the regular season, but we will be continuing the Pigskin Pick'em through the playoffs and the Super Bowl, to give all you losers...er, I mean to give all you fine people a chance to catch up to my overwhelming YTD totals. Of course, you could still take the weekly "bragging rights" prize.
My picks (otherwise known as the correct picks):
New England Patriots at New York Giants: At least the NFL made the right decision to simulcast this NFL Network game on both CBS and NBC. However, don't expect to see great football here. The Pats will get to 16-0, the Giants will rest their starters early, and the second half should be a yawn-fest.
Seattle Seahawks at Atlanta Falcons: Speaking of "yawn-fests"...
New Orleans Saints at Chicago Bears: Don't let the records fool you. The Bears are the better team here.
San Francisco 49ers at Cleveland Browns: The Browns need the win and a lot of help to make it to the playoffs.
Detroit Lions at Green Bay Packers: This one could go either way. The Packers decided their own playoff fate last week, so this game is meaningless to them. The Lions, with a win here, could at least make it to .500 on the year. If history is any indicator, expect the Lions to choke here.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Houston Texans: The Texans win this one for pride.
Cincinnati Bengals at Miami Dolphins: A meaningless game for two teams that disappointed their fans all year.
Buffalo Bills at Philadelphia Eagles: The Eagles have been playing with a lot of pride the last few weeks. The irony in this game is both of these teams may have new quarterbacks next year. This may also be Andy Reid's last game, since rumors about his retirement have been swirling for months. It is a shame that Reid's retirement might get lost in the hype over the Pats-Giants, although Reid has NOT made it official. But if it is his last game, let me say for the record, I'll miss you Andy. You were one of the great coaches of this era. (Of course, if it isn't your last game Andy, then you need to get off your duff and fix this team!)
Carolina Panthers at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Meaningless game for the Bucs. But the Panthers are good enough to beat the Bucs IF the Bucs dog it, or if the Panthers play their best game.
St. Louis Rams at Arizona Cardinals: Did anyone get the score from that Paraguay-Ukraine soccer match? This game is about as interesting.
Pittsburgh Steelers at Baltimore Ravens: Remember how close the Ravens came to beating the Pats? I can just see the Ravens playing spoilers here.
Minnesota Vikings at Denver Broncos: The Vikes need the win, while the Broncos mail it in. (rhyme intended)
Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets: In the "Herm Edwards Bowl", I will go with his new team over his old team.
San Diego Chargers at Oakland Raiders: The "Norv Turner Bowl". I would love to see the Raiders win this one, but even the Chargers second string should give the Raiders some fits.
Dallas Cowboys at Washington Redskins: Don't think for a second that the Redskins wouldn't love to make it to the playoffs on the backs of the Cowboys.
Tennessee Titans at Indianapolis Colts: The Titans win, they're in. Add to that the fact the Colts will be resting their starters early, and the Titans should take it.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 16 Results
It took him all year, but Bill Barker finally won a week legitimately. He even got his picks in on time. Congrats Bill!
Now, to my favorite part: The YTD standings, where I increased my lead over Stefanini and George, proving my uncanny prognostication abilities. Fortunately, you guys still have the playoffs to catch up with me. And the Patriots might lose to the Giants this week too...
Bill Barker - 13
EdMcGon - 12
Robert A. George - 10
Jay - 9
Audio Dave - 8
David Stefanini - 7
J. Mark English - 7
Now, to my favorite part: The YTD standings, where I increased my lead over Stefanini and George, proving my uncanny prognostication abilities. Fortunately, you guys still have the playoffs to catch up with me. And the Patriots might lose to the Giants this week too...
EdMcGon(4) - 140
Robert A. George(2) - 134
David Stefanini(2) - 133
J. Mark English(1) - 114
Bill Barker(1) - 112
Audio Dave(2.5) - 76
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 76
BL(2) - 74
SoloD(1) - 53
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Jay - 9
Snave - 8
Mike - 8
Moose - 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)