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.....
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
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.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Change is Coming
An opinion is not something that is evident for every person on every subject. Generally, I have an opinion that I make publicly known about nearly everything. If something comes up that I do not have a perspective on, I research it so I feel I am properly equipped to have an opinion.
The Chiefs got pulverized by the Buffalo Bills today. The worst team we have played since Oakland in Week 2 just set a scoring record against the Chiefs by scoring 54 points. It was almost as ugly as Florida beating up on Citadel this weekend (which on a side note should let Gator fans know why they got jumped in the BCS this weekend by scheduling a cupcake this late in the season).
Florida is good by college standards however, and the Buffalo Bills are not. I find myself at a loss for words. I wrote a pregame post for the first time ever (which might have gynxed the outcome) and the people that I asked to show up did not.
I will say this, after the game Herm was right when asked about Tyler Thigpen. He put it in perspective that this was his sixth game, and these happen to everyone. Funny thing, if 55% completions, 462 total yards, 31 points, 3 touchdowns, 2 INT's, and an 85.9 QB Rating is a bad game then we should only be so lucky. Herm didn't go that far as to say that he had a good game, but he put it in perspective that mistakes do happen.
The culprits that I spoke of before the game were still in full force today. Five turnovers will kill you, but the Chiefs have done that before to better offenses and STILL never given up 54 points. Gunther Cunningham should be fired tomorrow morning and Herm should take over defensive playcalling the rest of the way. If Chan Gailey is our offensive mastermind independently and Herm is a defensive minded coach, then give him a few weeks to show that he can coach a strong defensive unit.
Also, Rocky Boiman was out leading tackler. That guy would not even be on most rosters, and he's leading the way for our defense. Bernard Pollard and Maurice Leggett combined for 16 tackles, which is shocking because one is a nickle back who is not an every-down player. On the season, three of our top five tacklers are in the secondary (Bernard Pollard, Jarrad Page, and Brandon Carr). On even rushing plays, the tackles are being made 6 yards down the field. This defense is playing worse football than the Greg Robinson defenses of the Vermeil years (on a side note, Syracuse beat Notre Dame this weekend in quite a shocker).
Change is the word. Barack Obama won a presidential election with a brand and given the need for that brand it didn't matter whether he offered credibility to the brand through substance. We all now hope that he is what he said he is. I hope this brand can be taken a step further to the football field and the Chiefs. We all hope there is change. Young teams make mistakes, but don't call the plays. You can't blame the players on the field for games like this, you can only blame the people who put them on the field.
This city loves sports as much as any. At game time there were close to 60,000 people there to watch a 1-9 team. Is someone trying to tell me that this team could not have had a more productive youth movement with someone like Alen Faneca and Damien Woody for 2 years on the offensive line? That these skill players on offense couldn't punch it in from inside the two with those guys on the line? That Javon Kearse, Justin Smith, or even retaining Jimmy Wilkerson would not have made this a better defensive line for two years until you can get more picks in here?
Last week, I said this team is good enough for a Christmas list, and none of that has changed. I said who needed to prove something against Buffalo, and none did anything and should be out of town immediately. Of those eight players that I said we need to field a strong team, I currently have no doubts that the team that is about $30 million under the salary cap could have turned this into a postive season really fast. The fans could have embraced players the work that Tyler Thigpen, Mark Bradley, Brandon Flowers, Brandon Carr, Brandon Albert, and others are all doing. We could have also marveled at Tony Gonzalez some more.
Now all people have to complain about is Carl Peterson and Herm Edwards. They should, because the little things that management can do to build a culture of winning are not being done. It is unfortunately that things are going to go this way. Hopefully Clark Hunt sees things the way we all do.
The Chiefs got pulverized by the Buffalo Bills today. The worst team we have played since Oakland in Week 2 just set a scoring record against the Chiefs by scoring 54 points. It was almost as ugly as Florida beating up on Citadel this weekend (which on a side note should let Gator fans know why they got jumped in the BCS this weekend by scheduling a cupcake this late in the season).
Florida is good by college standards however, and the Buffalo Bills are not. I find myself at a loss for words. I wrote a pregame post for the first time ever (which might have gynxed the outcome) and the people that I asked to show up did not.
I will say this, after the game Herm was right when asked about Tyler Thigpen. He put it in perspective that this was his sixth game, and these happen to everyone. Funny thing, if 55% completions, 462 total yards, 31 points, 3 touchdowns, 2 INT's, and an 85.9 QB Rating is a bad game then we should only be so lucky. Herm didn't go that far as to say that he had a good game, but he put it in perspective that mistakes do happen.
The culprits that I spoke of before the game were still in full force today. Five turnovers will kill you, but the Chiefs have done that before to better offenses and STILL never given up 54 points. Gunther Cunningham should be fired tomorrow morning and Herm should take over defensive playcalling the rest of the way. If Chan Gailey is our offensive mastermind independently and Herm is a defensive minded coach, then give him a few weeks to show that he can coach a strong defensive unit.
Also, Rocky Boiman was out leading tackler. That guy would not even be on most rosters, and he's leading the way for our defense. Bernard Pollard and Maurice Leggett combined for 16 tackles, which is shocking because one is a nickle back who is not an every-down player. On the season, three of our top five tacklers are in the secondary (Bernard Pollard, Jarrad Page, and Brandon Carr). On even rushing plays, the tackles are being made 6 yards down the field. This defense is playing worse football than the Greg Robinson defenses of the Vermeil years (on a side note, Syracuse beat Notre Dame this weekend in quite a shocker).
Change is the word. Barack Obama won a presidential election with a brand and given the need for that brand it didn't matter whether he offered credibility to the brand through substance. We all now hope that he is what he said he is. I hope this brand can be taken a step further to the football field and the Chiefs. We all hope there is change. Young teams make mistakes, but don't call the plays. You can't blame the players on the field for games like this, you can only blame the people who put them on the field.
This city loves sports as much as any. At game time there were close to 60,000 people there to watch a 1-9 team. Is someone trying to tell me that this team could not have had a more productive youth movement with someone like Alen Faneca and Damien Woody for 2 years on the offensive line? That these skill players on offense couldn't punch it in from inside the two with those guys on the line? That Javon Kearse, Justin Smith, or even retaining Jimmy Wilkerson would not have made this a better defensive line for two years until you can get more picks in here?
Last week, I said this team is good enough for a Christmas list, and none of that has changed. I said who needed to prove something against Buffalo, and none did anything and should be out of town immediately. Of those eight players that I said we need to field a strong team, I currently have no doubts that the team that is about $30 million under the salary cap could have turned this into a postive season really fast. The fans could have embraced players the work that Tyler Thigpen, Mark Bradley, Brandon Flowers, Brandon Carr, Brandon Albert, and others are all doing. We could have also marveled at Tony Gonzalez some more.
Now all people have to complain about is Carl Peterson and Herm Edwards. They should, because the little things that management can do to build a culture of winning are not being done. It is unfortunately that things are going to go this way. Hopefully Clark Hunt sees things the way we all do.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Buffalo Bills
Finally, the schedule is starting to shape up nicely for the Chiefs. If the Miami Dolphins are the best team you still have to face over the course of six games, we can finally start to expect wins out of this Chiefs team yet. There are simply too many holes to fill to expect wins over really good teams, but this team can beat mediocre teams. The individuals with jobs on the line should be in full display this weekend. Here is what I expect to see against the Bills:
1) Derrick Johnson is coming back from injury. Johnson and Gonzalez are probably our best trade bait in the offseason, and at this point I would say that I want Johnson gone. We spent a first round pick on a guy with every tool imaginable to perform in the NFL except one: brains. For a guy as big, fast, and experienced as he is, I think it is reasonable to expect more than 100 tackles and at least 5 or 6 sacks per season. He does neither, and also does not force turnovers or lead our young defense. He needs to go somewhere where others can make him perform better, he's a strain here. I would rather pickup a slower linebacker in the middle rounds than to let Johnson play another season as long as he has the smarts to read what the offense is doing.
2) Coaches on the hot seat. Gunther Cunningham, Mike Priefer, and Tim Krumrie. The secondary has played well, so I only place defensive blame on Cunningham and Krumrie, but the play of the front seven on this team has been horrible. The front seven has DJ, Hali, Dorsey out of the first round, McBride from the second, and Tyler out of the third in the past few years. These players are strong prospects who are not performing. The Bills don't score a lot of points but they can run the ball, and that does not bode well for the front seven. The special teams in Buffalo are Grade A quality, if the Chiefs give up a return TD, then those are the guys who need to go.
3) Larry Johnson. Right now, I want him cut. I understand he had a few big runs last weekend at the game. However, watching the game and seeing our O-Line open holes for him, and seeing him run for 8-10 yards a few times, I expected to return home to see a stat line with 100 yards. I saw 64. Those big runs were thanks to the offensive line play, the no-gainers that led to him only netting 3.5 YPC after all of those big runs makes it obvious that he is not getting it done. We can draft a guy in the mid rounds and head into next season with Smith/Charles and be fine. LJ better show a lot or he should be out of here for a 5th rounder this offseason.
4) Right side of the offensive line. We already know that none of you will have jobs after the season. Just open a couple of holes on the goal line as an audition for your next job....please?
Everyone else: KEEP IT UP. The passing game has been great behind Thigpen, and the young guys on offense just keep showing up each week. The pass blocking has been good as well. Brandon Flowers will be back this week, and we should be able to keep the Bills running the whole game.
If Gailey and Thigpen put us out to a 10+ point lead in the first half again, watch out. The Bills will not come back in that game. But we can't let them back in it either. We have to hit the gas pedal, and not let off until the game is over. The Bills will not beat us with Trent Edwards throwing the ball.
Also, watch JP Losman. He will make a nice backup to Tyler Thigpen along with a mid-round draft pick next season. He'll also be a free agent. If he plays, picture him in Red and Gold next season. It is very possible.
1) Derrick Johnson is coming back from injury. Johnson and Gonzalez are probably our best trade bait in the offseason, and at this point I would say that I want Johnson gone. We spent a first round pick on a guy with every tool imaginable to perform in the NFL except one: brains. For a guy as big, fast, and experienced as he is, I think it is reasonable to expect more than 100 tackles and at least 5 or 6 sacks per season. He does neither, and also does not force turnovers or lead our young defense. He needs to go somewhere where others can make him perform better, he's a strain here. I would rather pickup a slower linebacker in the middle rounds than to let Johnson play another season as long as he has the smarts to read what the offense is doing.
2) Coaches on the hot seat. Gunther Cunningham, Mike Priefer, and Tim Krumrie. The secondary has played well, so I only place defensive blame on Cunningham and Krumrie, but the play of the front seven on this team has been horrible. The front seven has DJ, Hali, Dorsey out of the first round, McBride from the second, and Tyler out of the third in the past few years. These players are strong prospects who are not performing. The Bills don't score a lot of points but they can run the ball, and that does not bode well for the front seven. The special teams in Buffalo are Grade A quality, if the Chiefs give up a return TD, then those are the guys who need to go.
3) Larry Johnson. Right now, I want him cut. I understand he had a few big runs last weekend at the game. However, watching the game and seeing our O-Line open holes for him, and seeing him run for 8-10 yards a few times, I expected to return home to see a stat line with 100 yards. I saw 64. Those big runs were thanks to the offensive line play, the no-gainers that led to him only netting 3.5 YPC after all of those big runs makes it obvious that he is not getting it done. We can draft a guy in the mid rounds and head into next season with Smith/Charles and be fine. LJ better show a lot or he should be out of here for a 5th rounder this offseason.
4) Right side of the offensive line. We already know that none of you will have jobs after the season. Just open a couple of holes on the goal line as an audition for your next job....please?
Everyone else: KEEP IT UP. The passing game has been great behind Thigpen, and the young guys on offense just keep showing up each week. The pass blocking has been good as well. Brandon Flowers will be back this week, and we should be able to keep the Bills running the whole game.
If Gailey and Thigpen put us out to a 10+ point lead in the first half again, watch out. The Bills will not come back in that game. But we can't let them back in it either. We have to hit the gas pedal, and not let off until the game is over. The Bills will not beat us with Trent Edwards throwing the ball.
Also, watch JP Losman. He will make a nice backup to Tyler Thigpen along with a mid-round draft pick next season. He'll also be a free agent. If he plays, picture him in Red and Gold next season. It is very possible.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Good Enough for a Christmas List
This is the time of year where family and friends continuously come up to you and ask for your Christmas list. How many of us really have a clue what we want? There's the occasional doll for a young girl, a video game or a football for a boy, maybe even a new football player's jersey, if you're so inclined. Once you're an adult, I think it is more difficult because we look more to what we need rather than the junk that's going to feed our materialistic sense for a month or so and then becomes obsolete in our selfish world. Some of us choose to still ask for our wants, while others just request a gift card for a rainy day.
I think this analogy can describe several teams right now in the NFL. The Dallas Cowboys, I would say, fit into the materialistic mode. They had Barber, Owens, Witten, Jones, Romo, and others on offense, yet they threw conventional wisdom to the wind and blew the bank on Roy Williams in the middle of the season. It is the materialistic sense that Jerry Jones has that he will spend money to put what he "wants" on the field at all times. They have much of what they need, but there's an occasional Gucci Bag or H3 that they feel they can't live without.
The Tennessee Titans fit well into the example of those who have what they need, and ask for a gift card for a rainy day. Each year, the pundits say they don't have enough receivers. Yet Justin Gage broke out for two huge touchdowns yesterday against the Jags. Around the country people know maybe three players on their defense, yet they are among the best every season. By contrast, there is no one on that team who has done less to pursue their success than their most recognizable player, Vince Young. They'll take the gift card because they use what they have, they're not glamorous, and they are frugal enough to make the most of what they have. The Cowboys will only drive an H3 for 50,000 miles and trade it in for something else, while the Titans will drive a Honda Civic for 300,000 miles and get 50 miles per gallon on top of it.
But where do the Chiefs fit into this example? I would say that the Chiefs are a young adult right now, and much closer to the Tennessee Titans at this point than the Dallas Cowboys. They don't have everything around the house that they need but they know what they're missing. They have the refrigerator they need to store the steaks, but no grill to cook them on. They have the player but no DVDs. A reading lamp without bulbs. You get the picture.
Right now, the 20-something Chiefs have an offensive team to build upon, but still has a few holes. They have strong leadership in Gonzalez and Waters, a solid young QB in Tyler Thigpen, and they go three deep at Wide Receiver in Bowe, Bradley, and Franklin. Cottam is even a promising replacement to Gonzalez in a couple of years. Brandon Albert is a very auspicious Tackle who, during the Buccaneers game, missed one block that got his QB destroyed. He walked over to his QB with his head down, and an ashamed demeanor about him. Since then, I haven't seen him miss a block in the next two games. I didn't even discuss our young Running Backs, but there is talent there even with the likely termination of Larry Johnson in the off-season.
On Defense, we also know what we have. Dorsey and Tyler have played increasingly better in the middle. Our young secondary is probably the most encouraging unit on the team, if that unit had a pass rush to help them out, they would be talked about right now on the national level. Even on special teams, we have a great punter that is obviously a fixture of this team's future.We know what we want for Christmas, and it's easy to write a list. We're not wandering around Walmart trying to make up a list of things we don't even know exist, we absolutely know where our deficiencies are.On Offense, we absolutely need a new Center, Right Guard, and Right Tackle. New starters on Week 1 at those three positions are necessities. Also at Kicker, Connor Barth might have beat out other players to be the kicker, but he has yet to impress me. He was missing 45 yarders in warm-ups on Sunday. He needs to go.
Defense is where we have the most holes. Tamba Hali and Turk McBride can play the Left End position, but this team needs a strong Rush End to pressure the opponent's QB and take pressure off of the endowed secondary. The linebackers can all go. Derrick Johnson could probably command a high draft pick, and Demorrio Williams and Rocky Boiman can stay on for depth. Other than that, we need three players there.
That makes 8 of 24 players (counting kickers) that we need to turnover in this off season. This last season, we turned over QB, FB, LT, C, RG, RE, DT, WLB, MLB, CB, CB, and K. That's 12 last season. This season, we need to make it 8. We have solutions at several of those (QB, FB, LT, DT, CB, and CB). Now we're down to 8. Even good teams in the NFL can name 5 guys they need to replace, and the great ones can even name 2.
We're getting closer to being the Titans, but let's not make the mistake of being the Cowboys. Which one is looking more likely to win the Super Bowl this year?
I think this analogy can describe several teams right now in the NFL. The Dallas Cowboys, I would say, fit into the materialistic mode. They had Barber, Owens, Witten, Jones, Romo, and others on offense, yet they threw conventional wisdom to the wind and blew the bank on Roy Williams in the middle of the season. It is the materialistic sense that Jerry Jones has that he will spend money to put what he "wants" on the field at all times. They have much of what they need, but there's an occasional Gucci Bag or H3 that they feel they can't live without.
The Tennessee Titans fit well into the example of those who have what they need, and ask for a gift card for a rainy day. Each year, the pundits say they don't have enough receivers. Yet Justin Gage broke out for two huge touchdowns yesterday against the Jags. Around the country people know maybe three players on their defense, yet they are among the best every season. By contrast, there is no one on that team who has done less to pursue their success than their most recognizable player, Vince Young. They'll take the gift card because they use what they have, they're not glamorous, and they are frugal enough to make the most of what they have. The Cowboys will only drive an H3 for 50,000 miles and trade it in for something else, while the Titans will drive a Honda Civic for 300,000 miles and get 50 miles per gallon on top of it.
But where do the Chiefs fit into this example? I would say that the Chiefs are a young adult right now, and much closer to the Tennessee Titans at this point than the Dallas Cowboys. They don't have everything around the house that they need but they know what they're missing. They have the refrigerator they need to store the steaks, but no grill to cook them on. They have the player but no DVDs. A reading lamp without bulbs. You get the picture.
Right now, the 20-something Chiefs have an offensive team to build upon, but still has a few holes. They have strong leadership in Gonzalez and Waters, a solid young QB in Tyler Thigpen, and they go three deep at Wide Receiver in Bowe, Bradley, and Franklin. Cottam is even a promising replacement to Gonzalez in a couple of years. Brandon Albert is a very auspicious Tackle who, during the Buccaneers game, missed one block that got his QB destroyed. He walked over to his QB with his head down, and an ashamed demeanor about him. Since then, I haven't seen him miss a block in the next two games. I didn't even discuss our young Running Backs, but there is talent there even with the likely termination of Larry Johnson in the off-season.
On Defense, we also know what we have. Dorsey and Tyler have played increasingly better in the middle. Our young secondary is probably the most encouraging unit on the team, if that unit had a pass rush to help them out, they would be talked about right now on the national level. Even on special teams, we have a great punter that is obviously a fixture of this team's future.We know what we want for Christmas, and it's easy to write a list. We're not wandering around Walmart trying to make up a list of things we don't even know exist, we absolutely know where our deficiencies are.On Offense, we absolutely need a new Center, Right Guard, and Right Tackle. New starters on Week 1 at those three positions are necessities. Also at Kicker, Connor Barth might have beat out other players to be the kicker, but he has yet to impress me. He was missing 45 yarders in warm-ups on Sunday. He needs to go.
Defense is where we have the most holes. Tamba Hali and Turk McBride can play the Left End position, but this team needs a strong Rush End to pressure the opponent's QB and take pressure off of the endowed secondary. The linebackers can all go. Derrick Johnson could probably command a high draft pick, and Demorrio Williams and Rocky Boiman can stay on for depth. Other than that, we need three players there.
That makes 8 of 24 players (counting kickers) that we need to turnover in this off season. This last season, we turned over QB, FB, LT, C, RG, RE, DT, WLB, MLB, CB, CB, and K. That's 12 last season. This season, we need to make it 8. We have solutions at several of those (QB, FB, LT, DT, CB, and CB). Now we're down to 8. Even good teams in the NFL can name 5 guys they need to replace, and the great ones can even name 2.
We're getting closer to being the Titans, but let's not make the mistake of being the Cowboys. Which one is looking more likely to win the Super Bowl this year?
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Sunday that Wasn't
This Sunday, I was in attendance to watch the Chiefs take it to the Tampa Bay Buccanneers, but then they didn't. When considering how to approach a perspective on the game, it comes down to themes that were, but then weren't. This post will be random ideas:
1) The Wildcat was an excellent approach for a change of pace and gave the Chiefs a lot of matchup problems in the first half. But then they didn't use it again.
2) Jamaal Charles looked like a running back who was already to become a starting running back for this team next season, but then he coughed up the ball on the Chiefs own three yard line.
3) Turk McBride appears to have emerged as a legitimated NFL defensive end, but then he gets a late hit on the QB about once a game.
4) Bernard Pollard plays a solid game, tackles and covers well, but then whiffs on a tackle in OT that sent Mark Clayton for a HUGE gain and eventual game winning field goal.
5) Brad Cottam looked like Tony Gonzalez in the first quarter, catching a pass, refusing to go out of bounds, and hitting about three Bucs in the process. But then they didn't throw him the ball again.
6) The Chiefs pass defense looked respectable, but then Brandon Flowers left the game and Jeff Garcia threw the ball all over Leggett, Brackenridge, and other backup corners all day long. It makes you feel good that our two rookie corners mean that much to this team.
7) Tony Gonzalez appeared to have interfered on that last catch when observing in real time (as I was there), but then replays made it look different. If the NFL allowed interference penalties to be challenged by replay, the Chiefs would have won that game, but if I was the referee I would have made that call in real time. Sorry Chiefs fans.
7) We were taking it to a potential playoff contender in the NFC, but then we lost.
This theme was all over the place Sunday, which happens with young teams who are "getting there" but "aren't quite there yet." We are seeing promise, and there are a few guys who deserve game balls for not being the "did but then didn't" group. Tyler Thigpen was again a QB who made great decisions. Mark Bradley has emerged as a solid second option at WR behind Dwayne Bowe. Brandon Flower s and Brandon Carr still deserve A LOT of credit for being the most stable unit on our defense (and they're both rookies playing there). Jarrod Page made an amazing play knocking down that Galloway potential TD pass.
As for this team at this moment, here's what I think we have: One Solid QB for this season at least and next if he keeps playing this way, one solid RB for the future, an emerging o-line, two WR's, two TE's, two CB's, two Safety's, one DE (McBride surprisingly), and two DT's. I have said before that if Albert continues to play well, I would still draft Michael Oher in round 1. I have not changed my mind. I think if we had Albert at RG and Oher at LT, we would have a really solid o-line by the end of next season. If we can replace McIntosh, a potentially great one.
Now for two negatives from that game. Herm Edwards needs to bench ANY player who whiffs on a tackle like Pollard did in overtime, period. Something must be done to make players tackle better, and he needs to make examples of those who don't. The tackling on this team must get better. In addition, while Kolby Smith was on the ground after his season-ending knee injury, I watched Dwayne Bowe take off his helmet, walk over to the Buccanneers defense, and have a meet/greet/laugh session with the opponents. He should have either been with Smith, in the huddle waiting on the next play, or on the sideline with his position coach until the next play. In a game where he did that selfish act, Ike Hilliard stood on the sideline after the half and shook hands with each military individual who walked off the field after the halftime celebration. No other Buc or Chief did that, as a matter of fact Weatherford punted balls during the half over the group being welcomed into the US Army at the break.
Hilliard should be commended, and Dwayne Bowe should start taking his cues from class acts like Ike Hilliard and Warrick Dunns instead of coming up with the next way to show the world that despite his talent, he really doesn't care about being anything but an entertainer on the field.
1) The Wildcat was an excellent approach for a change of pace and gave the Chiefs a lot of matchup problems in the first half. But then they didn't use it again.
2) Jamaal Charles looked like a running back who was already to become a starting running back for this team next season, but then he coughed up the ball on the Chiefs own three yard line.
3) Turk McBride appears to have emerged as a legitimated NFL defensive end, but then he gets a late hit on the QB about once a game.
4) Bernard Pollard plays a solid game, tackles and covers well, but then whiffs on a tackle in OT that sent Mark Clayton for a HUGE gain and eventual game winning field goal.
5) Brad Cottam looked like Tony Gonzalez in the first quarter, catching a pass, refusing to go out of bounds, and hitting about three Bucs in the process. But then they didn't throw him the ball again.
6) The Chiefs pass defense looked respectable, but then Brandon Flowers left the game and Jeff Garcia threw the ball all over Leggett, Brackenridge, and other backup corners all day long. It makes you feel good that our two rookie corners mean that much to this team.
7) Tony Gonzalez appeared to have interfered on that last catch when observing in real time (as I was there), but then replays made it look different. If the NFL allowed interference penalties to be challenged by replay, the Chiefs would have won that game, but if I was the referee I would have made that call in real time. Sorry Chiefs fans.
7) We were taking it to a potential playoff contender in the NFC, but then we lost.
This theme was all over the place Sunday, which happens with young teams who are "getting there" but "aren't quite there yet." We are seeing promise, and there are a few guys who deserve game balls for not being the "did but then didn't" group. Tyler Thigpen was again a QB who made great decisions. Mark Bradley has emerged as a solid second option at WR behind Dwayne Bowe. Brandon Flower s and Brandon Carr still deserve A LOT of credit for being the most stable unit on our defense (and they're both rookies playing there). Jarrod Page made an amazing play knocking down that Galloway potential TD pass.
As for this team at this moment, here's what I think we have: One Solid QB for this season at least and next if he keeps playing this way, one solid RB for the future, an emerging o-line, two WR's, two TE's, two CB's, two Safety's, one DE (McBride surprisingly), and two DT's. I have said before that if Albert continues to play well, I would still draft Michael Oher in round 1. I have not changed my mind. I think if we had Albert at RG and Oher at LT, we would have a really solid o-line by the end of next season. If we can replace McIntosh, a potentially great one.
Now for two negatives from that game. Herm Edwards needs to bench ANY player who whiffs on a tackle like Pollard did in overtime, period. Something must be done to make players tackle better, and he needs to make examples of those who don't. The tackling on this team must get better. In addition, while Kolby Smith was on the ground after his season-ending knee injury, I watched Dwayne Bowe take off his helmet, walk over to the Buccanneers defense, and have a meet/greet/laugh session with the opponents. He should have either been with Smith, in the huddle waiting on the next play, or on the sideline with his position coach until the next play. In a game where he did that selfish act, Ike Hilliard stood on the sideline after the half and shook hands with each military individual who walked off the field after the halftime celebration. No other Buc or Chief did that, as a matter of fact Weatherford punted balls during the half over the group being welcomed into the US Army at the break.
Hilliard should be commended, and Dwayne Bowe should start taking his cues from class acts like Ike Hilliard and Warrick Dunns instead of coming up with the next way to show the world that despite his talent, he really doesn't care about being anything but an entertainer on the field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
