01 January 2008
Big Surprise, Lefty UK Organisation Finds That the USA is Eeeevil . . .
(via /.)
Privacy International has determined that the USA is an "endemic surveillance society" along with Mainland China, Malaysia, UK, Russia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Singapore.
The only country studied with "adequate safeguards against abuse"? Greece, of course.
Color me cynical, but I find it interesting that they didn't study Cuba, Venezuela, or Iran, and it seems like their free mixing of government and 'corporate' surveillance games this rating strongly against countries with an active corporate culture.
Also, all surveillance isn't created equal, we may be "less private" than France, or Japan, or even India (I'm doubtful about that, just to be clear), but I really have no problem at all with our intelligence agencies gathering information on foreign entities or even US citizens who have frequent contacts with terrorist groups and terror supporting groups.
Corporations should protect personal financial and medical records better, there's no doubt about that, but I still have trouble with anybody that wants to suggest that our privacy in the United States isn't any better than that of your average bloke in England (with speeding ticket dispensing cameras on the highways and the entire city center of London under constant watch) or (still) Communist China (who aren't exactly known for their respect for privacy, or any other kind of respect for individual autonomy).
One commenter gets to the heart of just one aspect of how badly this UK organisation (see I'm going with the Brit spelling there) misreads our Constitution (both the document and constitution in the sense of character)
Privacy International has determined that the USA is an "endemic surveillance society" along with Mainland China, Malaysia, UK, Russia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Singapore.
The only country studied with "adequate safeguards against abuse"? Greece, of course.
Color me cynical, but I find it interesting that they didn't study Cuba, Venezuela, or Iran, and it seems like their free mixing of government and 'corporate' surveillance games this rating strongly against countries with an active corporate culture.
Also, all surveillance isn't created equal, we may be "less private" than France, or Japan, or even India (I'm doubtful about that, just to be clear), but I really have no problem at all with our intelligence agencies gathering information on foreign entities or even US citizens who have frequent contacts with terrorist groups and terror supporting groups.
Corporations should protect personal financial and medical records better, there's no doubt about that, but I still have trouble with anybody that wants to suggest that our privacy in the United States isn't any better than that of your average bloke in England (with speeding ticket dispensing cameras on the highways and the entire city center of London under constant watch) or (still) Communist China (who aren't exactly known for their respect for privacy, or any other kind of respect for individual autonomy).
One commenter gets to the heart of just one aspect of how badly this UK organisation (see I'm going with the Brit spelling there) misreads our Constitution (both the document and constitution in the sense of character)
The organization completely misreads the US Constitution and is also factually incorrect.
# No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy
1) The US Constitution is NOT a collection of the rights of citizens, ala a French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Rather the US Constitution is a declaration of the rights of government. As it was stated in our own Declaration of Independence "We are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights". Thus, if it is not in the US Constitution, it is legal for citizens (with respect to the federal government), and illegal for the government. The Bill of Rights is thus an affirmation of that idea, not the document that "gives us rights". Our rights are inalienable.
2) The concept of a right to privacy underlies Roe V Wade in the USA.
Rights/Responsibilities and Risk/Reward
This piece at Classical Values pointing to this very interesting sounding book, got me thinking about our current legal and social structure. I made the first comment in the comments section, and seemed to get the discussion off the rails a touch as somebody attacked my viewpoint, while others defended it.
Didn't mean to make that comment section about me, but when you hear stories of the pioneers and what they went through, it does make you wonder what happened to that spirit.
My personal view is that we are the same people as then, just as strong, just as capable, but we suffer under a legal and social structure that is meant to "protect" us, but instead generally just weakens us.
I believe Liberty is a stool with four legs, each as important as the other. Those legs are Rights, Responsibilities, Risks and Rewards.
The biggest problem I have with the Democratic party, and nanny-staters in general is that they have redefined the "rights" leg into more and more areas of things that should be a matter of choice, and they encourage people to ignore the "responsibility" leg to the point that it has atrophied. I believe Rights are in opposition to Responsibilities. I think we all have the right to excercise our right to Free Speech, but you have the responsibility to accept that when other people excercise their Free Speech right, you may hear things you don't like, and people may say things you find offensive. I know we have the Right to Pursue Happiness, but we have the Responsibility to accept that other people may Pursue Happiness in ways we find distasteful and even immoral, but as long as their pursuits do no harm to people not asking for any trouble, then you should let them be (which means that I do believe that adults should be able to gather and pursue happiness in harmful ways so long as everyone involved understands there is a possibility or even probability of harm).
I don't think you can have a balanced view of what it means to have Rights if you create a social and legal system that absolves everyone of their Responsibilities. According to the Declaration of Independence our Rights are Inalienable, but that doesn't mean that they don't come with their own set of Responsibilities. Expecting people to take responsibility for the exercise of their rights, doesn't mean that the irresponsible should be punished, it just means that I feel the legal and social system should be neutral in the matter. Right now there is a gross imbalance in the Rights/Responsibility continuum, in my opinion.
Which brings us to the other two legs, Risks versus Reward. The dogooders of the world have encouraged legislatures and courts to create laws and interpret laws so that folks are protected from the Risks involved from their choices. They don't see that as being something deeply wrong. That's a feature, not a flaw of the current system. But without risk, there is little chance for reward, too. The "Mortgage Meltdown" is a perfect example of the current flaws of this Reward without Risk philosophy infecting the public and private sphere. Lenders were wary of lending to marginal borrowers (who happened to be disproportionately non-white) and were pressured by government at the federal and state level to ease loan requirements. This got some deserving people into houses that might have not otherwise have owned a home, but it also opened the door for speculators, and "flippers", and many folks who simply purchased more home than their current or future earnings prospects would deem prudent. Rather than letting the lenders choose the risks they would want to choose based on sound business practices, the government gave twisted incentives for lenders to be free with their money. The lenders that took the most advantage of these government incentives are now in the worst shape, and even the lenders that ignored the government's 'good advice' find their stocks depressed as the entire industry is looked at suspisciously. Government should stay as far away from the Risk versus Reward continuum as possible. Let people and companies assume risk, and stay out of their pockets when they reap the rewards when their risks bear fruit. Instead you have politicians from both parties looking to "fix" this "crisis" that they helped create, even the market forces will fix this problem if left alone. A family losing their home is an individual tragedy, but they assumed a risk, and if their risk wasn't rewarded, that's not the business of the government to fix. If the government goes around fixing everything everytime risks go wrong, then they'll also have to punish people whose rewards seem out of line with the norm. (just listen to any of the Dems talk about "excess profits")
Didn't mean to make that comment section about me, but when you hear stories of the pioneers and what they went through, it does make you wonder what happened to that spirit.
My personal view is that we are the same people as then, just as strong, just as capable, but we suffer under a legal and social structure that is meant to "protect" us, but instead generally just weakens us.
I believe Liberty is a stool with four legs, each as important as the other. Those legs are Rights, Responsibilities, Risks and Rewards.
The biggest problem I have with the Democratic party, and nanny-staters in general is that they have redefined the "rights" leg into more and more areas of things that should be a matter of choice, and they encourage people to ignore the "responsibility" leg to the point that it has atrophied. I believe Rights are in opposition to Responsibilities. I think we all have the right to excercise our right to Free Speech, but you have the responsibility to accept that when other people excercise their Free Speech right, you may hear things you don't like, and people may say things you find offensive. I know we have the Right to Pursue Happiness, but we have the Responsibility to accept that other people may Pursue Happiness in ways we find distasteful and even immoral, but as long as their pursuits do no harm to people not asking for any trouble, then you should let them be (which means that I do believe that adults should be able to gather and pursue happiness in harmful ways so long as everyone involved understands there is a possibility or even probability of harm).
I don't think you can have a balanced view of what it means to have Rights if you create a social and legal system that absolves everyone of their Responsibilities. According to the Declaration of Independence our Rights are Inalienable, but that doesn't mean that they don't come with their own set of Responsibilities. Expecting people to take responsibility for the exercise of their rights, doesn't mean that the irresponsible should be punished, it just means that I feel the legal and social system should be neutral in the matter. Right now there is a gross imbalance in the Rights/Responsibility continuum, in my opinion.
Which brings us to the other two legs, Risks versus Reward. The dogooders of the world have encouraged legislatures and courts to create laws and interpret laws so that folks are protected from the Risks involved from their choices. They don't see that as being something deeply wrong. That's a feature, not a flaw of the current system. But without risk, there is little chance for reward, too. The "Mortgage Meltdown" is a perfect example of the current flaws of this Reward without Risk philosophy infecting the public and private sphere. Lenders were wary of lending to marginal borrowers (who happened to be disproportionately non-white) and were pressured by government at the federal and state level to ease loan requirements. This got some deserving people into houses that might have not otherwise have owned a home, but it also opened the door for speculators, and "flippers", and many folks who simply purchased more home than their current or future earnings prospects would deem prudent. Rather than letting the lenders choose the risks they would want to choose based on sound business practices, the government gave twisted incentives for lenders to be free with their money. The lenders that took the most advantage of these government incentives are now in the worst shape, and even the lenders that ignored the government's 'good advice' find their stocks depressed as the entire industry is looked at suspisciously. Government should stay as far away from the Risk versus Reward continuum as possible. Let people and companies assume risk, and stay out of their pockets when they reap the rewards when their risks bear fruit. Instead you have politicians from both parties looking to "fix" this "crisis" that they helped create, even the market forces will fix this problem if left alone. A family losing their home is an individual tragedy, but they assumed a risk, and if their risk wasn't rewarded, that's not the business of the government to fix. If the government goes around fixing everything everytime risks go wrong, then they'll also have to punish people whose rewards seem out of line with the norm. (just listen to any of the Dems talk about "excess profits")
Yet Another Way I'm a Scofflaw . . .
From this WaPo article (via Drudge)
I must confess, I have dozens of CDs "illegally" copied on my computer. It should be more like 600-1000, but last time I installed Vista (after one tweak too many in the registry I decided to go with a fresh install) I accidentally installed it on my data drive rather than my root drive and erased all my MP3s. I was planning on re-encoding all my CDs into 320kbps MP3s anyway (disk space isn't much of an issue anymore given the size of hard drive available). Instead of ripping all my discs, I've been using my Rhapsody account and streaming them from their server, or ripping the music industry approved DRM embedded WMV copy that are available for current subscribers.
I'm less of an outlaw than I'd like to be, but one evening I'll go on a ripping spree and fill my hard drive with the "illegal" stuff.
The fact that Congress not only passed a law that had language in it that makes ripping your own CDs for personal use illegal is bad enough. On top of that you have record companies desperate and stupid enough to insist on enforcing this dumb law, and you have a situation where, new consumers will see that if you'll be accused of theft for "stealing" tracks off of CDs you've purchased, then the next step and actually stealing MP3s off the internet will seem much more justifiable (and a lot cheaper). File sharing is theft (sorry kiddies, but it is), and I have no problem with the industry attacking people who upload media (even if I might download the occasional BBC program, I think of it more like 'time-shifting' it's stuff I'd have access to anyway, just a few months early), but when you define all non-authorized use as piracy, then you make everybody pirates.
Plus, did you catch Foxtrot this Sunday?
(guess Bill Amend didn't know when he wrote it thatEMI the RIAA would go after folks who copy CDs as well as DVDs on to their portables or computers)
UPDATE:
D'oh! I know it's the RIAA filing suit in the article mentioned above, I just let Drudge's pairing of that article with another specifically about EMI cloud my judgement. Seems the new owners expect folks at EMI to follow good business practices, cut waste, and develop artists for global markets. Imagine the nerve!
Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.
The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
I must confess, I have dozens of CDs "illegally" copied on my computer. It should be more like 600-1000, but last time I installed Vista (after one tweak too many in the registry I decided to go with a fresh install) I accidentally installed it on my data drive rather than my root drive and erased all my MP3s. I was planning on re-encoding all my CDs into 320kbps MP3s anyway (disk space isn't much of an issue anymore given the size of hard drive available). Instead of ripping all my discs, I've been using my Rhapsody account and streaming them from their server, or ripping the music industry approved DRM embedded WMV copy that are available for current subscribers.
I'm less of an outlaw than I'd like to be, but one evening I'll go on a ripping spree and fill my hard drive with the "illegal" stuff.
The fact that Congress not only passed a law that had language in it that makes ripping your own CDs for personal use illegal is bad enough. On top of that you have record companies desperate and stupid enough to insist on enforcing this dumb law, and you have a situation where, new consumers will see that if you'll be accused of theft for "stealing" tracks off of CDs you've purchased, then the next step and actually stealing MP3s off the internet will seem much more justifiable (and a lot cheaper). File sharing is theft (sorry kiddies, but it is), and I have no problem with the industry attacking people who upload media (even if I might download the occasional BBC program, I think of it more like 'time-shifting' it's stuff I'd have access to anyway, just a few months early), but when you define all non-authorized use as piracy, then you make everybody pirates.
Plus, did you catch Foxtrot this Sunday?
(guess Bill Amend didn't know when he wrote it that
UPDATE:
D'oh! I know it's the RIAA filing suit in the article mentioned above, I just let Drudge's pairing of that article with another specifically about EMI cloud my judgement. Seems the new owners expect folks at EMI to follow good business practices, cut waste, and develop artists for global markets. Imagine the nerve!
How'd They Let That In the NY Times?!?
(via Instapundit)
John Tierney somehow was allowed to sneak in a piece critical of GLOBAL WARMING!!! alarmism in the Science section of the NY Times. His piece isn't critical of the idea that man is having some sort of effect on weather, rather his piece attacks the bandwagon-ism and consensus-ism that is infecting the public debate and even the process of science review building around this subject. Scientist get in trouble when they lose their skeptism, and it's in even worse trouble when skepticism is cause for ostracization. That's the case now in climate sciences with regards to human caused advanced global warming and any person willing to come forward with doubts as to the likelihood of the models that show all the worst cases happening over the next few decades.
He even takes a swipe at The Goracle towards the end (that takes guts).
The NYT will have to do some act of contrition for allowing this slip, I suggest 14 "Hail Gaias" as propitiation.
(Our Mother, who art the Earth, Hallowed be thy flora and fauna . . .)
John Tierney somehow was allowed to sneak in a piece critical of GLOBAL WARMING!!! alarmism in the Science section of the NY Times. His piece isn't critical of the idea that man is having some sort of effect on weather, rather his piece attacks the bandwagon-ism and consensus-ism that is infecting the public debate and even the process of science review building around this subject. Scientist get in trouble when they lose their skeptism, and it's in even worse trouble when skepticism is cause for ostracization. That's the case now in climate sciences with regards to human caused advanced global warming and any person willing to come forward with doubts as to the likelihood of the models that show all the worst cases happening over the next few decades.
He even takes a swipe at The Goracle towards the end (that takes guts).
The NYT will have to do some act of contrition for allowing this slip, I suggest 14 "Hail Gaias" as propitiation.
(Our Mother, who art the Earth, Hallowed be thy flora and fauna . . .)
31 December 2007
No Bangs, Just Whimpers . . .
That's how 2007 will end around here, no bangs, just whimpers.
I missed Festivus (just not feeling the grievances), and I'm not in a retrospective mood, so pretend that I was and that I agree with your picks of your own favorite posts from the past year that you read here, usually this blog is a dictatorship, but it doesn't have to be.
2008 should be an interesting year. Finally, after this endless election cycle, people will be casting actual votes and actual delegates will actually get selected. Ought to be fun. Outside of politics you have interesting times in the local big industry, Hollywood, with a big effort by the studios to break the various unions and get costs under control. It worked for the NFL, and the NBA, didn't work so well for the NHL or MLB. The music industry is in flux, with more and more artists learning how to abandon the labels and market directly to their fans. Big isn't better anymore in the music industry, and either the labels will adjust to the new reality, or continue to flail and fail. 2007 seemed to be the year of 'pop wrecks' from Britney, to Paris, to Lindsay (with the spectre of a Anna-Nicole like flameout hanging over their heads if their behavior continues as it is now), but that's all just a side show. I don't mind poking fun at the freaks, when the freaks are well compensated, it's much more distasteful when it's the early rounds of American Idol style freak show where they revel in the humiliation of slightly odd (or very odd) 'regular folk'.
Also, the international scene seems more chaotic than ever, but the reality of it is that 2007 was the most peaceful year in recent times with fewer conflicts, fewer deaths, fewer famines, and more people living in fat, happy prosperity than ever before. No reason to expect that trend to change in 2008. There's still a very real risk that some group of backward assholes will get lucky and pull of a spectacular mass casualty attack in some major Western city, but that's a threat that's going to hang over all major populations and free societies for decades to come. Doesn't mean that resistance against these crazies is futile, just means that their bar for 'success' is much lower. We're winning this war, it's only a matter of time, and will.
I'm hoping to blog a lot more in 2008, no promises, but the plan is to post 4-5 quick Instapundit style pointers to good stuff each day, and 3-4 longer pieces of varying kinds each week. It's not a big goal, and it may not create any new traffic towards this site, but it'll keep me busy and out of mischief (or into even greater mischief, depending on the nature of the posts), so that's something.
I missed Festivus (just not feeling the grievances), and I'm not in a retrospective mood, so pretend that I was and that I agree with your picks of your own favorite posts from the past year that you read here, usually this blog is a dictatorship, but it doesn't have to be.
2008 should be an interesting year. Finally, after this endless election cycle, people will be casting actual votes and actual delegates will actually get selected. Ought to be fun. Outside of politics you have interesting times in the local big industry, Hollywood, with a big effort by the studios to break the various unions and get costs under control. It worked for the NFL, and the NBA, didn't work so well for the NHL or MLB. The music industry is in flux, with more and more artists learning how to abandon the labels and market directly to their fans. Big isn't better anymore in the music industry, and either the labels will adjust to the new reality, or continue to flail and fail. 2007 seemed to be the year of 'pop wrecks' from Britney, to Paris, to Lindsay (with the spectre of a Anna-Nicole like flameout hanging over their heads if their behavior continues as it is now), but that's all just a side show. I don't mind poking fun at the freaks, when the freaks are well compensated, it's much more distasteful when it's the early rounds of American Idol style freak show where they revel in the humiliation of slightly odd (or very odd) 'regular folk'.
Also, the international scene seems more chaotic than ever, but the reality of it is that 2007 was the most peaceful year in recent times with fewer conflicts, fewer deaths, fewer famines, and more people living in fat, happy prosperity than ever before. No reason to expect that trend to change in 2008. There's still a very real risk that some group of backward assholes will get lucky and pull of a spectacular mass casualty attack in some major Western city, but that's a threat that's going to hang over all major populations and free societies for decades to come. Doesn't mean that resistance against these crazies is futile, just means that their bar for 'success' is much lower. We're winning this war, it's only a matter of time, and will.
I'm hoping to blog a lot more in 2008, no promises, but the plan is to post 4-5 quick Instapundit style pointers to good stuff each day, and 3-4 longer pieces of varying kinds each week. It's not a big goal, and it may not create any new traffic towards this site, but it'll keep me busy and out of mischief (or into even greater mischief, depending on the nature of the posts), so that's something.
29 December 2007
27 December 2007
Pointing Out Podcasts (and Not Making Them)
One of these days, maybe I'll get around to podcasting, but today's not one of them. Just don't like what my voice sounds like recorded. Whatever 'voice' you here when you read my text is probably better than my actual voice, so I prefer to leave it that way.
But others aren't so reluctant about adding their voices onto the internet, and those little 'casts are often interesting listens.
Two good ones from this week are to be found at Pajamas Media and ESPN.
First up, the Glenn and Helen (aka Instapundit and Dr Helen) do their podcast interview thing, and as always, they do it well. Johah Goldberg is pushing his provocative new book, Liberal Fascism, and hearing them interview him regarding his tome is rather entertaining. They also discuss the ongoing (and perpetual) presidential campaign and speak about Sen. Clinton and Gov. Huckabee in particular.
[direct link to the 22.3mb mp3 here]
Jumping to a completely different subject, My Nemesis Bill Simmons™ interviews his buddy Jimmy Kimmel on the BS Report for 12/26. Jimmy has some interesting things to say on the ongoing writers' strike, and the incoherence of the Spinks brothers. Also, there's football stuff with Cousin Sal as they hash out their weekly 'guess the spread' chat. Jimmy Kimmel will probably be the best host sans writers. He always gives the impression of actually listening to the people he's talking to, and when his subject is engaged, he can be very engaging right back. Letterman has flashes of fiestiness, but mostly he's just bored, and Leno with writers comes across as unprepared and just killing time, so Leno with writers might end up being like watching a slow motion train wreck. Conan, on the other hand, will probably just wiggle, dance, and mug at the camera for 35+ minutes a night, make odd noises for another 6-8 minutes, and chat with one guest. They're all coming back next week, it'll be worth tuning in (or DVR-ing, given the hour they are on) for the first few shows, anyway.
[direct link to the 11.2mb mp3 here]
But others aren't so reluctant about adding their voices onto the internet, and those little 'casts are often interesting listens.
Two good ones from this week are to be found at Pajamas Media and ESPN.
First up, the Glenn and Helen (aka Instapundit and Dr Helen) do their podcast interview thing, and as always, they do it well. Johah Goldberg is pushing his provocative new book, Liberal Fascism, and hearing them interview him regarding his tome is rather entertaining. They also discuss the ongoing (and perpetual) presidential campaign and speak about Sen. Clinton and Gov. Huckabee in particular.
[direct link to the 22.3mb mp3 here]
Jumping to a completely different subject, My Nemesis Bill Simmons™ interviews his buddy Jimmy Kimmel on the BS Report for 12/26. Jimmy has some interesting things to say on the ongoing writers' strike, and the incoherence of the Spinks brothers. Also, there's football stuff with Cousin Sal as they hash out their weekly 'guess the spread' chat. Jimmy Kimmel will probably be the best host sans writers. He always gives the impression of actually listening to the people he's talking to, and when his subject is engaged, he can be very engaging right back. Letterman has flashes of fiestiness, but mostly he's just bored, and Leno with writers comes across as unprepared and just killing time, so Leno with writers might end up being like watching a slow motion train wreck. Conan, on the other hand, will probably just wiggle, dance, and mug at the camera for 35+ minutes a night, make odd noises for another 6-8 minutes, and chat with one guest. They're all coming back next week, it'll be worth tuning in (or DVR-ing, given the hour they are on) for the first few shows, anyway.
[direct link to the 11.2mb mp3 here]
26 December 2007
Laker Chat II (The Quickening) . . .
Earlier this month (on the 13th to be exact) I posted about the relatively solid state of the LA Lakers and the possibility that they might actually be a pretty good team.
13 days later, and after their fantastic performance against the Phoenix Suns in the spotlight of the Christmas Day ABC game, it's time to talk Lakers again.
They've been solid in the 8 games since, dropping 2 games they should have won (last minute loss against Golden State, another last minute loss against Cleveland), and beating a few good teams along the way (an injury depleted San Antonio and Phoenix), but more importantly, they beat bad teams, which may not seem like much of an accomplishment, but that's something they struggled with last year, and if you look at the 10 losses this year, only 3 were to bad teams, so they've improved greatly in beating bad teams. That's an indicator of increased maturity, and a developing killer instinct that this team lacked a season ago. I hoped (and expected) they'd go 7-3 until the end of this month, so that means they need to at least split their upcoming home games against Utah and Boston this Friday and Monday. They are 1-1 versus Utah so far (including a blow-out loss), and 0-1 versus Boston (another double digit loss). Utah has struggled since they beat the Lakers, and Boston continues to roll over most of the league, but are vulnerable on the road if the Lakers play well.
I'm not the only one noticing the Lakers progress this season, ESPN.com was full of "just how good ARE these Lakers, anyway?" stories the past two days, and the consensus seems to be that these Lakers could potentially challenge Phoenix for the Pacific Division lead (they only trail by one game at the moment), and should get past the 1st round of the playoffs without a problem. At the beginning of the season it was a question of if they would make the playoffs (when the question wasn't where they would ship Kobe to and what they'd get in return), now that doesn't seem in doubt. Instead the question seems to be whether or not any team in the Western Conference other than the San Antonio Spurs beat this team in a best of seven playoff.
There's a lot of basketball left to play, but if Andrew Bynum continues what he's doing, if Kobe stays gruntled, and their bench continues to hit open jumpers at a high percentage, than this is a formidable, young, talented basketball team.
ESPN has this silly tool that calculates teams odds of making the playoffs and performance in the playoffs based on running 5000 simulations of every game the rest of the way. Right now, the Lakers sit atop their Western Conference playoff projections (can only link the current results, so this may change over time). Their odds of making the playoffs stand at 99.6%, while their odds of finishing as the No.1 seed in the Western Conference is a respectable 32.9% (slightly better than San Antonio at 32.7%). Also, they have a 26.5% chance of making it to the finals, and about a 95.5% chance of getting beaten like a drum by either the Boston Celtics (they have a ridiculous 60.5% chance of winning it all, and even a 12.2% chance of matching or doing even better than the 72-10 record set by the Bulls) or Detroit Pistons (an impressive 20.5% chance to win it all) when they meet in an 80s flashback finals (or an 80s and 00s flashback final in the case of a Pistons-Lakers match-up). That playoff projection thing is interesting (Hollinger does a great job of explaining the strengths and weaknesses of these projections), but mostly worthless (case in point, there are 9 teams in the West with a better than 50% chance of making the playoffs). It takes a snapshot of current play, and projects it for the remaining games, but rarely do teams play that consistently throughout a season, slumps and hot streaks happen for all teams (except for Minnesota and New York, I don't expect either of them to experience anything resembling a hot streak this season).
But a bigger story than the Lakers is Portland. Where'd they come from? They lose Oden before the season starts, stumble to 5-12 and still rattle of 10 straight wins? How is that possible, and which team are they, the 5-12 team or the 10-0 team?
13 days later, and after their fantastic performance against the Phoenix Suns in the spotlight of the Christmas Day ABC game, it's time to talk Lakers again.
They've been solid in the 8 games since, dropping 2 games they should have won (last minute loss against Golden State, another last minute loss against Cleveland), and beating a few good teams along the way (an injury depleted San Antonio and Phoenix), but more importantly, they beat bad teams, which may not seem like much of an accomplishment, but that's something they struggled with last year, and if you look at the 10 losses this year, only 3 were to bad teams, so they've improved greatly in beating bad teams. That's an indicator of increased maturity, and a developing killer instinct that this team lacked a season ago. I hoped (and expected) they'd go 7-3 until the end of this month, so that means they need to at least split their upcoming home games against Utah and Boston this Friday and Monday. They are 1-1 versus Utah so far (including a blow-out loss), and 0-1 versus Boston (another double digit loss). Utah has struggled since they beat the Lakers, and Boston continues to roll over most of the league, but are vulnerable on the road if the Lakers play well.
I'm not the only one noticing the Lakers progress this season, ESPN.com was full of "just how good ARE these Lakers, anyway?" stories the past two days, and the consensus seems to be that these Lakers could potentially challenge Phoenix for the Pacific Division lead (they only trail by one game at the moment), and should get past the 1st round of the playoffs without a problem. At the beginning of the season it was a question of if they would make the playoffs (when the question wasn't where they would ship Kobe to and what they'd get in return), now that doesn't seem in doubt. Instead the question seems to be whether or not any team in the Western Conference other than the San Antonio Spurs beat this team in a best of seven playoff.
There's a lot of basketball left to play, but if Andrew Bynum continues what he's doing, if Kobe stays gruntled, and their bench continues to hit open jumpers at a high percentage, than this is a formidable, young, talented basketball team.
ESPN has this silly tool that calculates teams odds of making the playoffs and performance in the playoffs based on running 5000 simulations of every game the rest of the way. Right now, the Lakers sit atop their Western Conference playoff projections (can only link the current results, so this may change over time). Their odds of making the playoffs stand at 99.6%, while their odds of finishing as the No.1 seed in the Western Conference is a respectable 32.9% (slightly better than San Antonio at 32.7%). Also, they have a 26.5% chance of making it to the finals, and about a 95.5% chance of getting beaten like a drum by either the Boston Celtics (they have a ridiculous 60.5% chance of winning it all, and even a 12.2% chance of matching or doing even better than the 72-10 record set by the Bulls) or Detroit Pistons (an impressive 20.5% chance to win it all) when they meet in an 80s flashback finals (or an 80s and 00s flashback final in the case of a Pistons-Lakers match-up). That playoff projection thing is interesting (Hollinger does a great job of explaining the strengths and weaknesses of these projections), but mostly worthless (case in point, there are 9 teams in the West with a better than 50% chance of making the playoffs). It takes a snapshot of current play, and projects it for the remaining games, but rarely do teams play that consistently throughout a season, slumps and hot streaks happen for all teams (except for Minnesota and New York, I don't expect either of them to experience anything resembling a hot streak this season).
But a bigger story than the Lakers is Portland. Where'd they come from? They lose Oden before the season starts, stumble to 5-12 and still rattle of 10 straight wins? How is that possible, and which team are they, the 5-12 team or the 10-0 team?
24 December 2007
"Gospel of peace my ass!"
Quoting Ken Jennings above, it's from a post about alternative Xmas films (for those that have seen Christmas Story or It's a Wonderful Life just about enough times).
Now if somebody could come up with the 'Gospel of a piece of ass!', that's a church I'd happily attend.
Now if somebody could come up with the 'Gospel of a piece of ass!', that's a church I'd happily attend.
21 December 2007
I Prefer to Think of Today as the Longest Night, Not the Shortest Day. Does That Make Me a Pessimist or Optimist?
Happy Winter Solstice!!!
(to all my Northern Hemisphere readers that is, for you freaks on the other side of the equator, enjoy your first day of "Summer")
(and I know I'm a day early for most of you, but the Solstice officially starts at 10:08pm local time (aka 06:08 UTC) for me, so screw you "Dec 22nd" Solstice people with your strange and mysterious ways, I'm happy to be with the good and proper "Dec 21st" populations that observe the "correct" date for a Solstice)
(to all my Northern Hemisphere readers that is, for you freaks on the other side of the equator, enjoy your first day of "Summer")
(and I know I'm a day early for most of you, but the Solstice officially starts at 10:08pm local time (aka 06:08 UTC) for me, so screw you "Dec 22nd" Solstice people with your strange and mysterious ways, I'm happy to be with the good and proper "Dec 21st" populations that observe the "correct" date for a Solstice)
20 December 2007
Weekly NFL Related Humiliation (Week Sixteen)
It's getting towards the end of the season. The AFC is pretty much wrapped up, 7 of the 8 division titles are decided, but there are still plenty of teams fighting for the remaining wildcard spots in the NFC, so there will be plenty of games that count for at least one of the teams.
To break form these last two weeks, I'll scour the entire schedule and hazard a guess on each contest.
I completely forgot to pick on My Nemesis Bill Simmons™. He hasn't had a good season picking picks, his wife, who doesn't follow the game, is kicking his ass (to be fair, she kicked my ass this season as well). That would seem to give credit to Bill at So Quoted's (see comments to this very post) theory regarding the relative value of laboriously researched, meticulously reasoned picks by folks who seem to think they understand a thing or two about the chances of one team versus another (against the spread), and flipping a coin.
In addition to his picks this week BS also offers an entertaining breakdown of the craptacular state of the QB position in the NFL at the moment. By his estimation (with which I agree), there are a grand total of 7 QBs who can win the game for you on a regular basis (as opposed to the occasional great game). Add to that 2 QBs who do a great job managing games, and that's it. Everyone else is as likely to cost your team the game as to win it. What explains this? The complicated defenses, and more frequent substitions, and it's a much more difficult position to play than it used to be. I think having the coaches in their head the entire game doesn't help either. The QB is the only player who gets to have a direct audio link to the coach, but rather than making it easier for them to run plays, it just takes away their creativity and ability to think for themselves. Coaches should just let their players make plays, but there's so much scrutiny now, the urge to micro-manage becomes overwhelming, and the QB position is the most managed position in the game. The likes of Fran Tarkenton, Ken Stabler and Terry Bradshaw probably wouldn't even be given half a chance or be half as good as they were. They developed their instinct for the game through playing, and failing, and calling most of their own plays. Some day, there may be a coach with the guts to cut off his mic, trust a young QB, and allow him to develop into the position. I think a JaMarcus Russell, Vince Young or Matt Leinart would thrive under the old system, and they still may thrive under the current system, but I'd bet they'd be a lot more fun to watch if they were allowed to think for themselves, gamble a bit, and fail from time to time.
Thursday's game
Pittsburgh(9-5) at St.Louis(3-11) Pittsburgh -7.5 BS Picks St.Louis
Pittsburgh has been lousy on the road this season, piling up losses against pretty lousy teams. But the Rams are lousy enough to lose by two TDs against this Steelers team, and given that the Steelers are still trying to hold off Cleveland and win their division, they should have plenty of motivation to not only win, but win big.
Saturday's game
Dallas(12-2) at Carolina(6-8) Carolina +10.5 BS Picks Carolina
Carolina has had a bad season, and are 2-5 at home so far, while Dallas are perfect on the road, but they're coming off an anemic offensive performance against Philly, and their QB is damaged, but will still play. Romo will play, he'll play like crap, and Dallas will squeak by with a victory, but they won't cover a ten point spread in the process.
Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!
NY Giants(9-5) at Buffalo(7-7) Buffalo +3.0 BS Picks Buffalo
The Giants still have a solid defense, but their offense is truly offensive at the moment. They won't win another game this season. They'll lose this game, lose to New England next week, and if they still back into the playoffs at 9-7, will lose their first round game. It's going to be an unpleasant off-season for Eli Manning. Buffalo lost last week in terrible conditions in Cleveland, a game that pretty much ended their playoff hopes. They'll play better this week at home, and should have no trouble with a Giants team that's on the verge of total collapse.
Green Bay(12-2) at Chicago(5-9) Green Bay -8.5 BS Picks Chicago
Chicago pulled off the upset last time these two teams played, but I expect the Packers to play better this week and keep the pressure on Dallas for homefield advantage in the NFC. Not much more to say, Chicago's offense is phenomenally inept, their defense is still pretty solid, but given the frequency of '3 and outs' by their offense, are on the field for far too much time each game. The funny thing is they really aren't that much worse than the team that made it to the Superbowl last year, they just didn't get the breaks like they did last year. They are a few last minute drives from being 10-4 instead of 5-9 this season.
Cleveland(9-5) at Cincinnati(5-9) Cleveland -3.0 BS Picks Cleveland
Cleveland should win this, and keep the pressure on Pittsburgh for the AFC North division title, but stranger things have happened, and the Bengals are better than they've played this season. The Browns should win, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the Bengals put together a decent game for a change and screw up their division, and intra-state rival's shot at the playoffs.
Kansas City(4-10) at Detroit(6-8) Kansas City +5.0 BS Picks Detroit
Both teams are awful right now, but I think Detroit will extend their losing streak, while KC will manage to break theirs. Both teams had surprsingly strong starts, Detroit was 6-2 at one point, while KC was 4-3 with a share of the AFC West lead. I feel sorry for the people in the KC and Detroit area who will end up having this sorry excuse of a game being broadcast into their living rooms.
Houston(7-7) at Indianapolis(12-2) Houston +7.0 BS Picks Houston
Indianapolis should win, but they have nothing to play for, they have the #2 seed locked up, and can't catch New England for #1. Manning and Addai, and plenty of other key starters are probably not going to play much, so I expect Houston to win this game to keep their slim chance at the playoffs alive, or at least keep the final score close. Or they could still get blown out by the Colts second string.
Philadelphia(6-8) at New Orleans (7-7) New Orleans -3.0 BS Picks New Orleans
Both teams have been up and down, New Orleans still has a shot at the playoffs if Minnesota slides, so they should play their best this week, but they've come up short other times when they needed to win, so who knows what will happen this game. I'm going with the home team, and the team that needs to win, but Philly's defense might force Brees into a bunch of turnovers and the Eagles could win big.
Oakland(4-10) at Jacksonville(10-4) Jacksonville -13.0 BS Picks Jacksonville
On paper, this shouldn't even be close, and I think the paper's right in this case. The Raiders have a solid young defense, but the Jaguars will still roll all over them on offense, and Oakland's inept offense will cost this team any chance they may have had of pulling off an upset, or even covering the 2TD spread. Plus the league was kind enough to give JAX just a little extra motivation by snubbing the entire team with regards to the Pro Bowl. Should make it a lot easier for the coaching staff to get the players fired up against a lousy opponent, they aren't just playing the Raiders this week, they're playing against league wide perception.
Atlanta(3-11) at Arizona(6-8) Arizona -10.0 BS Picks Arizona
I just don't care. I really, really don't care. The Cardinals should be eyeing a playoff spot right now, but they lost both games to the 49ers this season (!!!), and despite having a good mix of young talent and veterans, will miss the playoffs another season. I really do think they could have snuck into the Superbowl this season had they not lost 3 of their last 4. Atlanta is Atlanta, and the less said the better. Message to Arthur Blank, I'll take the job, but only if you let me be GM and coach. I'd institute a modified run n' shoot offense, make some trades, and make Devin Hester your featured wing back. It'd be back to the 30s, and back to the playoffs for the Falcons.
Tampa Bay(9-5) at San Francisco(4-10) Tampa Bay -6.0 BS Picks Tampa Bay
A blowout in the making. Tampa Bay will win by more than 20 points. They've been good at thumping the bad teams they've faced this year, this week won't be any different.
NY Jets(3-11) at Tennessee(8-6) Tennessee -8.5 BS Picks NY Jets
You have the Titans fighting for a wildcard, and the NY Jets fighting for nothing at all. Even though the Titans have looked troubled lately, and have dropped 4 out of their last 6 games, they should be able to beat an awful Jets team by two TDs or more.
Miami(1-13) at New England(14-0) New England -22.0 BS Picks Miami
New England may be perfect in the WL column, but against the spread they are a less impressive 10-4. They're at home, they're playing a team that just eeked out their only victory of the season, and they're coming off of a less than satisfying victory over the NY Jets. I expect blood in this one. Their biggest margin of victory this season was 46 points, I expect them to get close to or exceed that number this week.
Baltimore(4-10) at Seattle(9-5) Seattle -10.5 BS Picks Baltimore
I just don't care. Baltimore should be out for blood after being the only team that Miami managed to beat, but then again, they managed to lose to Miami, and Seattle has been pretty solid of late (ignoring last week's loss to Carolina), so I expect Seattle to win, and how in the hell is Baltimore on the road against a 9-5 team a "pick 'em" game?!? UPDATE: I knew that line was wrong, 10.5 points is more like it, I still pick Seattle to cover.
Washington(7-7) at Minnesota(8-6) Washington +6.5 BS Picks Washington
This is the game of the week? No really, it is. This is the only contest where both teams are fighting for their playoff lives. If the Skins can win out, they should get that last wildcard, if the Vikings lose this one, then they'll still have a shot at advancing. Minnesota looked terrible last week, even while beating the Bears. They won't get so lucky this week against Washington. The Skins will watch the tape from last week to learn how to contain Peterson, and with Bollinger starting this week, they'll have no offensive output at all if Peterson is contained. Still, there's bound to be ten different things better to do with your Sunday night than to watch this game. NBC must be thrilled that this was the best they could schedule even with their 'flex schedule' deal with the NFL. Is it spelled "parity" or "parody"?
Christmas Eve
Denver(6-8) at San Diego(9-5) San Diego -8.5 BS Picks San Diego
San Diego beat Denver by 38 points last time they played in Denver. The outcome shouldn't be any better for the Broncos when these two teams meet in San Diego. Denver's only hope is that San Diego rests some starters, but even then, they should be able to win by better than 2 TDs against a solidly mediocre Broncos team.
To break form these last two weeks, I'll scour the entire schedule and hazard a guess on each contest.
*UPDATE* 2007 DEC 22nd 10:28pm PST *UPDATE*
I completely forgot to pick on My Nemesis Bill Simmons™. He hasn't had a good season picking picks, his wife, who doesn't follow the game, is kicking his ass (to be fair, she kicked my ass this season as well). That would seem to give credit to Bill at So Quoted's (see comments to this very post) theory regarding the relative value of laboriously researched, meticulously reasoned picks by folks who seem to think they understand a thing or two about the chances of one team versus another (against the spread), and flipping a coin.
In addition to his picks this week BS also offers an entertaining breakdown of the craptacular state of the QB position in the NFL at the moment. By his estimation (with which I agree), there are a grand total of 7 QBs who can win the game for you on a regular basis (as opposed to the occasional great game). Add to that 2 QBs who do a great job managing games, and that's it. Everyone else is as likely to cost your team the game as to win it. What explains this? The complicated defenses, and more frequent substitions, and it's a much more difficult position to play than it used to be. I think having the coaches in their head the entire game doesn't help either. The QB is the only player who gets to have a direct audio link to the coach, but rather than making it easier for them to run plays, it just takes away their creativity and ability to think for themselves. Coaches should just let their players make plays, but there's so much scrutiny now, the urge to micro-manage becomes overwhelming, and the QB position is the most managed position in the game. The likes of Fran Tarkenton, Ken Stabler and Terry Bradshaw probably wouldn't even be given half a chance or be half as good as they were. They developed their instinct for the game through playing, and failing, and calling most of their own plays. Some day, there may be a coach with the guts to cut off his mic, trust a young QB, and allow him to develop into the position. I think a JaMarcus Russell, Vince Young or Matt Leinart would thrive under the old system, and they still may thrive under the current system, but I'd bet they'd be a lot more fun to watch if they were allowed to think for themselves, gamble a bit, and fail from time to time.
Thursday's game
Pittsburgh(9-5) at St.Louis(3-11) Pittsburgh -7.5 BS Picks St.Louis
Pittsburgh has been lousy on the road this season, piling up losses against pretty lousy teams. But the Rams are lousy enough to lose by two TDs against this Steelers team, and given that the Steelers are still trying to hold off Cleveland and win their division, they should have plenty of motivation to not only win, but win big.
Saturday's game
Dallas(12-2) at Carolina(6-8) Carolina +10.5 BS Picks Carolina
Carolina has had a bad season, and are 2-5 at home so far, while Dallas are perfect on the road, but they're coming off an anemic offensive performance against Philly, and their QB is damaged, but will still play. Romo will play, he'll play like crap, and Dallas will squeak by with a victory, but they won't cover a ten point spread in the process.
Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!
NY Giants(9-5) at Buffalo(7-7) Buffalo +3.0 BS Picks Buffalo
The Giants still have a solid defense, but their offense is truly offensive at the moment. They won't win another game this season. They'll lose this game, lose to New England next week, and if they still back into the playoffs at 9-7, will lose their first round game. It's going to be an unpleasant off-season for Eli Manning. Buffalo lost last week in terrible conditions in Cleveland, a game that pretty much ended their playoff hopes. They'll play better this week at home, and should have no trouble with a Giants team that's on the verge of total collapse.
Green Bay(12-2) at Chicago(5-9) Green Bay -8.5 BS Picks Chicago
Chicago pulled off the upset last time these two teams played, but I expect the Packers to play better this week and keep the pressure on Dallas for homefield advantage in the NFC. Not much more to say, Chicago's offense is phenomenally inept, their defense is still pretty solid, but given the frequency of '3 and outs' by their offense, are on the field for far too much time each game. The funny thing is they really aren't that much worse than the team that made it to the Superbowl last year, they just didn't get the breaks like they did last year. They are a few last minute drives from being 10-4 instead of 5-9 this season.
Cleveland(9-5) at Cincinnati(5-9) Cleveland -3.0 BS Picks Cleveland
Cleveland should win this, and keep the pressure on Pittsburgh for the AFC North division title, but stranger things have happened, and the Bengals are better than they've played this season. The Browns should win, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the Bengals put together a decent game for a change and screw up their division, and intra-state rival's shot at the playoffs.
Kansas City(4-10) at Detroit(6-8) Kansas City +5.0 BS Picks Detroit
Both teams are awful right now, but I think Detroit will extend their losing streak, while KC will manage to break theirs. Both teams had surprsingly strong starts, Detroit was 6-2 at one point, while KC was 4-3 with a share of the AFC West lead. I feel sorry for the people in the KC and Detroit area who will end up having this sorry excuse of a game being broadcast into their living rooms.
Houston(7-7) at Indianapolis(12-2) Houston +7.0 BS Picks Houston
Indianapolis should win, but they have nothing to play for, they have the #2 seed locked up, and can't catch New England for #1. Manning and Addai, and plenty of other key starters are probably not going to play much, so I expect Houston to win this game to keep their slim chance at the playoffs alive, or at least keep the final score close. Or they could still get blown out by the Colts second string.
Philadelphia(6-8) at New Orleans (7-7) New Orleans -3.0 BS Picks New Orleans
Both teams have been up and down, New Orleans still has a shot at the playoffs if Minnesota slides, so they should play their best this week, but they've come up short other times when they needed to win, so who knows what will happen this game. I'm going with the home team, and the team that needs to win, but Philly's defense might force Brees into a bunch of turnovers and the Eagles could win big.
Oakland(4-10) at Jacksonville(10-4) Jacksonville -13.0 BS Picks Jacksonville
On paper, this shouldn't even be close, and I think the paper's right in this case. The Raiders have a solid young defense, but the Jaguars will still roll all over them on offense, and Oakland's inept offense will cost this team any chance they may have had of pulling off an upset, or even covering the 2TD spread. Plus the league was kind enough to give JAX just a little extra motivation by snubbing the entire team with regards to the Pro Bowl. Should make it a lot easier for the coaching staff to get the players fired up against a lousy opponent, they aren't just playing the Raiders this week, they're playing against league wide perception.
Atlanta(3-11) at Arizona(6-8) Arizona -10.0 BS Picks Arizona
I just don't care. I really, really don't care. The Cardinals should be eyeing a playoff spot right now, but they lost both games to the 49ers this season (!!!), and despite having a good mix of young talent and veterans, will miss the playoffs another season. I really do think they could have snuck into the Superbowl this season had they not lost 3 of their last 4. Atlanta is Atlanta, and the less said the better. Message to Arthur Blank, I'll take the job, but only if you let me be GM and coach. I'd institute a modified run n' shoot offense, make some trades, and make Devin Hester your featured wing back. It'd be back to the 30s, and back to the playoffs for the Falcons.
Tampa Bay(9-5) at San Francisco(4-10) Tampa Bay -6.0 BS Picks Tampa Bay
A blowout in the making. Tampa Bay will win by more than 20 points. They've been good at thumping the bad teams they've faced this year, this week won't be any different.
NY Jets(3-11) at Tennessee(8-6) Tennessee -8.5 BS Picks NY Jets
You have the Titans fighting for a wildcard, and the NY Jets fighting for nothing at all. Even though the Titans have looked troubled lately, and have dropped 4 out of their last 6 games, they should be able to beat an awful Jets team by two TDs or more.
Miami(1-13) at New England(14-0) New England -22.0 BS Picks Miami
New England may be perfect in the WL column, but against the spread they are a less impressive 10-4. They're at home, they're playing a team that just eeked out their only victory of the season, and they're coming off of a less than satisfying victory over the NY Jets. I expect blood in this one. Their biggest margin of victory this season was 46 points, I expect them to get close to or exceed that number this week.
Baltimore(4-10) at Seattle(9-5) Seattle -10.5 BS Picks Baltimore
I just don't care. Baltimore should be out for blood after being the only team that Miami managed to beat, but then again, they managed to lose to Miami, and Seattle has been pretty solid of late (ignoring last week's loss to Carolina), so I expect Seattle to win, and how in the hell is Baltimore on the road against a 9-5 team a "pick 'em" game?!? UPDATE: I knew that line was wrong, 10.5 points is more like it, I still pick Seattle to cover.
Washington(7-7) at Minnesota(8-6) Washington +6.5 BS Picks Washington
This is the game of the week? No really, it is. This is the only contest where both teams are fighting for their playoff lives. If the Skins can win out, they should get that last wildcard, if the Vikings lose this one, then they'll still have a shot at advancing. Minnesota looked terrible last week, even while beating the Bears. They won't get so lucky this week against Washington. The Skins will watch the tape from last week to learn how to contain Peterson, and with Bollinger starting this week, they'll have no offensive output at all if Peterson is contained. Still, there's bound to be ten different things better to do with your Sunday night than to watch this game. NBC must be thrilled that this was the best they could schedule even with their 'flex schedule' deal with the NFL. Is it spelled "parity" or "parody"?
Christmas Eve
Denver(6-8) at San Diego(9-5) San Diego -8.5 BS Picks San Diego
San Diego beat Denver by 38 points last time they played in Denver. The outcome shouldn't be any better for the Broncos when these two teams meet in San Diego. Denver's only hope is that San Diego rests some starters, but even then, they should be able to win by better than 2 TDs against a solidly mediocre Broncos team.
18 December 2007
The Humiliation Returns . . .
Tomorrow, I'll put together some NFL picks, the past few weeks have been pretty awful as far as games worth watching, last week only two games pitted two teams with winning records. If you had looked at the Week 15 match-ups before week one, you probably would have guessed that both teams in the Jacksonville at Pittsburgh game would have winning records, but if you say that you would have also guessed the only other both teams over .500 game would be Buffalo at Cleveland, then I call you a stinking liar.
So I'll be daring and pick all the games, from Thursday to Monday, no matter how unwatchable any particular game may be (woohoo! 14-0 New England v 1-13 Miami, that's a classic in the making, right there), then I'll give my picks throughout the playoffs, of course.
Looks like my earlier playoff predictions are already way off. I was pretty close on the AFC, though I didn't predict continued success for Cleveland and a Pittsburgh mini-collapse. Cleveland and Pittsburgh both have winnable games the last two weeks, so they should both finish 11-5, which would mean Pittsburgh wins the division, and Cleveland earns one of the wildcard slots, along with Jacksonville, leaving Tennessee out of the playoffs. New England and Indianapolis have already locked up the first round byes.
On the NFC side, Green Bay and Dallas both will earn the byes, with Dallas probably still holding on to the overall home field advantage. Tampa Bay did rise to the top of the NFC South (no real surprise), Seattle has looked very solid again, and Arizona let a golden opportunity to make the playoffs slip away with a few late losses. Detroit were 6-2 at one point and look poised to finish 6-10, while the NY Giants may still hold on to the last wildcard, but they'll get thumped in the first round of the playoffs, so it won't matter. As far as who the other playoff team, who knew Minnesota would rise to the top of that mess? They were 3-6 when I wrote that post, and their season was done, now they are 8-6 with their own destiny in their hands. New Orleans still may knock the Giants out, and Minnesota looked shaky on Monday, even though they beat the Bears, so they could still finish 8-8 and miss the playoffs. They've been getting some Pittsburgh of '05 comparisons as the hot team that sneaks into the playoffs by winning a bunch of games late in the season, then doing damage as a 6 seed, but Tavaris Jackson is no Ben Roethlisberger. Adrian Peterson is a hell of a running back, but Seattle or Tampa Bay both have the kind of defense that can keep him bottled up, so I don't expect them to go on an unexpected playoff run.
It still looks like it's probably going to come down to a New England-Dallas rematch (with the same result as the regular season contest), assuming Romo's thumb isn't too seriously damaged, if his thumb is messed up, then look for a New England-Green Bay contest with Favre winning the Superbowl MVP even as New England wins the game.
Maybe if San Diego puts everything together for one magical game, they have the talent to thwart New England, but expecting a Norv Turner team to out-prepare and out-hustle, and out-execute a Bill Belichick team in a playoff game, strains credulity.
So I'll be daring and pick all the games, from Thursday to Monday, no matter how unwatchable any particular game may be (woohoo! 14-0 New England v 1-13 Miami, that's a classic in the making, right there), then I'll give my picks throughout the playoffs, of course.
Looks like my earlier playoff predictions are already way off. I was pretty close on the AFC, though I didn't predict continued success for Cleveland and a Pittsburgh mini-collapse. Cleveland and Pittsburgh both have winnable games the last two weeks, so they should both finish 11-5, which would mean Pittsburgh wins the division, and Cleveland earns one of the wildcard slots, along with Jacksonville, leaving Tennessee out of the playoffs. New England and Indianapolis have already locked up the first round byes.
On the NFC side, Green Bay and Dallas both will earn the byes, with Dallas probably still holding on to the overall home field advantage. Tampa Bay did rise to the top of the NFC South (no real surprise), Seattle has looked very solid again, and Arizona let a golden opportunity to make the playoffs slip away with a few late losses. Detroit were 6-2 at one point and look poised to finish 6-10, while the NY Giants may still hold on to the last wildcard, but they'll get thumped in the first round of the playoffs, so it won't matter. As far as who the other playoff team, who knew Minnesota would rise to the top of that mess? They were 3-6 when I wrote that post, and their season was done, now they are 8-6 with their own destiny in their hands. New Orleans still may knock the Giants out, and Minnesota looked shaky on Monday, even though they beat the Bears, so they could still finish 8-8 and miss the playoffs. They've been getting some Pittsburgh of '05 comparisons as the hot team that sneaks into the playoffs by winning a bunch of games late in the season, then doing damage as a 6 seed, but Tavaris Jackson is no Ben Roethlisberger. Adrian Peterson is a hell of a running back, but Seattle or Tampa Bay both have the kind of defense that can keep him bottled up, so I don't expect them to go on an unexpected playoff run.
It still looks like it's probably going to come down to a New England-Dallas rematch (with the same result as the regular season contest), assuming Romo's thumb isn't too seriously damaged, if his thumb is messed up, then look for a New England-Green Bay contest with Favre winning the Superbowl MVP even as New England wins the game.
Maybe if San Diego puts everything together for one magical game, they have the talent to thwart New England, but expecting a Norv Turner team to out-prepare and out-hustle, and out-execute a Bill Belichick team in a playoff game, strains credulity.
All The News That's Fit to Gestate
I'm your pregnancy rumor/news clearinghouse. I'm repurposing this website.
First off, Jessica Alba, dude?!? Dude!?! Seriously, with that Cash fella, did you really have to? Bet you still look totally hot all the way up to about the 7th month or so. And if he punks out and dumps you while you find yourself "All Spearsed-up", I promise right now to jump in and help you through this difficult time, it's the least I can do (That offer goes double for Salma Hayek, too, I know she already had her kid, and is engaged to her super-rich baby's daddy, but you know men, they're dogs, so I'll be happy to be a stepdad to your beautiful mija).
Secondly, 16 year old Jamie-Lynn Spears!!! That ain't right, at least your sister waited until she had half a decade of stardom and was old enough to vote before finding herself "in the family way". Was it Knocked Up that got you wanting a baby of your own? Or was it Juno? Or was it watching the great times your sister has had being a mother?
Fecundity, thy name is Spears.
Will being "all Spearsed-up" become the new slang for pregnant?
Sample: Yeah, I just took the EPT, and the pee stick totally shows that I'm ALL SPEARSED-UP, good thing we were thinking of having children anyway.
First off, Jessica Alba, dude?!? Dude!?! Seriously, with that Cash fella, did you really have to? Bet you still look totally hot all the way up to about the 7th month or so. And if he punks out and dumps you while you find yourself "All Spearsed-up", I promise right now to jump in and help you through this difficult time, it's the least I can do (That offer goes double for Salma Hayek, too, I know she already had her kid, and is engaged to her super-rich baby's daddy, but you know men, they're dogs, so I'll be happy to be a stepdad to your beautiful mija).
Secondly, 16 year old Jamie-Lynn Spears!!! That ain't right, at least your sister waited until she had half a decade of stardom and was old enough to vote before finding herself "in the family way". Was it Knocked Up that got you wanting a baby of your own? Or was it Juno? Or was it watching the great times your sister has had being a mother?
Fecundity, thy name is Spears.
Will being "all Spearsed-up" become the new slang for pregnant?
Sample: Yeah, I just took the EPT, and the pee stick totally shows that I'm ALL SPEARSED-UP, good thing we were thinking of having children anyway.
Shouldn't That Read, Gestating?
I'm just saying . . .
I would have gone with "GESTATING..." beneath the latest banner headline at Drudge. Looks like the Dems are about to let the scandalpalooza be unleashed upon each other. Expect revelations regarding the other top candidates to follow.
National Enquirer is a rag, and full of half truths and occasional outright lies, but with something that specific, they probably wouldn't have let hit the stands without some corroboration beyond the word of the woman claiming to be having a John Edwards 'lovebaby'.
The real question is, who paid her to come forward, the tabloids, Obama folk, or Clinton folk?
(I'm not saying the GOP is above this sort of perfidy, but they'd love to run against Sen. Edwards, so I don't see them dropping a bombshell like this before it would help them in the general election)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)