Devastating Hits

With news that the NFL will now levy suspensions against players who distribute "devastating hits" or "head hunt", we are entering a dangerous territory for fans and players alike. The integrity of the game is really coming into question. I appreciate that the NFL is looking out for the players and trying to limit concussions, but the league is coming to a crossroad. If the league continues to over-protect the players, though, defenses are going to become helpless. As a Redskins fan, the team is developing a reputation of hurting players, with clean, but potentially "devastating" hits. If a key contributor, be it Landry, Fletcher, Alexander, or whoever is suspended for making a big hit, I will strongly consider protesting the league. The players these days are so big, so strong, and so fast that when we see these collisions in slow-motion, of course it's going to look like they're "head hunting", but from the perspective of the player, they are trying to make a play to help their team win. For the most part, players are trying to make clean, hard hits. Sure, I feel terrible for DeSean Jackson, he is a very small guy in comparison to the rest of the league, and he got absolutely blown up. But, listen, the players know the risks of the game. If you don't want to get hit, then don't put the pads on. Nobody is forcing these players to suit up on Sundays. There is no way to avoid bad injuries in the league, and if you force these defensive backs to let up, then wide receivers are going to float across the middle of the defense with no fear and shred everyone.

A Post about the Sports Junkies and The Redskins

Could this be more of an inside-post? Anyway, there are about 8 people on the planet who would find this compelling, and none of them probably read this blog. Nonetheless, I present to you: -- Why The Junks Are Clueless --

Lets face it, when you want a sophisticated, analytical, intelligent debate/conversation about sports the Junks aren't the best option. They surely don't know the in's and out's of sabermetrics in baseball, or the X's and O's of football. In basketball they rely solely on the sniff test and what Tim Legler says. They're just "Joe the Fan" and thats it, we all enjoy the show for the zings and the inside jokes, but when they talk sports all day their ignorance really shines through. They even market themselves that way, as Lurch says on the MASN spot "we drink beer and watch sports on TV (if we're not asleep by the end of the 2nd quarter)". Nonetheless, they do have the power of the microphone and they have really infuriated me this week with their analysis of the Skins victory along with the Moss/Welker debate.

Lurch, how many "if's, shoulda's, coulda's, woulda's, and but's" are you going to throw out about the Philly game? Sure, I get it, you were making your prediction based on the knowledge that Vick would play 4 quarters. Are you going to tell me that you don't take into consideration the fact that Vick is a running quarterback with a history of injury against one of the hardest hitting secondaries in the NFL? That's your own lack of insightful fore-thinking. Vick didn't get hurt falling off the team plane, the Redskins KNOCKED HIM OUT of the game. You keep saying "if Vick would have played, it would have been a different game". (Yet, when it is brought up that if Santana were in the Patriots offense, Lurch quickly says that he "hates when people use that 'what if' argument". So what is it? What-if's are allowed when they benefit your argument but not when they contradict it?). Also, use your brain Lurch, the Redskins shot out the gate with a TD, another TD, and then a drive that went to the 4yd line but ended in a FG due to penalties and Armstrong stumbling out of bounds. With that heavy lead and Kolb in at QB, the gameplan offensively completely changes. We intentionally went into a running box and tried to milk the game away. Boswell made a great point about McNabb being conservative throughout his career when he has a large lead. The strategy paid off. If Vick were in and the game were closer, maybe Philly would have won, but I can assure you that there wouldn't have been as many run-run-run-punt drives.

EB, you are making me sick this week. After one bad loss you completely turned on the team. Don't you dare jump on the bandwagon when we beat Green Bay and improve to 3-2. Don't you dare. When a team comes off a heartbreaking emotional overtime loss, on the road, in a DEAD stadium against a dead franchise, a letdown is almost inevitable. Its not excusable. But, it happened, and over the course of a 16 game season all good teams have bad losses. The Redskins aren't the Colts of last year, we aren't going to breeze through the season, but we have a good team and we're going to have good wins and bad losses. The season is going to come down to the divisional games and with a 2-0 start you have to feel good about your chances. We are a blocked FG away from 3-1. That's the reality of the situation. And, for those of you who say, you are a holding call away from 1-3, that is COMPLETELY different. That holding call was not a "flukey" play like a blocked FG. Had Orakpo not been held, Romo would have been sacked and the game would have ended. Either way it's a Redskin win. That's just the facts. We have wins over Philly and Dallas through week 4 and yet, you are only predicting 6 wins at best and add that we are underdogs every week? Please.

JP is actually being the most level-headed and reasonable of all when it comes to the Skins. And that is UNBELIEVABLE. But, I have figured out why... its a perfect balance. The guy has man-love for McNabb and loves to disagree with EB, so in one sense he wants Washington to succeed. On the other hand, he knows EB gains joy out of the Redskins winning and has a deep-rooted hater bias against the team, so in that sense, he won't go all-in on the team.

Cakes, why are you being such a girly-man? Go out on a limb for a change. I know you love to be non-confrontational and primarily care about zings, but it's obvious you don't agree with the Lurch and EB hate toward the team, so voice your opinions. Please, we Skins fans need someone besides Bret in our corner, who is great at making initial arguments, but awful when it comes to countering.

I would call in, but I know that I'd get cut off within seconds, hung up on and then called a moron. They would then ask me to respond to a point that I could easily respond to, but E.B. will say "he bailed". When, in reality, I would have been hung up on by his fat clumsy fingers. Anyway, I really am a huge fan of the show and haven't missed a segment since podcasting began at JFK. I remember when Bret would just select 4 of the 12 segments and post them. We've come a long way since then. I'm sure nobody is going to read this, but I'm willing to debate anything I've said, so comment away.

More Tea Party Stuff

I'm really killing it with these blog post titles, aren't I? God, I'm good.

Anyway, here is an article by a British political analyst in the guardian about the Tea Party. Great read. You should check it out.

Heres my own little cliff note version of it, and a lot of this stuff is really the obvious points that I've been making for months now, but he raises some unique points, as well.

The Republican "tent" is straining: witness the cannibalism already taking place this weekend, with Karl Rove attacking the tea partiers, with moderate senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announcing a "write-in" campaign against her extremist opponent Joe Miller (the guy that says unemployment benefits are unconsititutional).

....

As America – admittedly, slowly – becomes more socially moderate (see polls on greater acceptance of gay rights, belief in healthcare, etc), Republican leaders in Washington are doing their best to portray an inclusive party. Many in the Republican camp are on board with the moderate strategy (see Ken Mehlman – Bush's chief strategist's – call for acceptance of gay rights, or Karl Rove's repudiation of the Tea Party).

It's tempting to compare the Republican party to the British Conversative party of the late 1990s: at war with itself; unsure of its identity; fundamentally torn by the issue of Europe and forced into being the party of "no" (remember William Hague's "Five days left to save the pound" campaign?). The answer for the Conservatives was to modernise, tack to the middle and embrace social change. They were able to do so not least because of the ageing population of the most rightwing elements.

Americans Republicans don't have that luxury. Tea Partiers aren't dying out. Their extremism is sustained, in part, by thriving Christian fundamentalism. They're here to stay. And they're here to be vocal.

Tea Party Stuff

Well, shocker, my Econ professor never responded. I'll just keep it moving, I guess. Anyway, I had a few thoughts about the Tea Party, which has accrued even more buzz and momentum with Christine O'Donnell winning her primary in Delaware. First, I don't consider this some kind of huge blow to the Democrats, or to the United States as a whole. I think if we let the Tea Party into office completely, it will actually do us some long-term good. The buffoons who run the Tea Party and campaign largely - if not wholly - on wedge issues are sure to crash the economy and make a mockery of foreign policy if the controls are left in their hands. Hopefully, that will put an end to people voting solely on wedge issues. O'Donnell, for instance, has made the claim that masturbation should be considered adultery. Claims like this, along with other conservative extreme viewpoints, somehow have a history of rallying the voting base. Perhaps, though, once in office the country will finally see what an abomination the trickle down economics thought process has been, especially in its current form in the recession as businesses exploit the "recession" to cut costs, stop hiring, and commit layoffs all under the guise of a recession, all the while, they turn profits. The rich get richer. The "fair tax" and ultra-conservative misinterpretations of the Constitution lead by the clueless tea party continue to split the Republican party in half, though. So, odd as it is, the Republicans are actually blocking themselves from getting into office and trouncing progressive race/religious/cultural advancements. Not that I'm rooting for the Tea Party to get in office because I want them to succeed, it's more so that if the Cowboys were in the NFC Championship game and the AFC team was sure to embarrass whoever the victor of the game were, I would root for Dallas to win just so I could watch them get pummeled in the Super Bowl. Except, in politics, you don't get credit just for making it into office, your judged on results. The Tea Party would surely be at a loss for those.

Conservative Bias in Collegiate Economics

Below is an e-mail I sent to my Macro Econ professor this afternoon, hopefully she will respond and I can put her answer on this blog. She also, ironically enough, said something that completely contradicted my previous blog on drugs/Mexico and enraged me in class again this morning. I will certainly send her a link to this blog and continue to question her on her conservative biases throughout the semester.

Hello,

My name is Jason Harlow I am a student in your Econ 201 course. On the first week of classes you made the implication that wages are inelastic, or rather, that people would be unwilling to accept certain paycuts because they could not maintain their way of life. As an example, you said that someone who had to pay their mortgage and put their child through college would not accept a paycut from $25/hr to $10/hr. Over the past few weeks, though, this statement has bothered me quite a bit, considering it is the basis for much of economic theory in this course, I felt it prudent for me to e-mail you my concern. Over the course of time we have seen that those in 3rd world countries have accepted pittances for wages, because those are all that employers are willing to offer. The "banana replublic" in Central America, for example, is notorious for offering wages of a mere $1/day. Certainly not enough for anyone to send their child to university, and yet, throughout the state people beg for the jobs in banana fields, or any job that will pay them any wage at all. Would it be possible for you to defend your statement or correct me if I misunderstood the position you assumed? In class or by e-mail works for me. Thanks so much for your time.

-Jason Harlow

Thursday Night Football

The defending champion Saints host the Vikings tonight and are 5 point favorites. Defending Champs have won their season opener the last 10 years and i expect it to continue. 70% of teams that cover su cover ats as well so take the Saints(-5) to the bank tonight. If the Saints lose tonight, i will reimburse everyone's losses by hooking them at Buffalo Wild Wings.

My sit and start for fantasy purposes tonight look like this:
Start: Reggie Bush(12 points) and Bernard Berrian(10 points)
Sit: Brett Favre(6 points) and Devery Henderson(2 points)

Good Luck this week Richards

A Few Opinions on Mexico

Lately, I have chosen not to comment much on politics, because frankly, it's just been discouraging me a lot. I'm really starting to regret choosing to pursue a politically-based degree, because, I don't know if I can work in the field. In other words, I've been taking the stance that I care way more about Jose Calderon than Felipe Calderon. But, nonetheless, I felt compelled tonight to comment on Mexico following another Mexican mayor being gunned down in his office in broad daylight. My stance on both immigration and drugs have been well documented on this blog, I don't believe I really have to re-visit them too much in depth.

First, let me just say that you can not fight a war on drugs with a law enforcement approach. That's something I learned watching HBO's "The Wire". A lot of my fellow hippy liberals say, hey why don't you just legalize drugs, that'll wipe out the entire black market. Sorry pals, it doesn't work like that. You don't legalize drugs and then expect an entire underbelly of drug lords and criminals to vanish. If you load a safety in the box to stop the run, maybe you can hold Adrian Peterson under 100 yards, but at was cost? Brett Favre is going to kill you over the top. What I'm getting at is that if you wipe out one industry, the criminals will just adapt and find a new industry or they'll produce drugs at a much lower cost, considering the prices they pay for labor are basically nothing (they strong arm cats) and that the black market doesn't tack on taxes. So if you wan't to legalize drugs because of your libertarian belief-system, thats one thing, but don't try to use eliminating crime as a cheap add-on benefit to your argument.

Not to mention the role that America has played in what Mexico has become. Unfair trade agreements we have entered in with corrupted Latin American leaders have crippled much of the potential economic successes Mexico and other nations may have enjoyed. Without legitimate options, rampant joblessness, and dire economic conditions of course violence will persist.

Anyway, it's Dallas week and I don't feel like proof-reading this, so don't grill me for misspellings or poor syntax or sentences and phrases that flat out make no sense. Go Skins. lol