I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that the Kansas City Chiefs are not the worst team in the NFL. Honestly, I think there are at least 10 teams that are worse than us. Based on our 0-4 record, this might seem like excessive optimism. I think not.
Watching the NFL today, I realize there are a lot of Have's in the NFL right now, and there are a lot of Have Not's. I'll start with the Have's. The NFL Playoffs this season look like (barring injuries), as predictable as I've seen in a long time. There is a very defined line between the teams that are good and those that are not. This will also create great matchups for the playoffs, but little to look forward to until then.
Right now, after 4 weeks, my playoff teams are listed below:
NFC: Division Champions: Giants, Vikings, Saints, 49ers. Wild Cards: Eagles, Falcons.
AFC: Division Champions: NY Jets, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Denver. Wild Cards: Patriots, San Diego.
I would predict that by season's end, the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints will be playing in the Super Bowl. Indy is destroying teams right now, and New Orleans can even win by 20 points without Drew Brees throwing a touchdown pass.
These teams are excellent. Of that group, the Falcons and Chargers are probably the worst of the bunch, but those two are so much better than the Have Not's that it is just sad.
Let's get back to the Chiefs, and where I rank them in the Have Not's. The Have Not's include the following: Kansas City, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Tennessee, Oakland, Washington, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and St. Louis. There are 11 Have Not's, I think this is a very obvious list.
Next, let me ask you: have any of those Have Not's went through a schedule like the Chiefs? The Chiefs have played Oakland, and dominated them in every phase of the game except the final score. These teams have been able to pick up wins fighting amongst one another, the Chiefs have not had the luxury.
The Chiefs have been busy playing teams that they are not ready to beat. They are not yet designed to beat. I know this is of very little comfort, and the Chiefs might not have any fans left coming to the games once they finally get to play these teams.
I can tell you with reasonable certainty right now, that the Chiefs would beat the Buffalo Bills, Cleveland Browns, Oakland Raiders, Washington Redskins, Detroit Lions Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and St. Louis Rams more often than not. The Chiefs are not that bad in the secondary, linebacker, wide receiver, quarterback, or running back. They could be decent in the trenches, unless completely over matched.
The Baltimore Ravens, NY Giants, and Philadelphia Eagles are three teams that are greatest where the Chiefs are weakest, and those games showed that. Today showed that. These are teams that are great in the trenches and play mistake free football. They all are prime opponents to blow out the Kansas City Chiefs.
Todd Haley likes to talk about dividing his season in to quarters, and to look for progress every quarter. After the first quarter, the Chiefs are 0-4. In the second quarter, the Chiefs will play against Dallas, Washington, San Diego, and Jacksonville. Of the opponents, they probably match up worst with San Diego right now, but that game is at home.
If Todd Haley can make any improvement this season over last season, he has to start in the second quarter of the season. Dallas is a team that makes mistakes with Tony Romo at the helm. He's not confident at all right now, and their receiver play is average. If the Chiefs can fluster him with the rush, they can play good football.
Washington is a fellow Have Not. One that has had an easy schedule with games against Tampa Bay, St. Louis, and Detroit. This is a game the Chiefs match up better in. Jacksonville can run the football pretty well, however not as well as ANY of the Chiefs opponents thus far.
San Diego, of these teams, plays better football on offense, and has good potential in their front seven on defense. This could be a tough matchup.
The second and fourth quarters of the season are the ones that match up well for the Chiefs, so we can know if they are an average football teams that they will win those games. Those two quarters are going to be the difference between the Chiefs being in the class of average teams (between 12th and 20th best) and being at the bottom of the league.
I know it doesn't, but I really think they are average right now. Others might not be so optimistic, but we need a team that we match up better against. I still expect this team to win 6 games. If so, we're in the Top 20 for sure.
If the Chiefs go out and lay eggs against the Have Not's when they finally get to the breaks in the schedule, this is going to be a very depressing season. I'm not depressed yet. I see progress.
It starts with the Dallas Cowboys. Based on their game today, I can say that they have a big, powerful, clumsy offensive line. If Vrabel and Hali can get a good speed rush off the corner, and Mays/Williams/DJ can hold up in the running game, this team is going to have a shot. A 17-14 game can happen quick in a matchup with Dallas considering the mistakes Romo has been making. I think we can get to 17 against them.
Hopefully win #1 will come next week, and build momentum for the second quarter and assertion to mediocrity.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Land of Lincoln
When going through history classes in school, we are constantly bombarded with the heroes of wars past. Wars almost always involve heroes on the ground, this is acceptable and deserved. History books tell us about the Presidents and Kings who lead their nations through the war. This is seldom justified, and wars will continue into the foreseeable future.
Growing up, I believed that the Civil War was a war of necessity, of a President that wanted nothing more than to free the slaves. There are great quotes from the president that make this case: "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." His hatred of slavery is well known. The schools are the nation's propaganda machine, continuously telling us that this was the whole story. The schools tell us that Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents because slavery ended on his watch.
There are several quotes to the contrary however. Not of his hatred of slavery, but the true intentions of his war.
He was an anti-federalist, he viewed the Union first and the individual states second. The threat of war did not begin, until secession from the Union began. "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the National Authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 'The Union as it was.'" The nation divided, states exercised their Constitutional right to secession from the Union, and war began.
Lincoln gave a speech that is today famous: The House Divided. Basically, the fact that a house divided cannot stand. People tend to think this speech was naturally division into slave and anti-slave. What if this were not so? What if this speech was Federalist states and Union States, those who were Constitutionalists and those who wanted a centralized federal government?
The war was a tragedy. Over 1,000,000 soldiers lost their lives in the war. There was a great expense financially to fund such a war. The Union carried almost 70% of the soldiers who fought in the war, the South 30%. The Confederate flag, today all over the country, is viewed as a racist symbol against blacks. In the south, where it still flies, it represents individual statehood and independence to them.
What would be the ramifications of a modern President ruled over a domestic war where 3% of the total population lost their lives? Would this president be viewed as a great president when the history books are written? If a political difference lead to 9,000,000 people dying (the same percentage in today's figures) fighting amongst themselves, would we respect the leader who saw this happen?
The power of the education machine is quote astonishing. My perception of the Civil War and President Lincoln was always positive and that he fought for Human Rights. Why did the Union not simply spend the money that went to the war in purchasing the slaves, and making a Constitutional amendment outlawing the ownership and trading of slaves? If the war was for human rights, then why did it take so long to get equal rights and suffrage for blacks after the war had ended?
War is a power grab. Seldom can a ruler in war be viewed afterward favorably unless they have the power of the history book. Communist China, African Nations, Hitler's Germany, Stalin, and several others are viewed horribly in the world while the killing of their nation's people happened. Lincoln is a hero. Where does this hyprocisy come from?
Lincoln believed that the bond of the Union came first and the states that compose the Union came second. The Constitution created a very limited government with limited powers, the amendments were nothing more than human rights that would be protected and secured by the Federal Government, and it contained a final amendment that reserved all other rights to the states or the people.
The Civil War was a Federal War against States' Rights to Secession. Rights given to them by the founders. It was a huge power grab, one that is misrepresented enormously in the history books. It is really incredible, there are hundreds of quotes by the founders of our nation that identify peace, a small central government, and the rights of people and states. Lincoln exuded none of those characteristics, yet the history books tell us of his greatness.
He is in the Top 5 most dictatorial Presidents in the history of our nation, he presided over the greatest number of deaths in the history of the nation, and he cost the nation nearly as much in inflation adjusted dollars in battle of any president in history (as the only one fighting his own people).
The history books and the propaganda machine tell us one thing, but truth tells us something different. He was the first of a line of Presidents who would seek to centralize power. Lincoln started a trend, a very bad trend that centralized power which was a cornerstone in our need for secession from England.
Had Lincoln wisely bought the slaves prior to making them illegal, passed an amendment, and maintained liberty and sovereignty, he would be a hero. History books would ignore him, because war is sexy. Unfortunately they, like tabloids today, glamorize that which is sexy and ignore that which is noble and just.
Lincoln fits into the former, which is why he is less forgetable than the rest of the 19th century presidents in our history books. Who remembers anything from history class between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War anyways? The Constitutional Presidents are forgetable, war presidents will live on forever.
Growing up, I believed that the Civil War was a war of necessity, of a President that wanted nothing more than to free the slaves. There are great quotes from the president that make this case: "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." His hatred of slavery is well known. The schools are the nation's propaganda machine, continuously telling us that this was the whole story. The schools tell us that Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents because slavery ended on his watch.
There are several quotes to the contrary however. Not of his hatred of slavery, but the true intentions of his war.
He was an anti-federalist, he viewed the Union first and the individual states second. The threat of war did not begin, until secession from the Union began. "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the National Authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 'The Union as it was.'" The nation divided, states exercised their Constitutional right to secession from the Union, and war began.
Lincoln gave a speech that is today famous: The House Divided. Basically, the fact that a house divided cannot stand. People tend to think this speech was naturally division into slave and anti-slave. What if this were not so? What if this speech was Federalist states and Union States, those who were Constitutionalists and those who wanted a centralized federal government?
The war was a tragedy. Over 1,000,000 soldiers lost their lives in the war. There was a great expense financially to fund such a war. The Union carried almost 70% of the soldiers who fought in the war, the South 30%. The Confederate flag, today all over the country, is viewed as a racist symbol against blacks. In the south, where it still flies, it represents individual statehood and independence to them.
What would be the ramifications of a modern President ruled over a domestic war where 3% of the total population lost their lives? Would this president be viewed as a great president when the history books are written? If a political difference lead to 9,000,000 people dying (the same percentage in today's figures) fighting amongst themselves, would we respect the leader who saw this happen?
The power of the education machine is quote astonishing. My perception of the Civil War and President Lincoln was always positive and that he fought for Human Rights. Why did the Union not simply spend the money that went to the war in purchasing the slaves, and making a Constitutional amendment outlawing the ownership and trading of slaves? If the war was for human rights, then why did it take so long to get equal rights and suffrage for blacks after the war had ended?
War is a power grab. Seldom can a ruler in war be viewed afterward favorably unless they have the power of the history book. Communist China, African Nations, Hitler's Germany, Stalin, and several others are viewed horribly in the world while the killing of their nation's people happened. Lincoln is a hero. Where does this hyprocisy come from?
Lincoln believed that the bond of the Union came first and the states that compose the Union came second. The Constitution created a very limited government with limited powers, the amendments were nothing more than human rights that would be protected and secured by the Federal Government, and it contained a final amendment that reserved all other rights to the states or the people.
The Civil War was a Federal War against States' Rights to Secession. Rights given to them by the founders. It was a huge power grab, one that is misrepresented enormously in the history books. It is really incredible, there are hundreds of quotes by the founders of our nation that identify peace, a small central government, and the rights of people and states. Lincoln exuded none of those characteristics, yet the history books tell us of his greatness.
He is in the Top 5 most dictatorial Presidents in the history of our nation, he presided over the greatest number of deaths in the history of the nation, and he cost the nation nearly as much in inflation adjusted dollars in battle of any president in history (as the only one fighting his own people).
The history books and the propaganda machine tell us one thing, but truth tells us something different. He was the first of a line of Presidents who would seek to centralize power. Lincoln started a trend, a very bad trend that centralized power which was a cornerstone in our need for secession from England.
Had Lincoln wisely bought the slaves prior to making them illegal, passed an amendment, and maintained liberty and sovereignty, he would be a hero. History books would ignore him, because war is sexy. Unfortunately they, like tabloids today, glamorize that which is sexy and ignore that which is noble and just.
Lincoln fits into the former, which is why he is less forgetable than the rest of the 19th century presidents in our history books. Who remembers anything from history class between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War anyways? The Constitutional Presidents are forgetable, war presidents will live on forever.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Back and At It Like Never Before
This past week, I have realized something: at present I am the maddest I have ever been before and the happiest at the same time. It is really hard to attack one or the other when they are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. It's like I have two broken hands and my back itches, if I scratch my back with my broken hands I will slow the healing process down on my hands. If I leave my back alone, I am miserable. What's a guy to do?
I know, I know.....holler at Jenna to scratch my back. That one was easy, but you get the point.
On August 27th, Jenna and I welcomed Claire Jocelyn Hovey into the world. It is amazing, she is an awesome kid and everything has been wonderful in her almost three weeks of life. She's also a super baby, she was almost 22 inches long and weighed a whopping 9 pounds 12 ounces. She can hold her head up all day, is as alert as any baby I have ever seen, and is generally the epitomy of pride in the world. Parenthood is pretty awesome.
Now to my rage!!! This is going to be confusing possibly, and is going to be the subject of my posts here for a while. There is a huge power grab going on in the world right now, and it is screaming at us from all around. The government is out of control, and believe me it did not start with Barack Obama or George W. Bush. Through the out of control government, we have a world where every one votes for the self. This self that people vote for is not for individual rights and liberty, but a power grab where their elected officials rob from the pockets of others in order to benefit their agenda.
Parenthood is getting under control, and my happiness should keep me rational and reasoned. I would like to pursue a lot of topics, some starters are listed below:
1) The Civil War: a heroic war against slavery or a power grab against state secession?
2) The Holocaust: a religious mass killing spree or a Socialist power grab from the successful (the Jews are the bankers as the stereotype goes).
3) The War on Terror: a defensive war against terrorist or an occupational power grab throughout the Middle East?
4) Socialism: the most efficient war to protect the lower classes of society or a power grab for control over a nation or region's economic activity.
I'm going to dig further and think about more issues, but I am going to start here. Books could be written on each of these subjects, so I'm sure a few blog posts won't do them justice. But I'd at least like to take a reasoned look into each, at least get out the rationale, and see what I can find.
There was an excellent op-ed this week at Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty website, and I have it linked below. It discusses our natural rights to life and liberty and to our possessions which are the means to the previous to. It also discussed how the Declaration of Independence identified the government as a "Securer of Rights" and not a "Provider of Services" as it has become. How individual liberty is earned and a government that provides services must take from you in order to give it back to you.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=209
Think about the lack of power we all have over our lives. We pay insurance companies to pay our medical bills for us. If we, as a community, pay for our medical bills AND insurance company salaries/profits through our insurance contributions, then how are we less able to pay our own bills? If that makes as little sense to you as it does to me, then why is the solution to our woes to get more people buying insurance? Does that sound like a Government/Insurance Company power grab or a solution?
The issues of our day all involve a big power grab. The idea that someone else can pay our bills, take care of our children, save for our retirements, and the like is really a violation of our liberties. The idea that the government can take money and redistribute out of our wallets to the poor without standards of giving better than we can take a percentage from our own pockets to give to those who are poor AND worthy.
The idea that free individuals took back our free society from a government, and yet today our government thinks it can do a better job of building free societies overseas than their own people can.
Isn't the idea of freedom individual liberty, work, and the pursuit of one's own way? If so, where does a government fit into all of that? These are the ideas I would like to pursue in the discourse of power grabs without taking a partisan spin that is unfortunately destroying our society.
We'll see what I can come up with. Stay tuned.
I know, I know.....holler at Jenna to scratch my back. That one was easy, but you get the point.
On August 27th, Jenna and I welcomed Claire Jocelyn Hovey into the world. It is amazing, she is an awesome kid and everything has been wonderful in her almost three weeks of life. She's also a super baby, she was almost 22 inches long and weighed a whopping 9 pounds 12 ounces. She can hold her head up all day, is as alert as any baby I have ever seen, and is generally the epitomy of pride in the world. Parenthood is pretty awesome.
Now to my rage!!! This is going to be confusing possibly, and is going to be the subject of my posts here for a while. There is a huge power grab going on in the world right now, and it is screaming at us from all around. The government is out of control, and believe me it did not start with Barack Obama or George W. Bush. Through the out of control government, we have a world where every one votes for the self. This self that people vote for is not for individual rights and liberty, but a power grab where their elected officials rob from the pockets of others in order to benefit their agenda.
Parenthood is getting under control, and my happiness should keep me rational and reasoned. I would like to pursue a lot of topics, some starters are listed below:
1) The Civil War: a heroic war against slavery or a power grab against state secession?
2) The Holocaust: a religious mass killing spree or a Socialist power grab from the successful (the Jews are the bankers as the stereotype goes).
3) The War on Terror: a defensive war against terrorist or an occupational power grab throughout the Middle East?
4) Socialism: the most efficient war to protect the lower classes of society or a power grab for control over a nation or region's economic activity.
I'm going to dig further and think about more issues, but I am going to start here. Books could be written on each of these subjects, so I'm sure a few blog posts won't do them justice. But I'd at least like to take a reasoned look into each, at least get out the rationale, and see what I can find.
There was an excellent op-ed this week at Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty website, and I have it linked below. It discusses our natural rights to life and liberty and to our possessions which are the means to the previous to. It also discussed how the Declaration of Independence identified the government as a "Securer of Rights" and not a "Provider of Services" as it has become. How individual liberty is earned and a government that provides services must take from you in order to give it back to you.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=209
Think about the lack of power we all have over our lives. We pay insurance companies to pay our medical bills for us. If we, as a community, pay for our medical bills AND insurance company salaries/profits through our insurance contributions, then how are we less able to pay our own bills? If that makes as little sense to you as it does to me, then why is the solution to our woes to get more people buying insurance? Does that sound like a Government/Insurance Company power grab or a solution?
The issues of our day all involve a big power grab. The idea that someone else can pay our bills, take care of our children, save for our retirements, and the like is really a violation of our liberties. The idea that the government can take money and redistribute out of our wallets to the poor without standards of giving better than we can take a percentage from our own pockets to give to those who are poor AND worthy.
The idea that free individuals took back our free society from a government, and yet today our government thinks it can do a better job of building free societies overseas than their own people can.
Isn't the idea of freedom individual liberty, work, and the pursuit of one's own way? If so, where does a government fit into all of that? These are the ideas I would like to pursue in the discourse of power grabs without taking a partisan spin that is unfortunately destroying our society.
We'll see what I can come up with. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Hardly a Snub
James Harrison is not going to the White House when Obama hosts the Pittsburgh Steelers for their Super Bowl Championship. The world is calling is a "snub" of the Obama-machine. If the great and powerful Obama invites you to a gathering, how dare you not attend? He better not have any Ron Paul bumper stickers lying around, or else he might end up in an orange jump suit where Obama's moving the Gitmo detainee's.
There are several issues that need to be resolved here instead of calling it a snub. Let's touch on each briefly:
1) Notice that he DID NOT attend the Bush invite either. Why a big deal with Obama?
2) How much taxpayer money is being spent on this during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (says the Obama, not me)? Not only that, when will Obama say that he's too busy for a PR event (other than ACTUALLY SNUBBING dead troops at Normandy)?
3) Does the world think Harrison, as a black man, owes Obama something by attending? If Ben Roethlisburger did not show, how quick would the Obama PR machine call him a racist?
4) Since Harrison just signed another huge deal, he probably realizes he's not going to make any more money once Obama taxes his raise. Perhaps this is him showing his displeasure at the fact that he worked his ass off for a pay raise and Obama took it from him.
Most importantly, this is a NON STORY because Obama, constitutionally, is a figurehead, a nobody. The President was given the least power in the Constitution and, thus, not wanting to attend the White House should not matter. Great leaders manage subordinates, they don't steal their freedom to make their own choices and control them. Unfortunately, the world has forgotten this fact, and brought us Bush then Obama, the same machine setting out to destroy the very fabric that this nation was founded on: freedom.
Maybe Harrison recognizes all of these things. Maybe he's just scared of airplaines. I like to think he's on my side though.....
There are several issues that need to be resolved here instead of calling it a snub. Let's touch on each briefly:
1) Notice that he DID NOT attend the Bush invite either. Why a big deal with Obama?
2) How much taxpayer money is being spent on this during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (says the Obama, not me)? Not only that, when will Obama say that he's too busy for a PR event (other than ACTUALLY SNUBBING dead troops at Normandy)?
3) Does the world think Harrison, as a black man, owes Obama something by attending? If Ben Roethlisburger did not show, how quick would the Obama PR machine call him a racist?
4) Since Harrison just signed another huge deal, he probably realizes he's not going to make any more money once Obama taxes his raise. Perhaps this is him showing his displeasure at the fact that he worked his ass off for a pay raise and Obama took it from him.
Most importantly, this is a NON STORY because Obama, constitutionally, is a figurehead, a nobody. The President was given the least power in the Constitution and, thus, not wanting to attend the White House should not matter. Great leaders manage subordinates, they don't steal their freedom to make their own choices and control them. Unfortunately, the world has forgotten this fact, and brought us Bush then Obama, the same machine setting out to destroy the very fabric that this nation was founded on: freedom.
Maybe Harrison recognizes all of these things. Maybe he's just scared of airplaines. I like to think he's on my side though.....
Friday, May 8, 2009
Presidential Name Popularity
The press really picked up quite a nugget with this one. The name "Barack" has become more popular with newborns with our new president.
He does have an advantage here, I highly doubt that parents wanted to punish their children with the names George, Bill, Ronald, James, Dwight, Richard, or John to make a political statement......
He does have an advantage here, I highly doubt that parents wanted to punish their children with the names George, Bill, Ronald, James, Dwight, Richard, or John to make a political statement......
Friday, May 1, 2009
Why my 26th May will be the Worst
I just flipped my Chiefs calendar in my cube to May. I have to stare at Damien McIntosh’s fat ass for a month.
May’s gonna suck…..
May’s gonna suck…..
Friday, April 17, 2009
Top 50 Picks
Realizing how badly the Dick Vermeil years really screwed up our program, it is now obvious that we are playing catchup. The team gave away top 50 picks almost every year for "has been's," "never were's," and let's not forget for Vermeil himself. We had some good years, but the team was managed with a short term outlook in mind.
Now we find ourselves in a new era. One where we must play catch up for all of the top 50 picks we lost in the Vermeil years. Last year we had three: Dorsey, Albert, and Flowers. Three excellent fixtures for the future. Looking at the other Top 50 picks still on our team from before that, and the list is pretty slim. We have DJ, Hali, LJ, Bowe, and after that you have to fall all the way down to Tony Gonzalez. Great teams have great high-end talent. The Chiefs have not done a good enough job at getting 2-3 picks in that Top 50 every single season.
If you have 10 year pro's at every one of those picks, and you get two picks in the Top 50 every year, that means you will end up with 20 players in the Top 50. Assuming those are all starters, you have filled 20 of 22 starters of every roster with Top 50 talent.
The Chiefs are short on talent, as you can see above we only have eight, and that counts the three from last year. Of the picks I stated above, Vermeil netted two of those eight in five years. Herm Edwards netted five in three years. Vermeil should have netted 9-11 and Herm 5-7. Now we see why we are behind, yes?
This season, Pioli has only one (#3 overall) after trading for Matt Cassel. For this draft to be a success, it is necessary to convert that #3 pick into two picks in the Top 50 this year and add another one close to the Top 50 next season. If we can package Tony Gonzalez and make it three this year and another next year, then that is great.
We have added a good QB to move forward with in Matt Cassell, and a few great hole fillers with intangibles in Mike Vrabel, Zach Thomas, and Bobby Engram. Now we need young, hungry Top 50 talent. I believe Pioli sees the value in this, and I think it is in our best interest to make it happen. Either Denver or Philadelphia could make this happen. Philadelphia has shown interest by interviewing Top 5 offensive tackles in the past couple of weeks. Adding Tony Gonzalez to their receiving corps could give them a legitimate run at the NFC east title this season which would satisfy the fans, Tony Gonzalez, and Donovan McNabb. The Chiefs could get both first round picks and their second rounder for Tony G.
If not, Denver really wants Matt Sanchez, and they are drafting 12 and 18. He won't be there at 12. I wouldn't trade Tony G within the division, but I'd swap picks within it.
We have options, and we're desperate for young high-end talent. I believe Pioli sees this, and all the mocks will be wrong when the Chiefs have dropped below #3 and Curry or Monroe won't be an option. Anyone who thinks that the Chiefs should spend their ONLY Top 50 picks on an ILB (Curry) is insane.
I don't believe Pioli is insane, and I believe he is making the same observations that I am. I'm excited about this draft and management that I trust to make this decision the right way (unlike Vermeil and Carl).
Now we find ourselves in a new era. One where we must play catch up for all of the top 50 picks we lost in the Vermeil years. Last year we had three: Dorsey, Albert, and Flowers. Three excellent fixtures for the future. Looking at the other Top 50 picks still on our team from before that, and the list is pretty slim. We have DJ, Hali, LJ, Bowe, and after that you have to fall all the way down to Tony Gonzalez. Great teams have great high-end talent. The Chiefs have not done a good enough job at getting 2-3 picks in that Top 50 every single season.
If you have 10 year pro's at every one of those picks, and you get two picks in the Top 50 every year, that means you will end up with 20 players in the Top 50. Assuming those are all starters, you have filled 20 of 22 starters of every roster with Top 50 talent.
The Chiefs are short on talent, as you can see above we only have eight, and that counts the three from last year. Of the picks I stated above, Vermeil netted two of those eight in five years. Herm Edwards netted five in three years. Vermeil should have netted 9-11 and Herm 5-7. Now we see why we are behind, yes?
This season, Pioli has only one (#3 overall) after trading for Matt Cassel. For this draft to be a success, it is necessary to convert that #3 pick into two picks in the Top 50 this year and add another one close to the Top 50 next season. If we can package Tony Gonzalez and make it three this year and another next year, then that is great.
We have added a good QB to move forward with in Matt Cassell, and a few great hole fillers with intangibles in Mike Vrabel, Zach Thomas, and Bobby Engram. Now we need young, hungry Top 50 talent. I believe Pioli sees the value in this, and I think it is in our best interest to make it happen. Either Denver or Philadelphia could make this happen. Philadelphia has shown interest by interviewing Top 5 offensive tackles in the past couple of weeks. Adding Tony Gonzalez to their receiving corps could give them a legitimate run at the NFC east title this season which would satisfy the fans, Tony Gonzalez, and Donovan McNabb. The Chiefs could get both first round picks and their second rounder for Tony G.
If not, Denver really wants Matt Sanchez, and they are drafting 12 and 18. He won't be there at 12. I wouldn't trade Tony G within the division, but I'd swap picks within it.
We have options, and we're desperate for young high-end talent. I believe Pioli sees this, and all the mocks will be wrong when the Chiefs have dropped below #3 and Curry or Monroe won't be an option. Anyone who thinks that the Chiefs should spend their ONLY Top 50 picks on an ILB (Curry) is insane.
I don't believe Pioli is insane, and I believe he is making the same observations that I am. I'm excited about this draft and management that I trust to make this decision the right way (unlike Vermeil and Carl).
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Blind Leading the Blind
Today, I was looking around for investment blogs to try to get information on the markets right now. I ran across Lloyd's Investment Blog, which has takes on everything from the current recession to the correlation between player salaries and wins in Major League Baseball. It is definitely worth checking out.
I just read an interesting post of his entitled Blind Men and Elephant: on the Urgency of Asset Price Reflation. He had an interesting take on the fact that we should have acted back in 2007 (the onset of the subprime fallout and home price deflation) to stabilize asset valuations and index our Federal Reserve policy based on a stock market target (say in the S&P). This would enact a Monetary Policy that would act based on indexed economic conditions as opposed to presumed market conditions. He properly makes the parallels between the lead-in to this recession and into the Great Depression as being caused by over-indebtedness and takes it a step further to deflation. There are several analysts in the financial sector who have properly diagnosed the problems as Lloyd has, and even have created cycles which note a 60 year cycle that goes around from Peak Debt to Peak Cash and back again. We're back again.
This was one of the better Keynesian arguments I have read, as it forced the Federal Reserve to act in a way that has an index of some sort as opposed to just blindly driving the Federal Funds Rate into the ground. As much as I have respected Lloyds argument, I do have to disagree with him on the following arguments:
1) How do you value the target for the S&P or the DJIA or whatever? When the DJIA hit 14,000, would the Bush Administration & Bernacke have redrawn the line based on a new era in wealth and prosperity, even though it was largely driven by exccessive indebtedness? If it is indexed to inflation, couldn't we all determine that inflation is an unnecessary evil through effective currency stabilization and there is no need to ever increase that target? Which leads to my next point....
2) Where is the government debt at in all of this? Deflation is necessary when prices are at unsustainable levels, so what is the government deficit going to do to prolong the recession? In 3-5 years, once unemployment starts to show some slight signs of recovery, the currency is going to drop. This is going to cause massive inflation, our standard of living to drop, our assets to lose value again as the currency is worth less, and unemployment to begin once more. You cannot solve over-indebtedness with more-indebtedness, cannot solve devaluing asset prices by devaluing the only asset that everyone in this nation has: cash.
We need a nation that goes back to working and producing to solve their problems and stop waiting to see what the President, Treasury Department, or the Federal Reserve chief is going to do. When our policy makers realize that the only solution to economic woes is production and not debt and that comes from the private and not public sector, we will begin to dig out of this problem again.
These policies drove us into a Great Depression instead of simply a Bad Recession. WWII lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression because we began producing guns, trucks, bombs, planes, boats, and food necessary to go fight a war. We need to start producing the goods necessary to get us out of this recession, and begin our war with the economy.
The day that happens, the sun will start to shine on the American Superpower again. Unfortunately, until the government stops meddling in overseas affairs, giving away our sovereignty to foreign nations and organizations, and printing invisible money to give people invisible wealth and financial irresponsibility, we will continue down this road to ruin. Unfortunately, the Bush and Obama administrations have done nothing to warrant that faith, and the Republicans leading up to 2012 do not seem like the type to want the government to have less power (Romney, Palin, Jindal, and others). It's going to be tough to come out of this any time soon.
I just read an interesting post of his entitled Blind Men and Elephant: on the Urgency of Asset Price Reflation. He had an interesting take on the fact that we should have acted back in 2007 (the onset of the subprime fallout and home price deflation) to stabilize asset valuations and index our Federal Reserve policy based on a stock market target (say in the S&P). This would enact a Monetary Policy that would act based on indexed economic conditions as opposed to presumed market conditions. He properly makes the parallels between the lead-in to this recession and into the Great Depression as being caused by over-indebtedness and takes it a step further to deflation. There are several analysts in the financial sector who have properly diagnosed the problems as Lloyd has, and even have created cycles which note a 60 year cycle that goes around from Peak Debt to Peak Cash and back again. We're back again.
This was one of the better Keynesian arguments I have read, as it forced the Federal Reserve to act in a way that has an index of some sort as opposed to just blindly driving the Federal Funds Rate into the ground. As much as I have respected Lloyds argument, I do have to disagree with him on the following arguments:
1) How do you value the target for the S&P or the DJIA or whatever? When the DJIA hit 14,000, would the Bush Administration & Bernacke have redrawn the line based on a new era in wealth and prosperity, even though it was largely driven by exccessive indebtedness? If it is indexed to inflation, couldn't we all determine that inflation is an unnecessary evil through effective currency stabilization and there is no need to ever increase that target? Which leads to my next point....
2) Where is the government debt at in all of this? Deflation is necessary when prices are at unsustainable levels, so what is the government deficit going to do to prolong the recession? In 3-5 years, once unemployment starts to show some slight signs of recovery, the currency is going to drop. This is going to cause massive inflation, our standard of living to drop, our assets to lose value again as the currency is worth less, and unemployment to begin once more. You cannot solve over-indebtedness with more-indebtedness, cannot solve devaluing asset prices by devaluing the only asset that everyone in this nation has: cash.
We need a nation that goes back to working and producing to solve their problems and stop waiting to see what the President, Treasury Department, or the Federal Reserve chief is going to do. When our policy makers realize that the only solution to economic woes is production and not debt and that comes from the private and not public sector, we will begin to dig out of this problem again.
These policies drove us into a Great Depression instead of simply a Bad Recession. WWII lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression because we began producing guns, trucks, bombs, planes, boats, and food necessary to go fight a war. We need to start producing the goods necessary to get us out of this recession, and begin our war with the economy.
The day that happens, the sun will start to shine on the American Superpower again. Unfortunately, until the government stops meddling in overseas affairs, giving away our sovereignty to foreign nations and organizations, and printing invisible money to give people invisible wealth and financial irresponsibility, we will continue down this road to ruin. Unfortunately, the Bush and Obama administrations have done nothing to warrant that faith, and the Republicans leading up to 2012 do not seem like the type to want the government to have less power (Romney, Palin, Jindal, and others). It's going to be tough to come out of this any time soon.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Irony of the Medium
Bill O'Reilly was on Letterman last week, and in watching the interview it always impresses me the differences in public perception depending on your particular method of communication. Unfortunately, this really does become a liberal versus conservative discussion, but because of the sources more than ideology.
Taking O'Reilly and Letterman as examples, are we able to make a case for which one is the most knowledgeable about world affairs or which one cares about the common man the most? What about who is the funniest?
As President Obama has proved, anyone can read something written for them from a teleprompter (sometimes it is written for someone else and they read it by mistake). O'Reilly discusses talking points established for him by a writing staff behind the scenes, Letterman makes jokes written for him the same way. O'Reilly "cares" about you enough to give you the "facts" given his particular slant, Letterman makes jokes about "facts" given his political slant. Letterman has jokes written for him and he is funny, yet O'Reilly does not have jokes written for him.
Honestly, I'm not an O'Reilly fan per se. As far as news networks go, I will watch FoxNews because though I hate Karl Rove, they are represented by the fewest officials in the government who have screwed up this country. O'Reilly is not terrible, I was a Huckabee fan, and if I watch TV commentary it comes from Glenn Beck. Though Beck is a weak libertarian, he is the closest thing we have in the mainstream media. Every time I have to watch Paul Begala on CNN or have to suffer through Olbermann on MSNBC, I beg my wife to go pull a gun out of the closet and put me out of my misery.
We rely on a lot of trust in life in these matters. I trust my gut. My gut tells me that the best that I (or anyone else can do) is simply the best for ourselves and our family and friends. I can provide for myself and my family, and I want society to do the same. Neither political party is helping me with this right now, and the funny media and the actual media are doing very little to show me that they will give up slant to want that for me and everyone else.
O'Reilly is not a Conservative as he does not believe in small government, neither does Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the like. They just want big government their way. America seems just as unable to decipher the genuineness of these men's conservatism any more than I can distinguish whether or not Letterman, Leno, O'Brien, Stewart, or EVEN Colbert are funny without writers assisting them.
Let's hope one day it gets to be easier for us to truly know the sources of our worldview.
Taking O'Reilly and Letterman as examples, are we able to make a case for which one is the most knowledgeable about world affairs or which one cares about the common man the most? What about who is the funniest?
As President Obama has proved, anyone can read something written for them from a teleprompter (sometimes it is written for someone else and they read it by mistake). O'Reilly discusses talking points established for him by a writing staff behind the scenes, Letterman makes jokes written for him the same way. O'Reilly "cares" about you enough to give you the "facts" given his particular slant, Letterman makes jokes about "facts" given his political slant. Letterman has jokes written for him and he is funny, yet O'Reilly does not have jokes written for him.
Honestly, I'm not an O'Reilly fan per se. As far as news networks go, I will watch FoxNews because though I hate Karl Rove, they are represented by the fewest officials in the government who have screwed up this country. O'Reilly is not terrible, I was a Huckabee fan, and if I watch TV commentary it comes from Glenn Beck. Though Beck is a weak libertarian, he is the closest thing we have in the mainstream media. Every time I have to watch Paul Begala on CNN or have to suffer through Olbermann on MSNBC, I beg my wife to go pull a gun out of the closet and put me out of my misery.
We rely on a lot of trust in life in these matters. I trust my gut. My gut tells me that the best that I (or anyone else can do) is simply the best for ourselves and our family and friends. I can provide for myself and my family, and I want society to do the same. Neither political party is helping me with this right now, and the funny media and the actual media are doing very little to show me that they will give up slant to want that for me and everyone else.
O'Reilly is not a Conservative as he does not believe in small government, neither does Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the like. They just want big government their way. America seems just as unable to decipher the genuineness of these men's conservatism any more than I can distinguish whether or not Letterman, Leno, O'Brien, Stewart, or EVEN Colbert are funny without writers assisting them.
Let's hope one day it gets to be easier for us to truly know the sources of our worldview.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Political Correctness
Finally, foreigners have started railing on Obama's policies as well as his problems with communication and respect for foreign leaders. Several European publications have outlined Obama's poor methodology of communiating his aspirations for our nation and the world.
If foreigners were in the United States press corps, Obama would probably put them in a muzzle. Obama is already, only a couple of months in office, talking to only those reporters who will agree with his policies. He walks a fine line with the Liberal and Hispanic Publications, as he is not pulling all troops out of the Middle East or bailing out the common American citizen. He is a tax and spend corporate elitist, Liberals only agree with the first part of that mantra, and unfortunately for him John McCain and George W. Bush agree with both.
The hispanic publications also put him in a tough spot. If he wants Hillary Clinton to talk a big game on tightening the southwestern border then it is difficult for him to exclude much of his media exposure to hispanic publications. Not in terms of race, but rather due to his ignoring of accessible media outlets for organizations that do not necessarily have the best interests of the entire country at heart.
Fortunately foreigners don't have to be "politcally correct", we wouldn't have anyone to take down the Obama fraud machine.
If foreigners were in the United States press corps, Obama would probably put them in a muzzle. Obama is already, only a couple of months in office, talking to only those reporters who will agree with his policies. He walks a fine line with the Liberal and Hispanic Publications, as he is not pulling all troops out of the Middle East or bailing out the common American citizen. He is a tax and spend corporate elitist, Liberals only agree with the first part of that mantra, and unfortunately for him John McCain and George W. Bush agree with both.
The hispanic publications also put him in a tough spot. If he wants Hillary Clinton to talk a big game on tightening the southwestern border then it is difficult for him to exclude much of his media exposure to hispanic publications. Not in terms of race, but rather due to his ignoring of accessible media outlets for organizations that do not necessarily have the best interests of the entire country at heart.
Fortunately foreigners don't have to be "politcally correct", we wouldn't have anyone to take down the Obama fraud machine.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Out of It....
I have been out of it for the past couple of weeks. Here are some observations about the world:
1) President Obama is digging his own political grave. He defends the indefendable in his own cabinet, he keeps taking the blame for Congress screwing up legislation as well as for his own cabinet appointees having troubled pasts, and he is overextending himself in the media. Not only that, but he's a complete partisan. He's limiting media exclusives to individuals in at the Huffinton Post, Black Enterprise, hispanic television networks, and blowing off the Washington Press Corps. Seems to me he's showing his true agenda for the economy when he talks to liberal bloggers and minority-based publications instead of economists, business publications, and major news networks.
2) The NCAA Tournament is the best time of the year for sports, bar none. Mizzou is putting up a fight, but the thought of having to play their next three against Memphis, UConn, and Louisville is very daunting. It has been an excellent season, and another one close to it is going to get the recruits back to looking at the black and gold as a strong place to play.
3) Royals season is coming up, and this town should be excited. Jacobs and Teahan have been destroying the ball, Davies is solidifying the #3 spot in the rotation with ease, and the team has a true leadoff threat. When in the past have the Royals had a solid leadoff batter, slugger, three starters, a lights out closer, and 20+ homer potential from 6 guys in their lineup? AL Central title, here we come.
4) The events happening in the United States are just alarming. The worst part of it all, is that the Government keeps refering to the current US Economy as a "Capitalist" system which does nothing more than give Capitalism a bad name. Capitalism was once, when pure and free, the most efficient system in human history for allocating resources based on individual freedom, choice, preference, and intelligence. Today, we have a government that tells us what we are going to buy, what businesses it is going to prop up, and fixes prices on things such as incomes, bonuses, health care procedures, and more. The funny thing about it all, is that the industries where the United States has faltered the most in recent years (lending, housing, health care, food products, energy, etc.) are also the ones which the government has the most control over through subsidies, regulations, and monopoly protection. Now they ask for more control. The irony is that the government will give itself power with no consultation of the people that control it.
Here are my recommendations for what to do about the world: e-mail your congressman and tell them that you will vote every single incumbent to power out of office unless they start voting themselves less power over your life (regardless of party affiliation), watch the NCAA tournament and cheer loudly, go out to the K and support the Royals this season because if they're in a pennant race that revenue will help them add that one bat or pitcher at the trade deadline to put themselves over the top, and watch Obama fumble around his speeches and jokes and laugh at him continuously. He's making several mistakes, and the media is going to turn on him in the very near future.
He's the new Bush. When you alienate members of the media and do not listen to the will of the people, you will be destroyed politically. The White House should be the summit, not a black hole where the president goes to die politically. Obama will make president #2 to commit political suicide in the White House. Let's hope the people vote him out of power sooner than they did Bush.
1) President Obama is digging his own political grave. He defends the indefendable in his own cabinet, he keeps taking the blame for Congress screwing up legislation as well as for his own cabinet appointees having troubled pasts, and he is overextending himself in the media. Not only that, but he's a complete partisan. He's limiting media exclusives to individuals in at the Huffinton Post, Black Enterprise, hispanic television networks, and blowing off the Washington Press Corps. Seems to me he's showing his true agenda for the economy when he talks to liberal bloggers and minority-based publications instead of economists, business publications, and major news networks.
2) The NCAA Tournament is the best time of the year for sports, bar none. Mizzou is putting up a fight, but the thought of having to play their next three against Memphis, UConn, and Louisville is very daunting. It has been an excellent season, and another one close to it is going to get the recruits back to looking at the black and gold as a strong place to play.
3) Royals season is coming up, and this town should be excited. Jacobs and Teahan have been destroying the ball, Davies is solidifying the #3 spot in the rotation with ease, and the team has a true leadoff threat. When in the past have the Royals had a solid leadoff batter, slugger, three starters, a lights out closer, and 20+ homer potential from 6 guys in their lineup? AL Central title, here we come.
4) The events happening in the United States are just alarming. The worst part of it all, is that the Government keeps refering to the current US Economy as a "Capitalist" system which does nothing more than give Capitalism a bad name. Capitalism was once, when pure and free, the most efficient system in human history for allocating resources based on individual freedom, choice, preference, and intelligence. Today, we have a government that tells us what we are going to buy, what businesses it is going to prop up, and fixes prices on things such as incomes, bonuses, health care procedures, and more. The funny thing about it all, is that the industries where the United States has faltered the most in recent years (lending, housing, health care, food products, energy, etc.) are also the ones which the government has the most control over through subsidies, regulations, and monopoly protection. Now they ask for more control. The irony is that the government will give itself power with no consultation of the people that control it.
Here are my recommendations for what to do about the world: e-mail your congressman and tell them that you will vote every single incumbent to power out of office unless they start voting themselves less power over your life (regardless of party affiliation), watch the NCAA tournament and cheer loudly, go out to the K and support the Royals this season because if they're in a pennant race that revenue will help them add that one bat or pitcher at the trade deadline to put themselves over the top, and watch Obama fumble around his speeches and jokes and laugh at him continuously. He's making several mistakes, and the media is going to turn on him in the very near future.
He's the new Bush. When you alienate members of the media and do not listen to the will of the people, you will be destroyed politically. The White House should be the summit, not a black hole where the president goes to die politically. Obama will make president #2 to commit political suicide in the White House. Let's hope the people vote him out of power sooner than they did Bush.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Pursuit of Fairness in Marriage
Marriage is really a great thing, possibly the greatest thing that we embark on in this life. From my perspective, it is the ultimate pursuit of happiness that we can embark on. As the right to pursue happiness is outlined in the United States Constitution, is this great thing entitled to us through this statement? Since I am infact married, I'm sure you would all say that I have a vested interest in the success of it, or it is something I am invested in.
It is my perspective that every individual in this great nation should have a happy marriage, be free to pursue having children and all of those wonderful things that come from a peaceful marriage. Considering the government has moved in a direction of late to "protecting our life, liberty, and happiness" instead of "protecting our right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," it is my perception that it is the government's role to see that we are all married and that we live our lives married.
Bear with me here, because I know this goes against the main stream. This might be crazy talk to all of you. If everyone always had someone to come home to and vent about their day or to share in all of their professional achievements, overall loneliness would be diminished. Suicides might decline in this country if everyone had someone. Why should the population's happiness be limited in the pursuit of love that is always an emotional struggle? If it was entitled by the state, would we not be all the happier from the start and be lacking happiness for a smaller portion of our lives?
Not only this, but since the supply of "desirable" spouses is probably not 100%, then the government can "subsidize" those who are stuck with less desirable spouses. This way, if you're marriage isn't great then the government can give you a little bit back if through your own choice of a spouse or the unfortunate events beyond your control. Happiness is the ultimate goal here, and the state should do what is in its power to make it happen.
The power wielded in order to get a schmuck like me married is certain to infringe on the rights of another. No one would want to be married to me, but if the government paid them to do it then we would all be better off. I would be married to someone with which I have not earned and someone would be married to me, an individual which reduces their standard of life. It's all fair isn't it, in the name of ultimate happiness?
Perhaps so. As it is the place of the government in these unsettling times to take earned property and added happiness from individuals and giving to others who through their own actions or circumstance are less fortunate, why limit "happiness" to mere money. Money is the root of all evil, but love is what truly sustains us (or can build a bridge as Hilary Clinton would say).
Would this system water down marriage? Is what makes marriages great the pursuit of that ultimate happiness? Is it sweeter if you had to work for it? If it takes work once you have it day in and day out, does that make it more moral or honorable? Are you less likely to "default" on it if you could lose it? If you ultimately find your own spouse through your own struggle, do you find someone more your equal and not someone who will ultimately make you less happy?
If the system was set up this way, it is certain that some would leave the pursuit of marriage up to circumstance so as to avoid the emotional costs associated with its pursuit. Some would continue to pursue that ultimate happiness without the entitlement of marriage.
The ultimate question is whether the happiness and emotional protection that comes with marriage is entiteled to us all. If the government can make the "beautiful, selfless, and intelligent" a little less happy to make all of society happy in the realm of financial security through redistribution of their finances, then why not give ultimate emotional security to society in with the redistribution of their emotional excesses?
It's only fair. Shouldn't the most happy be a little less happy to make all of society not depressed?
It is my perspective that every individual in this great nation should have a happy marriage, be free to pursue having children and all of those wonderful things that come from a peaceful marriage. Considering the government has moved in a direction of late to "protecting our life, liberty, and happiness" instead of "protecting our right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," it is my perception that it is the government's role to see that we are all married and that we live our lives married.
Bear with me here, because I know this goes against the main stream. This might be crazy talk to all of you. If everyone always had someone to come home to and vent about their day or to share in all of their professional achievements, overall loneliness would be diminished. Suicides might decline in this country if everyone had someone. Why should the population's happiness be limited in the pursuit of love that is always an emotional struggle? If it was entitled by the state, would we not be all the happier from the start and be lacking happiness for a smaller portion of our lives?
Not only this, but since the supply of "desirable" spouses is probably not 100%, then the government can "subsidize" those who are stuck with less desirable spouses. This way, if you're marriage isn't great then the government can give you a little bit back if through your own choice of a spouse or the unfortunate events beyond your control. Happiness is the ultimate goal here, and the state should do what is in its power to make it happen.
The power wielded in order to get a schmuck like me married is certain to infringe on the rights of another. No one would want to be married to me, but if the government paid them to do it then we would all be better off. I would be married to someone with which I have not earned and someone would be married to me, an individual which reduces their standard of life. It's all fair isn't it, in the name of ultimate happiness?
Perhaps so. As it is the place of the government in these unsettling times to take earned property and added happiness from individuals and giving to others who through their own actions or circumstance are less fortunate, why limit "happiness" to mere money. Money is the root of all evil, but love is what truly sustains us (or can build a bridge as Hilary Clinton would say).
Would this system water down marriage? Is what makes marriages great the pursuit of that ultimate happiness? Is it sweeter if you had to work for it? If it takes work once you have it day in and day out, does that make it more moral or honorable? Are you less likely to "default" on it if you could lose it? If you ultimately find your own spouse through your own struggle, do you find someone more your equal and not someone who will ultimately make you less happy?
If the system was set up this way, it is certain that some would leave the pursuit of marriage up to circumstance so as to avoid the emotional costs associated with its pursuit. Some would continue to pursue that ultimate happiness without the entitlement of marriage.
The ultimate question is whether the happiness and emotional protection that comes with marriage is entiteled to us all. If the government can make the "beautiful, selfless, and intelligent" a little less happy to make all of society happy in the realm of financial security through redistribution of their finances, then why not give ultimate emotional security to society in with the redistribution of their emotional excesses?
It's only fair. Shouldn't the most happy be a little less happy to make all of society not depressed?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
M-I-Z-Z-O-U....You Break My Heart
Come on Mizzou. I don't understand how you can't get up for a game in Lawrence. It just makes me sick. How can a team consistently look good against other good teams, then tank against KU in Lawrence? Last night, Missouri destroyed Oklahoma in Columbia. Blake Griffin, the likely NCAA player of the year, was playing. KU barely beat OU with Griffin in the lineup, and Mizzou obliterated them with him. Why couldn't they take that intensity to Lawrence?
I understand it is a hostile crowd, and you're constantly getting hit on by men. I could see how that would be a distraction. But come on, you haven't won there in years and it's like a 3 hour drive. You should spend the first 5 minutes of the game putting anyone who comes in the lane on their back. If Cole Aldrich tries that back door cut for an 'oop and dunk, Lyons and Carrol should stop, turn their back into him, "box him out," and take his legs out from under him.
I know this all sounds harsh, but that's how you win on the road. No one wants to play on the road. You have to make the home team not want to be playing that game either. Mizzou wanted nothing to do with KU, and it is unfortunate.
They could have made a great season something really special.
I understand it is a hostile crowd, and you're constantly getting hit on by men. I could see how that would be a distraction. But come on, you haven't won there in years and it's like a 3 hour drive. You should spend the first 5 minutes of the game putting anyone who comes in the lane on their back. If Cole Aldrich tries that back door cut for an 'oop and dunk, Lyons and Carrol should stop, turn their back into him, "box him out," and take his legs out from under him.
I know this all sounds harsh, but that's how you win on the road. No one wants to play on the road. You have to make the home team not want to be playing that game either. Mizzou wanted nothing to do with KU, and it is unfortunate.
They could have made a great season something really special.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
'D' is for Douche....
I thought that polarization and mockery was reserved for politicians with an 'R' next to their name. Also, I'm thankful that the same CNN that reported on the Clinton's cat-tragedy (family cat died) and negatively portrayed Giuliani's mockery of Obama's "Presidential Experience" as a community organizer at the GOP Convention while encouraging the mockery of the right.
I'm sick and tired of every leftist moron who thinks that Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Karl Rove (whooo, chills, huh?) are worse than the likes of Paul Begala, James Carville, Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others. Get a clue, they're all polarizing power hungry jackasses.
Are the journalism schools just teaching all of our little AP writers to all be liberal d-bags? Oh wait, I already know the answer to that question.....
I'm sick and tired of every leftist moron who thinks that Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Karl Rove (whooo, chills, huh?) are worse than the likes of Paul Begala, James Carville, Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others. Get a clue, they're all polarizing power hungry jackasses.
Are the journalism schools just teaching all of our little AP writers to all be liberal d-bags? Oh wait, I already know the answer to that question.....
Buy Cheap
Complete conspiracy theorist here, please ignore if you don't assume that the worst is possible.
One week ago, when someone in the press (finally) pointed out to Robert Gibbs that every time Obama does something to "fix" the economy, the stock market drops about 5-10%. His response, was a short statement that the stock market should not be a gauge for the economic success of the administration. Why not? Weren't we merely protecting the lost income of people's 401k's and such? That was a major point of the Obama campaign, but if they don't care about the stock market then how are they going to protect people's retirement?
Yesterday, I read the Communist Manifesto. I wanted to read up on the psycho-babble of the other side. Interestingly, it spoke of a time when the bourgeois will gain so much economic ground on the proletariats that there will need to be a revolution among the proletariats. Property will have to be destroyed and rebuilt so as to end the growth and once the revolution spreads to governmental control, then we move toward an era where private property is no more and the proletariat no longer works merely to pay the bourgeois.
I see this coming true in today's society. Property has been destroyed (or at least the value of homes and automobiles) through the government (not the bourgeois) protecting unsustainable growth. Now, the stock prices are plunging and the leader of the "free" world does not care. How could this be? Why would the lost wealth of those who voted him into power not sway his personal agenda?
Could the government be planning the takeover of all private property and wealth? If in 2010 or 2011, the DJIA drops to about 3,500-4,000 points, will the Obama-led facist state buy the economy on the cheap and run it through the totalitarian state? What if Europe is in on the scam, and this is the reason why Gordon Brown (the leftist who is going to lose reelection in 2 years bad) is in the United States working on a "Global New Deal" to end the recession. Perhaps this "deal" involves a massive debt on the backs of every goverment (taxpayer) in the western world so as to not see any major currency shock on either side? The potential insanity is endless, and the nation (not me personally, I voted for Bob Barr) were dupped by the ultimate tease. Obama is the ultimate panderer, the ultimate fraud, and the ultimate destroyer of everything that America was built on.
It's all highly unlikely. But it makes you wonder why a president would be so foolish to make such a statement? Since he's spent his time giving us all the worst thus far, I will continue to assume the worst is to come. When he stops taking from me (a producer) to give to others (unproductive) in the name of making me better off, I will stop assuming that the worst is to come.
One week ago, when someone in the press (finally) pointed out to Robert Gibbs that every time Obama does something to "fix" the economy, the stock market drops about 5-10%. His response, was a short statement that the stock market should not be a gauge for the economic success of the administration. Why not? Weren't we merely protecting the lost income of people's 401k's and such? That was a major point of the Obama campaign, but if they don't care about the stock market then how are they going to protect people's retirement?
Yesterday, I read the Communist Manifesto. I wanted to read up on the psycho-babble of the other side. Interestingly, it spoke of a time when the bourgeois will gain so much economic ground on the proletariats that there will need to be a revolution among the proletariats. Property will have to be destroyed and rebuilt so as to end the growth and once the revolution spreads to governmental control, then we move toward an era where private property is no more and the proletariat no longer works merely to pay the bourgeois.
I see this coming true in today's society. Property has been destroyed (or at least the value of homes and automobiles) through the government (not the bourgeois) protecting unsustainable growth. Now, the stock prices are plunging and the leader of the "free" world does not care. How could this be? Why would the lost wealth of those who voted him into power not sway his personal agenda?
Could the government be planning the takeover of all private property and wealth? If in 2010 or 2011, the DJIA drops to about 3,500-4,000 points, will the Obama-led facist state buy the economy on the cheap and run it through the totalitarian state? What if Europe is in on the scam, and this is the reason why Gordon Brown (the leftist who is going to lose reelection in 2 years bad) is in the United States working on a "Global New Deal" to end the recession. Perhaps this "deal" involves a massive debt on the backs of every goverment (taxpayer) in the western world so as to not see any major currency shock on either side? The potential insanity is endless, and the nation (not me personally, I voted for Bob Barr) were dupped by the ultimate tease. Obama is the ultimate panderer, the ultimate fraud, and the ultimate destroyer of everything that America was built on.
It's all highly unlikely. But it makes you wonder why a president would be so foolish to make such a statement? Since he's spent his time giving us all the worst thus far, I will continue to assume the worst is to come. When he stops taking from me (a producer) to give to others (unproductive) in the name of making me better off, I will stop assuming that the worst is to come.
Sorry Roland, but....
you love earmarks. We don't.
See, normal people realize that priviate companies buy private land and build private enterprise that leads to private individuals buying private goods and services. Morons who don't see past the handout "secretly love earmarks." Also, intelligent people realize that the an earmark is not free money. If it was then we would all love earmarkts.
The fact is, Roland, that if earmark spending is (as Obama put it) 0.1% of the federal budget, that the $25,000 in taxes that a $150,000 paid in household led to that individual paying $25 for a bridge to nowhere and a reservoir in some other part of the country. That if 30% of the federal budget is spent on the military empire, that the individual spent $8,333.33 to police the world. That if entitlements are 50% of the federal budget, the individual spent $12,500.00 for medicare and social security that could have went to one hell of a retirement and health care plan on their own. If an individual is making $30,000 and is in the 10% tax bracket, you all can do the math. Trust me it's the same problem.
The government is destroying the individual for the public good, and Roland Martin is trying to shove down our throat that we secretly love it. No Roland Martin, I love my home, my car, my family, my savings, my monthly budget, and all of the things that my wife and I have built up FOR OURSELVES. I do not love earmarks, and I sure as hell don't need you to tell me what I do and don't love.
When will people realize that the federal government taking money from people with no vested interest in a water park in South Dakota, or a reservoir in New Mexico, or a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska is wrong. The founders of this nation built a Federalist system that decreed that local governments will have most of the control of governing this nation. If a locale or state wants a socialist system, they can do it and leave the rest of us alone. If they want free trade, low taxes, no entitelements, and to build up their personal health care and retirements on their own, they are free to do so.
If liberals in California want the government do run all of these projects that the rest of the country wants to be private, then let them. But DON'T make the rest of us pay for it.
Roland Martin. You publicly love earmarks, you don't speak for the public. You are an idiot.....
See, normal people realize that priviate companies buy private land and build private enterprise that leads to private individuals buying private goods and services. Morons who don't see past the handout "secretly love earmarks." Also, intelligent people realize that the an earmark is not free money. If it was then we would all love earmarkts.
The fact is, Roland, that if earmark spending is (as Obama put it) 0.1% of the federal budget, that the $25,000 in taxes that a $150,000 paid in household led to that individual paying $25 for a bridge to nowhere and a reservoir in some other part of the country. That if 30% of the federal budget is spent on the military empire, that the individual spent $8,333.33 to police the world. That if entitlements are 50% of the federal budget, the individual spent $12,500.00 for medicare and social security that could have went to one hell of a retirement and health care plan on their own. If an individual is making $30,000 and is in the 10% tax bracket, you all can do the math. Trust me it's the same problem.
The government is destroying the individual for the public good, and Roland Martin is trying to shove down our throat that we secretly love it. No Roland Martin, I love my home, my car, my family, my savings, my monthly budget, and all of the things that my wife and I have built up FOR OURSELVES. I do not love earmarks, and I sure as hell don't need you to tell me what I do and don't love.
When will people realize that the federal government taking money from people with no vested interest in a water park in South Dakota, or a reservoir in New Mexico, or a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska is wrong. The founders of this nation built a Federalist system that decreed that local governments will have most of the control of governing this nation. If a locale or state wants a socialist system, they can do it and leave the rest of us alone. If they want free trade, low taxes, no entitelements, and to build up their personal health care and retirements on their own, they are free to do so.
If liberals in California want the government do run all of these projects that the rest of the country wants to be private, then let them. But DON'T make the rest of us pay for it.
Roland Martin. You publicly love earmarks, you don't speak for the public. You are an idiot.....
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
This All Must End
Barack Obama is not going to need an entire term to destroy the foundation with which this nation was built upon, he's probably going to need six months. We are a nation that was built on localized control, that solved our own problems and stayed away from the problems of the rest of the world, and believed in individual liberty and freedom. Barack Obama is single-handedly destroying our freedoms more and more by the day. Don't believe me:
Economic Freedom and National Economic Independence
Personal Doctor/Patient Relationships with Regard to Health Care Decision Making
Raising our Taxes while Appointing Tax Dodgers
Running Up Deficits and Policies that will Enslave our Children and Grandchildren to Terribly High Taxes - as well as looking the public in the eye and lying to them about his tax/spending ambitions
A Government that tell you Who to Hire, What to Pay them, What Race/Gender they will be, and What they will take from You to give to who They Want
Running a Communist-esque cabinet filled with a "Who's Who Among Corporate/Washington Elites" while signing excessive numbers of executive orders into law to make political statements while ignoring the loss of civil liberties due to the United States government around the world
Decreasing the Charitable Tax Deductions which will REDUCE charitable contributions in the United States by an estimated $4 billion while increasing governmental charitable giving by $100 million (net loss of $3.9 billion)
Working with one Nuclear Facist to slow the ambitions of another Facist while ignoring free people in Eastern Europe who fear the Imperialist ambitions of Russia
I could go on, but this is a very scary time. This is a nation that is destroying itself by entitlement spending (which soon after Obama's budget deficit FALLS to $533B while drive the budget back up), by handing over our liberties and our personal responsibility to our government, that believes that a corrupt government can dictate what we can afford more than we can, that redistributes BOTH wealth AND troops from one war to another, and on and on.
The government needs to dictate a nation where YOU decide how much health care you can afford, YOU save for YOUR retirement, YOU negotiate deals for YOUR home that YOU can afford, YOU decide the classification of YOUR relationships and the government does not, YOU negotiate your salary and benefits, YOU pay your employees, YOU are responsible for the future success/failure of YOUR business, YOU own YOUR property, YOU pursue YOUR own success and happiness without government intrusion. YOUR cell phone calls are YOURS, YOUR relationships are YOURS, YOUR money is YOURS, YOUR pursuit of YOUR property and more of it is YOURS, it goes on and on.
The freedom of the INDIVIDUAL is being destroyed by governmental expedience. We cannot print money out of control, and we certainly cannot have a "Global New Deal" to combat the recession. Recessions happen. Guess what? A massive housing and debt bubble has burst. Things will get better as soon as the government stops propping up housing and debt (which Obama said he would continue in the Congressional Address). Not only is he aiming to "redistribute" from the successful to the unsuccessful (bailouts take from productive to give to non-productive business in addition to rich/poor), but he's aiming to redistribute American wealth to the world through the Global New Deal.
It is disgusting. It must come to an end or we will be bankrupt and slaves to a totalitarian state.
Economic Freedom and National Economic Independence
Personal Doctor/Patient Relationships with Regard to Health Care Decision Making
Raising our Taxes while Appointing Tax Dodgers
Running Up Deficits and Policies that will Enslave our Children and Grandchildren to Terribly High Taxes - as well as looking the public in the eye and lying to them about his tax/spending ambitions
A Government that tell you Who to Hire, What to Pay them, What Race/Gender they will be, and What they will take from You to give to who They Want
Running a Communist-esque cabinet filled with a "Who's Who Among Corporate/Washington Elites" while signing excessive numbers of executive orders into law to make political statements while ignoring the loss of civil liberties due to the United States government around the world
Decreasing the Charitable Tax Deductions which will REDUCE charitable contributions in the United States by an estimated $4 billion while increasing governmental charitable giving by $100 million (net loss of $3.9 billion)
Working with one Nuclear Facist to slow the ambitions of another Facist while ignoring free people in Eastern Europe who fear the Imperialist ambitions of Russia
I could go on, but this is a very scary time. This is a nation that is destroying itself by entitlement spending (which soon after Obama's budget deficit FALLS to $533B while drive the budget back up), by handing over our liberties and our personal responsibility to our government, that believes that a corrupt government can dictate what we can afford more than we can, that redistributes BOTH wealth AND troops from one war to another, and on and on.
The government needs to dictate a nation where YOU decide how much health care you can afford, YOU save for YOUR retirement, YOU negotiate deals for YOUR home that YOU can afford, YOU decide the classification of YOUR relationships and the government does not, YOU negotiate your salary and benefits, YOU pay your employees, YOU are responsible for the future success/failure of YOUR business, YOU own YOUR property, YOU pursue YOUR own success and happiness without government intrusion. YOUR cell phone calls are YOURS, YOUR relationships are YOURS, YOUR money is YOURS, YOUR pursuit of YOUR property and more of it is YOURS, it goes on and on.
The freedom of the INDIVIDUAL is being destroyed by governmental expedience. We cannot print money out of control, and we certainly cannot have a "Global New Deal" to combat the recession. Recessions happen. Guess what? A massive housing and debt bubble has burst. Things will get better as soon as the government stops propping up housing and debt (which Obama said he would continue in the Congressional Address). Not only is he aiming to "redistribute" from the successful to the unsuccessful (bailouts take from productive to give to non-productive business in addition to rich/poor), but he's aiming to redistribute American wealth to the world through the Global New Deal.
It is disgusting. It must come to an end or we will be bankrupt and slaves to a totalitarian state.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Let History Guide Decision on Socialism
We presently live in a nation teetering on the brink of Socialism. It is the word of the day. People (or businesses) cannot be trusted to dictate the supply, pricing, payroll, and overall direction of their companies. In the United States, moving this direction is the desire of many, as people have jumped off the deep end and decided that the government is more trustworthy than they are.
Think about it, the Constitution of the United States outlined a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people have decided that as long as they have job, health care, and the opportunity to pay 25% of their money in debt, 50% in taxes, and keep 25% of it for their own sustenance that it is acceptable. They have decided that they are entitled to health care, a retirement, an overpriced home, and such paid for by other people. If they get them then it is acceptable to reform this nation into "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Does history dictate that this is possible or rational?
Current events around the world paint a rather unflattering picture of Socialism. The only parts of the world actually lifting people out of poverty reside in Asia, and China, Japan, and India are three of the freest traders and most powerful producers in the world. Poverty (and recessions) cease to exist in the conditions of productivity and economic freedom. There is ascending Capitalism on the continent of Asia.
Next, we move to Europe, which is very popularly labeled as a beacon for Socialism by the right and is the desire of the left. Seldom does the media explain to us all that the government is reducing its share of GDP in nations in Europe as opposed to increasing. Nations with governments that were once 40-50% of national GDP are actually doing less, and for the better. They are realizing the grand illusion that if you take everything from the rich above a certain line, you still are unable to pay for Socialist ambitions as the rich will decide not to pay themselves so much if it means redistribution of their work to someone else. As this system is not sustainable, the government must eventually take less, influence less, and leave life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness to the people and not to the nation.
And then there is the United States. There is now this 2% illusion (or lunacy) of Barack Obama regarding taking from the rich to subsidize a lack of success. The United States is moving toward a 35% government share of GDP by 2010 when the Socialist nations in Europe are moving down into the upper 30's. They have learned their lesson, and Obama ignores the lessons learned by others to believe that he's different. He chooses to NOT look to the loss of poverty in Asia, to NOT look at how unsustainable Socialism is to nations in Europe, and to look at governing selfishness alone. When one believes that they can fix someone else's problems, they will be sadly mistaken. History has spoken.
Fix someone else, they fix their own problems. Fix their problem, they're bound to repeat the events that lead to their problems in the first place. Economies that facilitate work and production are economies that lift people out of poverty through their own economic freedom, choice, and through the very work of their lives teach them that all of life (career and personal) takes work. Economies that facilitate spending and entitlement like the United States reward no work, no production, and are doomed to see GDP decline, tax revenues decline, poverty to increase, and wealth to decline.
Not only that, but the government will be so far in debt that it will be rendered insolvent. Hopefully Obama looks at history sooner or later and go back to learning as opposed to believing he has the answers. He's been campaigning since he was in college, perhaps it's time he opened up a newspaper, magazine, or a certain blog!
Think about it, the Constitution of the United States outlined a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people have decided that as long as they have job, health care, and the opportunity to pay 25% of their money in debt, 50% in taxes, and keep 25% of it for their own sustenance that it is acceptable. They have decided that they are entitled to health care, a retirement, an overpriced home, and such paid for by other people. If they get them then it is acceptable to reform this nation into "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Does history dictate that this is possible or rational?
Current events around the world paint a rather unflattering picture of Socialism. The only parts of the world actually lifting people out of poverty reside in Asia, and China, Japan, and India are three of the freest traders and most powerful producers in the world. Poverty (and recessions) cease to exist in the conditions of productivity and economic freedom. There is ascending Capitalism on the continent of Asia.
Next, we move to Europe, which is very popularly labeled as a beacon for Socialism by the right and is the desire of the left. Seldom does the media explain to us all that the government is reducing its share of GDP in nations in Europe as opposed to increasing. Nations with governments that were once 40-50% of national GDP are actually doing less, and for the better. They are realizing the grand illusion that if you take everything from the rich above a certain line, you still are unable to pay for Socialist ambitions as the rich will decide not to pay themselves so much if it means redistribution of their work to someone else. As this system is not sustainable, the government must eventually take less, influence less, and leave life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness to the people and not to the nation.
And then there is the United States. There is now this 2% illusion (or lunacy) of Barack Obama regarding taking from the rich to subsidize a lack of success. The United States is moving toward a 35% government share of GDP by 2010 when the Socialist nations in Europe are moving down into the upper 30's. They have learned their lesson, and Obama ignores the lessons learned by others to believe that he's different. He chooses to NOT look to the loss of poverty in Asia, to NOT look at how unsustainable Socialism is to nations in Europe, and to look at governing selfishness alone. When one believes that they can fix someone else's problems, they will be sadly mistaken. History has spoken.
Fix someone else, they fix their own problems. Fix their problem, they're bound to repeat the events that lead to their problems in the first place. Economies that facilitate work and production are economies that lift people out of poverty through their own economic freedom, choice, and through the very work of their lives teach them that all of life (career and personal) takes work. Economies that facilitate spending and entitlement like the United States reward no work, no production, and are doomed to see GDP decline, tax revenues decline, poverty to increase, and wealth to decline.
Not only that, but the government will be so far in debt that it will be rendered insolvent. Hopefully Obama looks at history sooner or later and go back to learning as opposed to believing he has the answers. He's been campaigning since he was in college, perhaps it's time he opened up a newspaper, magazine, or a certain blog!
Friday, February 27, 2009
First "What Have We Done" Moment
If Whitlock is right, then it took about six weeks to get really unhappy with the Pioli/Haley partnership. If Brian Waters, as probably the #2 or #3 leader of this team, paid for a flight out of his own money to come to Kansas City and meet with the coaching staff, and be shown the respect (or lack of) that he was by Pioli/Haley, then there may be dark days ahead.
According to "sources with knowledge of the situation," Pioli snubbed his team's strongest vocal leader and perennial Pro Bowler. In New England, Brian Waters is probably Teddy Bruschi. If Gonzalez is the Tom Brady of this team then Waters is probably the Bruschi. Would Pioli have snubbed Bruschi in New England?
Haley on the other hand, reportedly talked to Waters in a "hallway conversation" and told him that the players here are nothing and that anyone off the street can win two games. According to Arizona Cardinals' players at the Pro Bowl, Haley is apparently a complete prick. Did anyone inform him that a bunch of morons off the street could have walked into New England and put up 7 points in the snow?
This is not a good sign for the future. Now, I will go forward and say that if a trade does happen, and a couple of decent draft picks come from it, then great. I'm on board. But I would have been on board without management being arrogant. I didn't need Peterson to be an ass to get me on board for three high picks for Jared Allen, and I don't need Pioli/Haley being asses to get me on board for two picks for Waters.
I should consider the source. Whitlock is the drama-queen Paris Hilton of Kansas City's sports media elite, and they will both leave you irritated all day afterwards. This could be a complete farce. This could very well be a small disrespecting and Waters merely "considering" a change of scenery.
But it sure doesn't sound good. Whitlock, thanks for the crabs for the day. Now I'm going to be irritated until I hear some good news about the Chiefs.
According to "sources with knowledge of the situation," Pioli snubbed his team's strongest vocal leader and perennial Pro Bowler. In New England, Brian Waters is probably Teddy Bruschi. If Gonzalez is the Tom Brady of this team then Waters is probably the Bruschi. Would Pioli have snubbed Bruschi in New England?
Haley on the other hand, reportedly talked to Waters in a "hallway conversation" and told him that the players here are nothing and that anyone off the street can win two games. According to Arizona Cardinals' players at the Pro Bowl, Haley is apparently a complete prick. Did anyone inform him that a bunch of morons off the street could have walked into New England and put up 7 points in the snow?
This is not a good sign for the future. Now, I will go forward and say that if a trade does happen, and a couple of decent draft picks come from it, then great. I'm on board. But I would have been on board without management being arrogant. I didn't need Peterson to be an ass to get me on board for three high picks for Jared Allen, and I don't need Pioli/Haley being asses to get me on board for two picks for Waters.
I should consider the source. Whitlock is the drama-queen Paris Hilton of Kansas City's sports media elite, and they will both leave you irritated all day afterwards. This could be a complete farce. This could very well be a small disrespecting and Waters merely "considering" a change of scenery.
But it sure doesn't sound good. Whitlock, thanks for the crabs for the day. Now I'm going to be irritated until I hear some good news about the Chiefs.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Parable of the Broken Window
The most interesting thing about the Congressional Address by President Obama is the authority with which he believes that the government can solve our problems better than we can. Basically, the economy is broken, and they can spend money to fix it. There is a great fallacy that the Keynesian model violates outlined in the Parable of the Broken Window.
The destruction of property and/or an economy are never good. Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff) once coined the phrase "never let a serious crisis go to waste." The idea that one can fix the problems of a nation through intervention are never valid. Had a recession not happened, had a building not been bombed, or a window broken, what would those resources have went to that were used to fix them? Possibly to open a bigger store, buy current technology, build roads, etc.
Our government speaks of the need, now, to invest in an outdated infrastructure system. This is, infact, productive if you believe the government has the role of building such infrastructure for the nation. However, had the government not paid farmers not to farm, could those needs have been met long ago? Had the government not paid to bomb AND rebuild nations around the world, could we have afforded productive road expenditures? Had the government not subsidized low-income urban housing, would currently urban dwellers have found low cost rural housing on their own and made a life among themselves? And those subsidies gone to roads? Had the government not subsidized elderly and impoverished health care (historically the most expensive), could we have that great infrastructure that we're so desperately behind on?
There are outdated things in this nation that need work, and no one is complaining about the portions of bailouts that go to roads. To the contrary, I think many are happy. However, when those productive expenditures are the vast minority among the "stimulus" measures, and given the non-stimulative spending that has been pursued in the past, can anyone question why I don't trust the government to not consider the costs of the broken window now?
Nations don't spend their way out of problems, they produce their way out of them. This nation needs to learn this quick, because spending can buy lower unemployment in the short term, but productive employment is what ends a crisis. If this administration is giving money to pharmaceutical companies for research (might not be beneficial for 50 years), energy companies for research, subsidies for Hybrid vehicles, and for increasing unemployment benefits, welfare, entitlements, and the like, then we will see the opportunity costs of those non-productive expenditures come back to bite us in the very near-term.
Immediate productive spending is necessary. Absent of increasing the productive capacity of the American economy, all of the debt and artificial wealth that Obama wants to free up for us all will only delay the inevitable. And at the back end of it all, we will be about $3-5 trillion more in debt and turn a recession to a depression because of it.
The destruction of property and/or an economy are never good. Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff) once coined the phrase "never let a serious crisis go to waste." The idea that one can fix the problems of a nation through intervention are never valid. Had a recession not happened, had a building not been bombed, or a window broken, what would those resources have went to that were used to fix them? Possibly to open a bigger store, buy current technology, build roads, etc.
Our government speaks of the need, now, to invest in an outdated infrastructure system. This is, infact, productive if you believe the government has the role of building such infrastructure for the nation. However, had the government not paid farmers not to farm, could those needs have been met long ago? Had the government not paid to bomb AND rebuild nations around the world, could we have afforded productive road expenditures? Had the government not subsidized low-income urban housing, would currently urban dwellers have found low cost rural housing on their own and made a life among themselves? And those subsidies gone to roads? Had the government not subsidized elderly and impoverished health care (historically the most expensive), could we have that great infrastructure that we're so desperately behind on?
There are outdated things in this nation that need work, and no one is complaining about the portions of bailouts that go to roads. To the contrary, I think many are happy. However, when those productive expenditures are the vast minority among the "stimulus" measures, and given the non-stimulative spending that has been pursued in the past, can anyone question why I don't trust the government to not consider the costs of the broken window now?
Nations don't spend their way out of problems, they produce their way out of them. This nation needs to learn this quick, because spending can buy lower unemployment in the short term, but productive employment is what ends a crisis. If this administration is giving money to pharmaceutical companies for research (might not be beneficial for 50 years), energy companies for research, subsidies for Hybrid vehicles, and for increasing unemployment benefits, welfare, entitlements, and the like, then we will see the opportunity costs of those non-productive expenditures come back to bite us in the very near-term.
Immediate productive spending is necessary. Absent of increasing the productive capacity of the American economy, all of the debt and artificial wealth that Obama wants to free up for us all will only delay the inevitable. And at the back end of it all, we will be about $3-5 trillion more in debt and turn a recession to a depression because of it.
Revolution - Governmental Restructure
Unfortunately for all of us, we have a government that craps on the Constitution daily and tells us that it is merely putting powder sugar on the donut. We need a revolution, a restructuring of the Constitution. This is not to say that we need to change the Amendments that currently exist in our Constitution, but rather we need to restructure the initial articles that were established for a system of checks and balances that no longer work.
We live in a new age of information and technology. The reason why localized representatives were necessary in Congress was so we could have the most efficient link possible between the public and the capitol. This role is no longer necessary, however we do need local individuals who represent us to lobby on our behalf.
The idea is to keep the government as three bodies as it currently stands, and have a fourth independent, taxpayer funded organization. The major change is in the legislature.
The Legislative Branch will keep all rights in the Constitution to Declare War (which hasn't been done in 50 years), to draft legislation, and everything other than legislative voting rights. Currently, lobbyist organizations drive the votes in Washington. Representatives do not come back to the districts to discuss major legislation with their constituents, they just come back once every few years during election time.
The fourth, independent branch, will be an online voting directory and polling organization. There will be a 0.5% income tax exclusively for this organization which is not subject do deductions, credits, or anything else. It is a 0.5% FEE for this organization to manage your right to vote. All legislation drafted by Congress will be voted for online by the public. Each member this nation who chooses to exercise their right to vote will set up a profile on a U.S. Government database. You log-in by using your profile, and the system allows each individual to have one vote per individual (one per SSN).
Not only does this organization have power over voting, but also polling for the government. It is one organization that studies data every year OUTSIDE the government and provides all statistics on census data, demographics, financial information, and such to the government on request. You volunteer data to help the government understand trends from income losses, unemployment data, demographics, cost of living standards, tax liabilities, bankruptcy, and such.
This would get us back to the Constitution. The one where Congress writes legislation, the President runs the military and has veto power, and the Supreme Court interprets the law.
In this age of pressing for support from lobbyists and not individuals for legislation, we should take back the power. If the lobbyists had to lobby 300 million people instead of 550 lawmakers, this country will be better of.
However, if the lobbyists try to shove biased statistics down your throat that are completely untrue, you have the Federal Research and Voting Council (why not give it a name?) with a database for statistics that you can look to in order to verify whether the lobbyist organization has your best interests in mind or not.
The problem is asking our Government to take power away from themselves and give it back to the people. They talk a big game about "the people" when it comes to their biases within the two party system, I think it's time to put them to the test.
We live in a new age of information and technology. The reason why localized representatives were necessary in Congress was so we could have the most efficient link possible between the public and the capitol. This role is no longer necessary, however we do need local individuals who represent us to lobby on our behalf.
The idea is to keep the government as three bodies as it currently stands, and have a fourth independent, taxpayer funded organization. The major change is in the legislature.
The Legislative Branch will keep all rights in the Constitution to Declare War (which hasn't been done in 50 years), to draft legislation, and everything other than legislative voting rights. Currently, lobbyist organizations drive the votes in Washington. Representatives do not come back to the districts to discuss major legislation with their constituents, they just come back once every few years during election time.
The fourth, independent branch, will be an online voting directory and polling organization. There will be a 0.5% income tax exclusively for this organization which is not subject do deductions, credits, or anything else. It is a 0.5% FEE for this organization to manage your right to vote. All legislation drafted by Congress will be voted for online by the public. Each member this nation who chooses to exercise their right to vote will set up a profile on a U.S. Government database. You log-in by using your profile, and the system allows each individual to have one vote per individual (one per SSN).
Not only does this organization have power over voting, but also polling for the government. It is one organization that studies data every year OUTSIDE the government and provides all statistics on census data, demographics, financial information, and such to the government on request. You volunteer data to help the government understand trends from income losses, unemployment data, demographics, cost of living standards, tax liabilities, bankruptcy, and such.
This would get us back to the Constitution. The one where Congress writes legislation, the President runs the military and has veto power, and the Supreme Court interprets the law.
In this age of pressing for support from lobbyists and not individuals for legislation, we should take back the power. If the lobbyists had to lobby 300 million people instead of 550 lawmakers, this country will be better of.
However, if the lobbyists try to shove biased statistics down your throat that are completely untrue, you have the Federal Research and Voting Council (why not give it a name?) with a database for statistics that you can look to in order to verify whether the lobbyist organization has your best interests in mind or not.
The problem is asking our Government to take power away from themselves and give it back to the people. They talk a big game about "the people" when it comes to their biases within the two party system, I think it's time to put them to the test.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama - the Levitra Ad of Presidential Politics
Do you know how you can't go through a single commercial break on your favorite program without seeing a random Erectile Dysfunction medication advertisement and how no one wants to see them? You know, the Levitra ad where the guy is throwing the football through a tire swing in the yard, misses, looks sad, but then takes the pill and he makes the next throw while his wife walks outside with iced tea and looks turned on? You know that some guy who just happened to not get it up the night before starts to wonder after commercial repetition that he just might not have it anymore and he might need the pill.
This is the state of American politics today. The President last night spoke very eloquently for about an hour in his "Not Yet State of the Union Address but we'll call it a State of the Union Address." The eloquence is the only change we see from the previous administration, that if you're going to say something that is phony and filled with inaccuracies that you should at least sound good doing it.
For example, who invented the automobile? Was it the United State or Germany? Had Sarah Palin or George Bush made that gaffe, the media and late night shows would crush them for it. He, along with the left, are selling a brand more so than selling a truth. They say things like "_____ voted against renewable energy" instead of the truth that "_____ voted against the government investing tax dollars during a massive deficit in private renewable energy companies to subsidize research that they should be paying for on their own." Get the difference?
The brand of the day is that the government does not need us, we need the government. Unemployment has risen by 2% and people who should have foreclosed on their homes are doing so, and the rest of the population has never had it better. Stocks have fallen (temporarily) but buying power is the best in 25 years, oil is down, food prices are down, and home prices are becoming more reasonable. A few people lose their stock values temporarily, and they start to wonder if they'll ever it it back. It's only one "questionable performance," and they wonder if the Levitra ad was right.
Apparently, Barack Obama has decided that he is a brand label, not a leader. Instead of quiet leadership, sitting down, and getting the job done, he has spent his first two months in office campaigning around the country, pushing cabinet members who don't pay their taxes down our throats and calling his cabinet "the most ethical in history," and has made more national television appearances in two months than George Bush would make in 2 years.
Last night, his speech went like this: 1/3 to debt got us into this mess so we need to free up lending, 1/3 went to cutting taxes on 95% of Americans while increasing spending in unprecedented fashion, and 1/3 to continuing the military-industrial complex overseas. It's the same thing as when watching a Levitra advertisement, the first half makes you question whether you have it in the tank anymore, and the other 1/2 tells you about the possible consequences of taking the the pill. You don't listen because the 1/2 made you believe and the second 1/2 won't happen to you.
Last night, Obama said "We have a problem." You said, "You know something, I think I do." From there on, most of you probably ignored the side effects. Good luck with your urinary tract bleeding, occasional loss of hearing, blurred vision, and generally the loss of your ability to do anything other than to have sex. Soon, the government will take away everything from you other than your right to vote them back into power.
This is the state of American politics today. The President last night spoke very eloquently for about an hour in his "Not Yet State of the Union Address but we'll call it a State of the Union Address." The eloquence is the only change we see from the previous administration, that if you're going to say something that is phony and filled with inaccuracies that you should at least sound good doing it.
For example, who invented the automobile? Was it the United State or Germany? Had Sarah Palin or George Bush made that gaffe, the media and late night shows would crush them for it. He, along with the left, are selling a brand more so than selling a truth. They say things like "_____ voted against renewable energy" instead of the truth that "_____ voted against the government investing tax dollars during a massive deficit in private renewable energy companies to subsidize research that they should be paying for on their own." Get the difference?
The brand of the day is that the government does not need us, we need the government. Unemployment has risen by 2% and people who should have foreclosed on their homes are doing so, and the rest of the population has never had it better. Stocks have fallen (temporarily) but buying power is the best in 25 years, oil is down, food prices are down, and home prices are becoming more reasonable. A few people lose their stock values temporarily, and they start to wonder if they'll ever it it back. It's only one "questionable performance," and they wonder if the Levitra ad was right.
Apparently, Barack Obama has decided that he is a brand label, not a leader. Instead of quiet leadership, sitting down, and getting the job done, he has spent his first two months in office campaigning around the country, pushing cabinet members who don't pay their taxes down our throats and calling his cabinet "the most ethical in history," and has made more national television appearances in two months than George Bush would make in 2 years.
Last night, his speech went like this: 1/3 to debt got us into this mess so we need to free up lending, 1/3 went to cutting taxes on 95% of Americans while increasing spending in unprecedented fashion, and 1/3 to continuing the military-industrial complex overseas. It's the same thing as when watching a Levitra advertisement, the first half makes you question whether you have it in the tank anymore, and the other 1/2 tells you about the possible consequences of taking the the pill. You don't listen because the 1/2 made you believe and the second 1/2 won't happen to you.
Last night, Obama said "We have a problem." You said, "You know something, I think I do." From there on, most of you probably ignored the side effects. Good luck with your urinary tract bleeding, occasional loss of hearing, blurred vision, and generally the loss of your ability to do anything other than to have sex. Soon, the government will take away everything from you other than your right to vote them back into power.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obushma Strikes Again!
Apparently the "people's" administration has announced a fourth $400+ Billion dollar spending bill in the past 6 months (and second in two months). This one is to make up for spending cuts made by the Bush administration. Two questions:
#1. If George W. Bush grew the size and scope of government more than any president in history, then how can it be necessary to pass $410 Billion in new spending to make up for his budget cuts?
#2. Barack Obama announced this weekend that he wants the deficit cut in half by the end of the first term. So far, the government has passed (and now announced) about $2.5 Trillion in "stimulus" spending. He inherited a $1+ Trillion dollar deficit. He has cut taxes on "working families" and non-working families just so long as they don't make a lot of money. If he's honest, he might push a budget with a $3 trillion budget deficit this year. If Bush was such a terrible fiscal president (which history will agree) who was once completely inept for passing a $300 billion budget deficit, then how is Barack Obama not the worst for having a lofty goal of a $1.5 TRILLION deficit before his term in office is over?
I don't doubt that he will cut the deficit in half before the end of his first term. The question is whether it is the $500 Billion final Bush budget deficit or his soon-to-be $3 trillion budget deficit? The former is a VERY lofty goal that we should praise him for (especially if it doesn't mean he's taking over 50% of my paycheck to do it). The latter is more likely, and also unfortunate that he feels it's an accomplishment.
#1. If George W. Bush grew the size and scope of government more than any president in history, then how can it be necessary to pass $410 Billion in new spending to make up for his budget cuts?
#2. Barack Obama announced this weekend that he wants the deficit cut in half by the end of the first term. So far, the government has passed (and now announced) about $2.5 Trillion in "stimulus" spending. He inherited a $1+ Trillion dollar deficit. He has cut taxes on "working families" and non-working families just so long as they don't make a lot of money. If he's honest, he might push a budget with a $3 trillion budget deficit this year. If Bush was such a terrible fiscal president (which history will agree) who was once completely inept for passing a $300 billion budget deficit, then how is Barack Obama not the worst for having a lofty goal of a $1.5 TRILLION deficit before his term in office is over?
I don't doubt that he will cut the deficit in half before the end of his first term. The question is whether it is the $500 Billion final Bush budget deficit or his soon-to-be $3 trillion budget deficit? The former is a VERY lofty goal that we should praise him for (especially if it doesn't mean he's taking over 50% of my paycheck to do it). The latter is more likely, and also unfortunate that he feels it's an accomplishment.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Desperation.....
Things are going on so well in the world that CNN is desperate for something to report......
Friday, February 20, 2009
Running Out of Insults.....
First off, Barack Obama is difficult enough to make fun of in the first place. I think I did a decent job that other day in a manner which could be difficult to play the race card on, but who knows with the way things are going today. Obama is very affluent, youthful, charismatic, a smooth talker, and relatively attractive. George W. Bush was obviously much easier to make fun of, and he didn't do anything to help his case (like take a public speaking course).
Yet this week, the NY Post published a quite funny cartoon. Now, people are picketing and representatives of Barack Obama are screaming racism. For the background, this week a chimpanzee attacked a friend of its owner. The police had to shoot the chimpanzee, because of course the owner was "helpless" in preventing the attack.
So, the police, now in the cartoon, shot down a monkey in the street. One says to the other, now who's going to write the stimulus bill? The hilarity of it all is that Obama just drafted the direction of the bill, Congress on both sides had to introduce a bunch of pork bills, handwritten chicken-scratch, and passed both the most expensive and the sloppiest piece of legislation in American history. Is the monkey a shot at Obama, Congress, or everyone who had a hand in the bill? If insurance can be so easy a caveman can do it, or investing so easy an infant can do it, then why can't a legislative bill be so crappy that a monkey could have written better? You decide.
Personally, I would have drawn an comic strip of a monkey that looks like Obama crap on the floor in one slide, in the second he would pick it up and throw it at the wall, and in the third have all of Congress standing around the feces with hands raised saying "Yay" in unison.
Historically, presidential cartoons have taken several images consistently for all presidents. They always either depict the elephant or the donkey of the respective political parties, cowboys or monkeys for the individuals themselves, or some combination of both. George Bush was both, and it didn't help matters that he actually looked like a monkey!
Today, throughout the campaign, Obama advisors and officials consistently played the race card for Obama while he "stayed above the fray." Basically, stating that in a back room, he was telling them to be tough while he can look cool, collected, and unnerved. Now while in office, he is already campaigning for his second term and is still defying anyone who makes a negative statement about him as "racist."
A monkey is a 1960's racist depiction of black people. If he's walking along side an elephant then we've sent black people back to the pre-slavery days back in African tribes. If he's walking a donkey then he's a slave. If he's dressed as a cowboy, then we're depicting him as the oppositive of slaves and rubbing it in that blacks were not afforded the luxury in the 1800's of being cowboys.
It's a no-win for cartoonists if the Obama officials keep playing these games. It is unfortunate. If you can't make fun of the president (like sarcastically referring to him as evolutionarily advanced beyond the current homosapien species), then who can we make fun of?
Yet this week, the NY Post published a quite funny cartoon. Now, people are picketing and representatives of Barack Obama are screaming racism. For the background, this week a chimpanzee attacked a friend of its owner. The police had to shoot the chimpanzee, because of course the owner was "helpless" in preventing the attack.
So, the police, now in the cartoon, shot down a monkey in the street. One says to the other, now who's going to write the stimulus bill? The hilarity of it all is that Obama just drafted the direction of the bill, Congress on both sides had to introduce a bunch of pork bills, handwritten chicken-scratch, and passed both the most expensive and the sloppiest piece of legislation in American history. Is the monkey a shot at Obama, Congress, or everyone who had a hand in the bill? If insurance can be so easy a caveman can do it, or investing so easy an infant can do it, then why can't a legislative bill be so crappy that a monkey could have written better? You decide.
Personally, I would have drawn an comic strip of a monkey that looks like Obama crap on the floor in one slide, in the second he would pick it up and throw it at the wall, and in the third have all of Congress standing around the feces with hands raised saying "Yay" in unison.
Historically, presidential cartoons have taken several images consistently for all presidents. They always either depict the elephant or the donkey of the respective political parties, cowboys or monkeys for the individuals themselves, or some combination of both. George Bush was both, and it didn't help matters that he actually looked like a monkey!
Today, throughout the campaign, Obama advisors and officials consistently played the race card for Obama while he "stayed above the fray." Basically, stating that in a back room, he was telling them to be tough while he can look cool, collected, and unnerved. Now while in office, he is already campaigning for his second term and is still defying anyone who makes a negative statement about him as "racist."
A monkey is a 1960's racist depiction of black people. If he's walking along side an elephant then we've sent black people back to the pre-slavery days back in African tribes. If he's walking a donkey then he's a slave. If he's dressed as a cowboy, then we're depicting him as the oppositive of slaves and rubbing it in that blacks were not afforded the luxury in the 1800's of being cowboys.
It's a no-win for cartoonists if the Obama officials keep playing these games. It is unfortunate. If you can't make fun of the president (like sarcastically referring to him as evolutionarily advanced beyond the current homosapien species), then who can we make fun of?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Protection from Abuse, Not Equality
You have to love a country where everyone gets a voice. I enjoy having one, but my stuff doesn't make CNN. When Pop Culture meets 24-hour news, you know something bad is going to happen. The paragraph below popped up. Basically, rumor has it that Chris Brown beat up his girlfriend Rihanna for wanting to know what whore was trying to hook up with her man. I found this particular paragraph interesting:
Perhaps the only good that will come from the Rihanna/Brown publicity is destruction of our culture's misconception that abusers and their victims can only be universally poor, uneducated and powerless.
Wow, you have to love that the "progressive" CNN is concerned, at minimum, that society will now be in unison that rich women can be beat by the man in their life just the same as poor women. This particular writer who has first hand experience in being abused by her husband, is more hopeful that stereotypes of the poor will be ended as opposed to that Chris Brown gets some strict justice from either the law or Rihanna's father and buddies in the form of an ass kicking.
I would rather live in a world where woman beaters get their asses kicked rather than a world where society sees that it can happen to anyone and tries to shield the eyes of children. I'd rather abusers and their children see that if you abuse, you will suffer extreme consequences for the irresponsibility of your choice.
Perhaps the idea that it CAN'T happen to anyone is more important than the idea that it CAN?
Perhaps the only good that will come from the Rihanna/Brown publicity is destruction of our culture's misconception that abusers and their victims can only be universally poor, uneducated and powerless.
Wow, you have to love that the "progressive" CNN is concerned, at minimum, that society will now be in unison that rich women can be beat by the man in their life just the same as poor women. This particular writer who has first hand experience in being abused by her husband, is more hopeful that stereotypes of the poor will be ended as opposed to that Chris Brown gets some strict justice from either the law or Rihanna's father and buddies in the form of an ass kicking.
I would rather live in a world where woman beaters get their asses kicked rather than a world where society sees that it can happen to anyone and tries to shield the eyes of children. I'd rather abusers and their children see that if you abuse, you will suffer extreme consequences for the irresponsibility of your choice.
Perhaps the idea that it CAN'T happen to anyone is more important than the idea that it CAN?
Orlando Hudson a MUST
This is a complete no-brainer. Orlando Hudson should absolutely be a Kansas City Royals by week's end. I know the Royals just signed Mike Jacobs and Mark Teahan to arbitration deals, but those deals should be terminated immediately and Orlando Hudson should be in Kansas City.
The Royals don't have a single player on their roster, with the exception of Mike Aviles, that touched a .366 OBP, with Hudson has averaged the past three years. He's good for a .275 average, .375 OBP, he's athletic, good on defense, and he'll hit around 12 HR's and get you 50 RBI's.
The Royals would look at a lineup of Crisp CF, Aviles SS, DeJesus LF, Guillen RF, Jacobs 1B, Gordon 3B, Olivo C, Butler DH, Hudson 2B. The significance of this would be incredible: a .275 AVG/.370 OBP/15HR/50 RBI hitter would be NINETH in the Royals lineup. Plus, he would be a good enough hitter to move up in the case of emergency.
Buck is going to be gone anyways, Olivo is the starter and they have too much money rolled up into the catcher position. Plus, we've got players in the ranks who can take Olivo's place if needed. The departure of either Buck, Teahan, Jacobs, or maybe sprinkling in German would free us up to get Hudson. I understand that the team doesn't want to get rid of Teahan or Jacobs. Teahan can play four positions and is a solid hitter. Jacobs has some "slug" as Hillman likes to put it.
Orlando Hudson stabilizing second base for the Royals would have much more of an impact than the contributions of those four combined. We already have Butler and Shealy at first base, German/Teahan/Bloomquist all fulfill the same role. There are two positions that do not have stability in the starting lineup right now, and one of which has little in the name of promising depth: second base.
The Royals should do us all a favor and do what it takes to bring Orlando Hudson to Kansas City. He wants to be here, the fans would love for him to be here, and it makes too much sense just to let him slip through the cracks.
The Royals don't have a single player on their roster, with the exception of Mike Aviles, that touched a .366 OBP, with Hudson has averaged the past three years. He's good for a .275 average, .375 OBP, he's athletic, good on defense, and he'll hit around 12 HR's and get you 50 RBI's.
The Royals would look at a lineup of Crisp CF, Aviles SS, DeJesus LF, Guillen RF, Jacobs 1B, Gordon 3B, Olivo C, Butler DH, Hudson 2B. The significance of this would be incredible: a .275 AVG/.370 OBP/15HR/50 RBI hitter would be NINETH in the Royals lineup. Plus, he would be a good enough hitter to move up in the case of emergency.
Buck is going to be gone anyways, Olivo is the starter and they have too much money rolled up into the catcher position. Plus, we've got players in the ranks who can take Olivo's place if needed. The departure of either Buck, Teahan, Jacobs, or maybe sprinkling in German would free us up to get Hudson. I understand that the team doesn't want to get rid of Teahan or Jacobs. Teahan can play four positions and is a solid hitter. Jacobs has some "slug" as Hillman likes to put it.
Orlando Hudson stabilizing second base for the Royals would have much more of an impact than the contributions of those four combined. We already have Butler and Shealy at first base, German/Teahan/Bloomquist all fulfill the same role. There are two positions that do not have stability in the starting lineup right now, and one of which has little in the name of promising depth: second base.
The Royals should do us all a favor and do what it takes to bring Orlando Hudson to Kansas City. He wants to be here, the fans would love for him to be here, and it makes too much sense just to let him slip through the cracks.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Evolutionarily Superior OR Not an Emergency?
Today the President of the United States, is "preparing" to sign the stimulus bill. For the past two months, we have heard about the rush to get this bill on the President's desk to sign it. We are embarking on "economic turmoil that we've never seen since the great depression" and "discussing the bill was leading the desire for the perfect to superceed the desire for the immediacy and necessary."
Has anyone in the media asked the president the question that I'm begging to know: if it's necessary and it's immediacy is imperative, then why was a bill passed on Saturday still not signed as of 3:00pm EST on Tuesday? If it's so immediate and the times are so bad, then why is the president "preparing to sign the bill and talking to reporters" instead of "talking to reporters about the bill he signed this morning?"
Do you all get the difference and the importance to humanity?
Immediacy and necessity drive normal human beings to do something quickly and irrationally and have time to think through the consequences and costs after it is already done. It is in human nature to be in a hurry and be irrational in the face of an emergency. Whether it's driving 90 MPH on our way to the emergency room with an injured child, generals still firing bullets when rockets are whizzing by their heads instead of retreating, or jerking the wheel on the road when imminent danger is awaiting us up the road instead of slowly breaking or swirving. That's what the rest of us do in life, but not our esteemed president.
There are only two explanations possible for this phenomenon: either he is evolutionarily superior to the rest of us or it's not truly an emergency and the bill is not immediately necessary. His coolness superceeds human nature and he is so clutch that he stares immediacy and the end of the financial world in the face, and he deliberates.
We all thought Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods were the greatest clutch performers in history, but they have been surpassed by Obama. If Michael Jordan was as superior as Obama, he would hit those game winning shots 0.7 seconds AFTER the game ends. If Tiger Woods was so great, he would hit the 50 foot put on the 18th green at Augusta the day after the tournament ended.
We are dealing with a new type of human here. Let's all just sit back and be amazed. Evolutionary Superiority or Level of Emergency will dictate whether or not the amazement you choose will be positive or negative.
Has anyone in the media asked the president the question that I'm begging to know: if it's necessary and it's immediacy is imperative, then why was a bill passed on Saturday still not signed as of 3:00pm EST on Tuesday? If it's so immediate and the times are so bad, then why is the president "preparing to sign the bill and talking to reporters" instead of "talking to reporters about the bill he signed this morning?"
Do you all get the difference and the importance to humanity?
Immediacy and necessity drive normal human beings to do something quickly and irrationally and have time to think through the consequences and costs after it is already done. It is in human nature to be in a hurry and be irrational in the face of an emergency. Whether it's driving 90 MPH on our way to the emergency room with an injured child, generals still firing bullets when rockets are whizzing by their heads instead of retreating, or jerking the wheel on the road when imminent danger is awaiting us up the road instead of slowly breaking or swirving. That's what the rest of us do in life, but not our esteemed president.
There are only two explanations possible for this phenomenon: either he is evolutionarily superior to the rest of us or it's not truly an emergency and the bill is not immediately necessary. His coolness superceeds human nature and he is so clutch that he stares immediacy and the end of the financial world in the face, and he deliberates.
We all thought Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods were the greatest clutch performers in history, but they have been surpassed by Obama. If Michael Jordan was as superior as Obama, he would hit those game winning shots 0.7 seconds AFTER the game ends. If Tiger Woods was so great, he would hit the 50 foot put on the 18th green at Augusta the day after the tournament ended.
We are dealing with a new type of human here. Let's all just sit back and be amazed. Evolutionary Superiority or Level of Emergency will dictate whether or not the amazement you choose will be positive or negative.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Long Time...No Write
Call me a slacker, whatever you like. I am. It has been a challenge as of late to digest everything that's going on in the world and Kansas City sports, and to try to write a coherent blog about what's going on. Here's three random topics: one awesome, one scary, and one that encompasses both.
1) First off, I found out I'm going to be a dad. I can't elaborate on this point enough so I'll keep it short. It's scary and awesome both at the same time. I get to witness the growth of something of my creation from birth to adulthood, yet I have to fear every wrong move. I get to teach something that it can change the world, yet all I see is a world that is continuously giving up individual control and liberty and telling everyone that one person can't have that sort of impact. I get to learn from my upbringing and try to make it that much better for my little one. It's exciting, and hopefully the tides turn and all of the things that I teach my child that they can do with their hard work and inner strength can happen, and they won't be turned away despite their great gifts.
2) Now, to the bad. This is a scary time we are living in. The government and the media tell us that there is a recession destroying our nation in order to garner more control over our lives. If I told you all one year ago that we could have $40/barrel oil, more affordable housing, food costs would be more reasonable, and that you could get a new Hybrid SUV for under $30,000 and a Plasma TV for under $800 and all we have to give up to see that happen is 2 additional points of unemployment in the short term, you would have taken it in a heart beat. We WERE living in a world with overpriced houses, overpriced energy, overpriced food, and everything else. That is the reason why we are in the recession we are in. See, people were financing their futures away for overpriced goods now. It's a bubble in oil and housing that has now burst, and it is a great thing for the American consumer. We now have economic freedom from inflation now that the debt/oil bubble has burst, and the government is trying to scare us into keeping it propped up. They want home prices higher to collect more property taxes, they want oil higher because it keeps the US government's debtors in our good graces, and more importantly they are protecting their corporate lobbyists in oil, energy, health care, and the like. Back to topic #1, it is a scary world that my child, no matter how hard they work, will have to pay off all of this corrupt debt. Mark my words, these bubbles have only partially burst, and they will finish. The government can spend us into bankruptcy if they want to, but they will finish. We have been living in unsustainable economic conditions, and the government trying to maintain that. Are you all aware that the household disposable income (the after tax income that you get to spend) rose nationally in October, November, and December in 2008? Has the media or the new administration told you this? No. Prices have fallen and have provided a safe haven for the consumer from all of the over inflated goods in the past 10 years. The market is providing us protection and the government is acting against the population for the sake of a few businesses and corporately owned government officials. It is wrong, and the population needs to come up with a plan to stop the progress of all of these problems.
3) Wow, what a downer. Go Chiefs! The Chiefs have spent the last 3 months hitting grand slam after grand slam out of the park. I said that I was indifferent on the termination of Herm Edwards, and I still am. Scott Pioli has made this Chiefs operation a respectable organization again in just one month. This organization has a direction, a purpose with every move, and the best model in sports for both. Mark my words, Herm Edwards will never be an NFL head coach again, and I think it is unfortunate. He basically recruited a great freshman class and didn't get to see them become juniors and seniors that make a run at the BCS title. It's Les Miles winning a national championship with Nick Saban's team. No one, until Saban went to Alabama, got to see how great his recruiting is because Miles won with his players. Herm finally got what he wanted, and he didn't get to be around to see the finished product.
Either way, Todd Haley is an excellent signing. He is every bit of the "football guy" that Cowher, Shanahan, or Gruden are but he's hungry. He has learned from the best, and he is going to be an instant improvement in game management over Edwards. With "football guy" Pioli deciding on personnel and direction with the guidance of a "football guy" in Haley they will bring in "football guys" to play football. We have two offensive guru's on this coaching staff with Haley and Chan Gailey, and they will work together when Haley (hopefully) keeps him around. Now we just need a defensive guru to work with all of this highly drafted talent. Things are going to improve, and I think very quickly. The Chiefs have a dedicated owner, a revamped stadium, a young roster ripe with promise and potential, the third overall draft pick, and about $40 million in cap space to burn. This team is going to be very solid this season, and the fans should thank Clark Hunt when it happens by filling that stadium and cheering for this team like never before.
The Super Bowl is coming.
There's a lot to digest. I'm going to do everything in my power to get the Super Bowl of nations again and the Super Bowl of babies. Clark Hunt has done his part to bring an actual Super Bowl to point #3.
1) First off, I found out I'm going to be a dad. I can't elaborate on this point enough so I'll keep it short. It's scary and awesome both at the same time. I get to witness the growth of something of my creation from birth to adulthood, yet I have to fear every wrong move. I get to teach something that it can change the world, yet all I see is a world that is continuously giving up individual control and liberty and telling everyone that one person can't have that sort of impact. I get to learn from my upbringing and try to make it that much better for my little one. It's exciting, and hopefully the tides turn and all of the things that I teach my child that they can do with their hard work and inner strength can happen, and they won't be turned away despite their great gifts.
2) Now, to the bad. This is a scary time we are living in. The government and the media tell us that there is a recession destroying our nation in order to garner more control over our lives. If I told you all one year ago that we could have $40/barrel oil, more affordable housing, food costs would be more reasonable, and that you could get a new Hybrid SUV for under $30,000 and a Plasma TV for under $800 and all we have to give up to see that happen is 2 additional points of unemployment in the short term, you would have taken it in a heart beat. We WERE living in a world with overpriced houses, overpriced energy, overpriced food, and everything else. That is the reason why we are in the recession we are in. See, people were financing their futures away for overpriced goods now. It's a bubble in oil and housing that has now burst, and it is a great thing for the American consumer. We now have economic freedom from inflation now that the debt/oil bubble has burst, and the government is trying to scare us into keeping it propped up. They want home prices higher to collect more property taxes, they want oil higher because it keeps the US government's debtors in our good graces, and more importantly they are protecting their corporate lobbyists in oil, energy, health care, and the like. Back to topic #1, it is a scary world that my child, no matter how hard they work, will have to pay off all of this corrupt debt. Mark my words, these bubbles have only partially burst, and they will finish. The government can spend us into bankruptcy if they want to, but they will finish. We have been living in unsustainable economic conditions, and the government trying to maintain that. Are you all aware that the household disposable income (the after tax income that you get to spend) rose nationally in October, November, and December in 2008? Has the media or the new administration told you this? No. Prices have fallen and have provided a safe haven for the consumer from all of the over inflated goods in the past 10 years. The market is providing us protection and the government is acting against the population for the sake of a few businesses and corporately owned government officials. It is wrong, and the population needs to come up with a plan to stop the progress of all of these problems.
3) Wow, what a downer. Go Chiefs! The Chiefs have spent the last 3 months hitting grand slam after grand slam out of the park. I said that I was indifferent on the termination of Herm Edwards, and I still am. Scott Pioli has made this Chiefs operation a respectable organization again in just one month. This organization has a direction, a purpose with every move, and the best model in sports for both. Mark my words, Herm Edwards will never be an NFL head coach again, and I think it is unfortunate. He basically recruited a great freshman class and didn't get to see them become juniors and seniors that make a run at the BCS title. It's Les Miles winning a national championship with Nick Saban's team. No one, until Saban went to Alabama, got to see how great his recruiting is because Miles won with his players. Herm finally got what he wanted, and he didn't get to be around to see the finished product.
Either way, Todd Haley is an excellent signing. He is every bit of the "football guy" that Cowher, Shanahan, or Gruden are but he's hungry. He has learned from the best, and he is going to be an instant improvement in game management over Edwards. With "football guy" Pioli deciding on personnel and direction with the guidance of a "football guy" in Haley they will bring in "football guys" to play football. We have two offensive guru's on this coaching staff with Haley and Chan Gailey, and they will work together when Haley (hopefully) keeps him around. Now we just need a defensive guru to work with all of this highly drafted talent. Things are going to improve, and I think very quickly. The Chiefs have a dedicated owner, a revamped stadium, a young roster ripe with promise and potential, the third overall draft pick, and about $40 million in cap space to burn. This team is going to be very solid this season, and the fans should thank Clark Hunt when it happens by filling that stadium and cheering for this team like never before.
The Super Bowl is coming.
There's a lot to digest. I'm going to do everything in my power to get the Super Bowl of nations again and the Super Bowl of babies. Clark Hunt has done his part to bring an actual Super Bowl to point #3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
