The Electric Commentary

Monday, October 30, 2006

Boo!

It's a new Homestar Runner Halloween Toon! Just in time for...Halloween. Like you would expect. I guess. I suppose it's not actually that exciting. Around the 4th of July, now that would be exciting, I mean, who would ever see that coming? Still, Strong Mad has a pretty sweet "The Maxx" costume, and The Cheat's Gizmo is darn adorable, so you might as well check it out.

Paul's All-Purpose, Federal Anti-Incumbent Negative Ad

As we're in the thick of election season I though that I would give every non-incumbent challenger a leg up with my all-purpose ad. As long as you're running against someone in the US Senate or Congress, and as long as he/she has a voting record, this will work:

(Cue ominous music and impressive-sounding narrator)

Did you know that (insert incumbent name here) has voted for dozens of unconstitutional laws while he/she has been in office? Even though all senators/congresspeople take a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? It's true.

Under (Name) tenure, the congress/senate has misused a little-known provision of the Constitution known as the "interstate commerce clause" to justify hundreds of unconstitutional laws, even wasteful pork-barrel spending like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. In fact, every single portion of the record-setting spending increases over the past (2/4/6) years has occurred because of this one small provision that was never meant to justify such actions.

Your taxes are high because of these laws, and they're just going to continue to skyrocket. And all because (name) decided to abuse our most sacred national document. Either that, or he/she can't read.

(Cue positive, upbeat music.)

Vote (your name here), and he/she will put an end to wasteful spending and high taxes. But most of all, he'll/she'll put an end to a national desecration. (opponent) may claim to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem, but can you truly trust someone who openly spits on the Constitution?

(I'm (X) and I approve of this message, because it's time we started respecting the law of the land in this country.)

(Paid for by free citizens for free freedom, a freer tomorrow, and staying the course/reform.)

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Fun Halloween Friday

How about some interactive Homestar this fine Friday?

Halloween Costume Idea: Wisconsin Only

I have a costume that I'm not going to use this weekend, because I'm:

1. Lazy and
2. In Chicago.

However, if you are not lazy and in Milwaukee, may I suggest that you dress up as our old Milwaukee County Stadium buddy, the Two-Fisted Slobber.

The Two-Fisted Slobber was the main character in a public service announcement that they played at old County Stadium for the purpose of preventing binge drinking. The Slobber would spill on people, swear in front of children, and get up to use the facilities at the most inopportune times.

He always pissed off the other characters (old ladies, children, parents), and he always had two beers in his hands. There was a problem with the Two-Fisted Slobber, however. After awhile, he started to become a cultural icon. Instead of deterring those around him from binge-drinking, many people decided that they would rather be him than have to deal with him. Fan-cams would often catch TFS imitators. He was positively cool, and the Brewers, fearing a backlash from "those people" (You know who I'm talking about. The same jackasses who took away Bernie's beer mug and lederhosen, even though the team is called The Brewers, and even though they play in Miller Park.) forever buried the Slobber in an unmarked crate in a gigantic storage room, deep in the bowels of Miller Park, perhaps next to the Ark of the Covenant.

You can't even find him on the 'net. Don't even bother Googling, I've tried. You'll get cheap knock-offs, but you'll never find the real thing.

That's why Halloween is the perfect time to bring back the Two-Fisted Slobber. You only need a few readily-available items:

1. A "wife-beater" tank top.
2. A slight beer gut. The Slobber is not obese, just a bit doughy.
3. A "BM" old-school 80s era Brewer cap.
4. Cut off jean shorts. Longer than Tobias's, but not by much.
5. A 70s style pornstache, like the Brewers all had in the 80s. Fake or real, it doesn't matter.
6. Sneakers.
7. Tall socks.
8. Two beers.
9. No tan. At all. Pasty white only.

The best part about the costume is that it requires you to consume two simultaneous alcoholic beverages all evening. It might be a bit cold, but it does allow for easy movement, and a great deal of comfort if you are in a crowded space.

So please, this Halloween, if you don't have a bitchin' costume ready to go, do your part to bring back this Milwaukee icon, this Sultan of Suds. Bring back to Two-Fisted Slobber.

However, if the Two-Fisted Slobber is bothering you on Halloween, find an usher, a county sheriff, or go to the Fan Assistance Center, located on the main concourse behind Section 17.

Do Not Bench Frank Gore

Look, the Bears have a very good defense, but let's not get carries away. Ahman Green rushed for 100 yards against them, how hard can it be? They shut down Edge, but who hasn't? Kevin Jones had only 44 yards, but he got that on only 12 carries, and he had another 36 through the air. Chester Taylor had 75 yards on 20 carries (and Mewelde Moore added 23 on 3). Shaun Alexander didn't play against the Bears, but the Seattle line has been terrible anyway.

Now the 49ers aren't exactly great. In fact, they suck. But Franky has been one of the most productive fantasy players this year, and the Bears have, by-and-large, not shut down productive fantasy RBs.

Keep Gore in the game. You won't regret it.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

It's Almost Halloween!

Which means it's almost time for a new Homestar Halloween Cartoon. While we're waiting, here's a classic.

Scott Adams' Best Day

I'm a big fan of Dilbert creator Scott Adams. His two short books, God's Debris, and The Religion War, are most excellent. Scott has a condition called spasmodic dysphonia which you can read about here. It robs him of his normal speaking voice. No one really ever recovers from this ailment, but Scott, an eternal optimist, took a novel approach. His breakthrough turned out to be rhyming:

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick.
Jack jumped over the candlestick.


You should read the entire thing.

Meta-Proof That People Suck

If you ever find yourself agreeing with a sentence like this:

"The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better," says John Orrock, a conservation biologist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California.


you may need to take a minute to reevaluate your priorities. Yes, this guy is advocating for the position that the Earth would be better off without us. I'm not sure how the Earth would know, as it has no brain, and isn't even, in fact, alive, but this is a fairly commonly held idea.

Intelligent life is the best thing that has ever happened to this planet. Without intelligent life, existence is savage, miserable, an short. People rule. It's too bad that this guy chooses not to participate in intelligent life.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Reading the Constitution is hard.

One thing that really pisses me off is that some people, many of whom have positions as justices on the US Supreme Court, think that interpreting the Constitution is some sort of game, the goal of which is to come up with a plausible theory of interpretation to lend support to your preconceived ideas of what is should say.

The Second Amendment is the best example of this. It is actually quite possibly the clearest, most direct amendment in the Constitution.

To understand the second amendment, it is important to remember one thing:

1. The people who wrote the Constitution had recently accomplished a civilian overthrow of a state-sponsored military.

The second amendment is as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Most people, even some gun nuts, think that this amendment authorizes the ownership of firearms in the context of an organized militia only. They interpret the second amendment to read:

If you have some sort of state sanction, or license, or the like, then you can own a gun.


They use this interpretation to severely curtail the rights of would-be gun-owners. It is worth noting, however, that his interpretation is completely, objectively incorrect. A more accurate interpretation is as follows:

Look, the state needs an army. Defending the people is one of the clear, legitimate uses of government. But, it's possible that, at some point, that military will turn on us, the people. After all, that exact thing just happened to us in our war with the British.

Because the military may turn on the people at some point, we absolutely must allow the people to own guns, so that they may overthrow the military, and the government, when it is appropriate to do so.


This is the correct interpretation, but good luck finding a politician who will support the idea that gun ownership is essential for protection from him.

What really grinds my gears is the dishonesty that most people use in reading this amendment. Both Danny and I are squeamish about guns. We don't own any guns, we've never fired a gun, and we are not oblivious to the existence of foreign nations with more gun control and less violence (nor are we ignorant of the existence of studies that say that crime is lower in areas that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.)

But, we're libertarians, we can read, and we're not hypocrites, and so we believe that Americans have the legal right to own guns. This should be clear to everyone.

If we wanted to change US gun policy, the honest way to go about it would be to lobby for a Constitutional amendment that would allow for gun control, but instead opponents seek out judges willing to engage in "creative" Constitutional interpretation.

The worst part about this is the effect it has on the judiciary. Instead of fair, smart judges we look for partisans. This creates a judiciary that is less concerned with fairness, and more concerned with their party's interests. The abortion issue has a similar destructive effect.

Whether you are a gun enthusiast or a gun-hater you should be aware of the actual law of the land, and the steps that you must go through to change that law. The founders had a very good reason for enacting the second amendment, and they made it very clear (through use of language as well as through its "2nd place ranking" in the Bill of Rights) that the right to bear arms was very important to the existence of a free nation.

You may disagree with that, which is fine. However, if you do not agree with it, you should recognize that nothing short of a constitutional amendment will change anything.

The "stupid judges" policy of eroding constitutional rights is practiced by both parties, and it is one of the most destructive policies to which a government can adhere.

Sticktoitiveness

Isn't "sticktoitiveness" the worst word in the English language? We don't have "drinkbeeritivieness" or "giveupitiveness" or "runmarathonitiveness." How did this become a word? It makes no sense.

Now I'm going to show off my "getpizzativeness."

How should you vote?

Most people don't realize that the primary is actually the most important election because that is where you can avoid the prospect of voting for a complete douchebag in the general election. But, after each party has selected its douchebag-du-jour, your strategy is simple. If you are a lefty, you should vote democrat no matter what. You should do this even if you are just barely a Democrat. And, if you are a conservative, you should vote for the Republican even if you are just barely a Republican.

You should ignore all Foley-esque scandals. They don't matter at all.

What matters is the control of the presidency, and the control of congress. After you have selected your candidate, you should not deviate unless you switch your political philosophy.

This is just advice, not an endorsement of any particular party. As a libertarian I vote in such a way as to create the highest likelihood of government gridlock, and do not focus on a party, but if you actually believe in a party and you are swayed by something as superficial as a sex scandal, then you probably shouldn't be voting.

You should also read this column by the great P.J. O'Rourke, which includes lines like:

President Bush said that if illegal immigrants want citizenship they'd have to do three things: pay taxes, hold meaningful jobs, and learn English. Bush doesn't meet those qualifications.

The Sourtooth Problem

When I eat something especially sour or abrasive, my teeth hurt for a week. Does this happen to other people?

The best example is "Sweet Tarts." Whenever I eat them my molars are in agony for the rest of the week. I can't eat chips, I can't eat steak, and I can't eat anything with any substance whatsoever.

(Well then don't eat Sweet Tarts you moron. - Ed.)

Normally I don't but every so often I try again just to see if it still hurts. It does. I would love to know the scientific explanation. I mean, it can't happen to everyone or no one would ever buy Sweet Tarts, or Bottle Caps, or Spree, or Nerds, or Tart n' Tiny" or Skittles, or Pop Rocks, or the like. So, does anyone have any answers or do I have to write a letter to New Scientist?

Skittles

I like Skittles, but they also piss me off. That's because the grape flavor doesn't go with any of the other flavors, most of which are citrus. Lemon, orange, and lime all work well with each other, and cherry is ok, but the fructose flavored grape flavor just doesn't mesh well. I think they just forced it in their for purposes of color. The lack of a legitimate blue fruit (blueberry does not have a strong enough flavor, and don't get me started on "blue raspberry," whatever that is.) causes all sorts of coloring problems in the world of fruit-flavored candy.

Let's face it; Skittles needs some purple. Unfortunately, the grape flavor exists at the cost of a cohesive candy experience. The grape flavor isn't even bad, it is just not wise to consume grape in concert with the other flavors as it is completely overwhelming.

Starburst jellybeans suffer from a similar problem, although actual Starbursts themselves remain free from fructose infection. Thank God.

I agree that a blue would be a pleasant addition to any given candy. M&M, for instance, now includes a blue hue in every pack (lamentable at the expense of the light brown color). That said, there is no reason to create unpleasant flavor combinations for the sake of color.

And while we're on the subject of Skittles... (see the post above this one.)

Thursday, October 19, 2006

I Don't Know Anything

I've spent most of my last week at my office, and I am not up on any current affairs. This makes writing anything worthwhile rather difficult, as you can probably already tell. I did get to listen to the Bears/Cardinals game. I won a fantasy matchup due solely to the Bear defense, but it wasn't worth it at all, and it has made my life miserable.

If you're a Bear fan, how can you be cocky about that game? 1 million things had to go your way to win that thing. Rackers had to miss not one, but two FGs. The Cardinals non only had to fumble twice, but to fumble in an area where it would, by pure luck, be picked up by a fast Bear defender in space. They needed a replay to overturn an Arizona TD. They needed a punt return TD.

That game was absolutely ridiculous. We will likely not see anything like it again. This is "Fernando Tatis 2 Grand Slams in one inning" unlikely. Still, they are talking about an undefeated season.

And my poor Packers. You know, according to the Outsiders they've played the toughest schedule so far? (Think about it. Rams, Saints, Eagles, Bears. That's frickin' tough.) The fact is that they're probably not as bad as they seem. At least there is some reason for optimism.

I hear there was some nuclear test or something too. Man, I'm out of it.

Note: Two much office time leads to mispelling "too." Or "to." Or "Two."

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Why is Paul Ehrlich always wrong?

There are many doomsayers out there, and they all share something in common.

There is an experiment that almost everyone does in high school biology. It involves starting a bacteria culture on an agar plate. At first the bacteria grow like mad, doubling at regular intervals, but eventually, the resources start to become scarce, the bacteria start to compete, and they experience a major dropoff in population. Most animal populations follow this pattern in nature, especially when they enter a new environment. The mistake that the Ehrlichs of the world make is extrapolating this pattern to humans.

America gets a lot of crap for its "materialistic" ways, but no one is more materialistic than an animal. Food is the single most important thing in an animal's life. If they don't get it, they die. Simple as that. The way that resources are allocated in the animal kingdom is based on might. If you are stronger, you will survive. Some people, leftists mainly, often compare free-market capitalism to the law of the jungle, but nothing could be further from the truth.

If they were correct in this analogy, then Ehrlich and every other doomsayer would be correct, however, the laws of nature do not apply to societies that practice free market capitalism. This is what we call "civilization." Those that adhere to the law of the jungle do not reside in civilization. Those that exist in some sort of capitalist society, do exist in civilization. Allocating resources without regard to physical strength is what civilization is all about.

If you're a tiger, you have no ability to gauge the antelope population. If you happen to be the alpha-tiger there is always food for you, but the poor beta-tigers have no idea whether they will be eating in any given week. If you are a human, on the other hand, you can figure out, roughly, the amount of cattle out there. Or spinach. Or cheese. Or televisions. Or oil.

If antelope become scarce, tigers starve. If cows become scarce, on the other hand, beef increases in value, and people are warned, via the price, that they should switch to chicken, or pork, or tofu, or seafood, or anything else that people can eat. Price tells us how much of something is out there.

Paul Ehrlich is always wrong because he thinks that people make decisions in a vacuum. He doesn't understand the most basic principle of economics: people respond to incentives. The reason that we do not run out of food, as he has so often predicted, is that when food prices go up, people look for new sources of food. The reason that we do not run out of natural resources is that when they get scarce, we either increase production due to the high price, or we find substitutes. Everyone thinks that the high price of oil is such a catastrophe, but if the price gets too high, we will find substitutes, or we will find more oil.

Unlike animals, people have an early warning system in the even that resources get scarce. High prices tell us exactly what we need to know, and human ingenuity allows us to deal with the problem. No animal population is as well informed about the supply of food, and no animal population is equipped to deal with the problem.

Finally, Ehrlich is wrong about overpopulation because he sees humans as a credit against the available resources. The fact is that many humans, through their productivity, actually increase the amount available for consumption. People, in general, are a net positive. The more the merrier, I always say.

Don't listen to those (like this idiot) who tell us that the world is overpopulated. It's not. The areas of the US with the highest population density (like New Jersey) are doing just fine. Most places with low population density (like sub-Saharan Africa) suck ass, so to speak.

Think about it. Do you expect, one day, to show up at McDonald's only to be told that they've run out of hamburgers? Of course not. That would be idiotic. But that is exactly what people like Paul Ehrlich want you to think.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Fun Friday

In response to a special Friday request. This is actually very creative:



(Hat Tip, Keith)

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Packer Question

I was at the game on Sunday and I was confused by a particular play. Perhaps one of you can shed some light on the subject. At some point in the third quarter (I think), the Packers challenged the spot of the ball. The Rams had been awarded a first down on the previous play, but the replay showed that the Ram receiver was probably short. The refs, upon reviewing the play, moved the ball back the length of a ball and then measured. The Rams were still awarded a first down, but the ball was moved backward. Despite the fact that the replay resulted in the Rams being worse off, the Packers were still charged a timeout as if they had lost the challenge.

I strongly disagree with this ruling. Did the announcers have anything to say?

Where's My Organ?

The illegality of selling organs is deadly in so very many ways:

Transplant centers are artificially high profit centers because they capture some of the rents generated by the shortage of organs. As a result, there are too many transplant centers in the United States and each center performs too few transplants. Practice makes perfect so when a transplant center performs only a few operations a year lives are lost.

Medicare requires that transplant centers perform 12 transplants a year to be certified but many programs are in violation of that standard with little consequence. Medicare is even thinking of reducing the standard from 12 per year to 9 in 30 months. As one specialist says "I wouldn't take my car to be serviced by someone who repaired nine cars over the past three years. Would anyone do that?"

Monday, October 09, 2006

Happy Columbus Day

I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody indians. You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story.


-Spike, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Writing

Greg Mankiw offers some useful tips including:

The passive voice is avoided by good writers.


and,

Put details and digressions in footnotes. Then delete the footnotes.


and,

Avoid “of course, “clearly,” and “obviously.” Clearly, if something is obvious, that fact will, of course, be obvious to the reader.


Enjoy.

It's funny 'cause it's true.

Click here to find out why:

you’re probably an inbred spawn of illiterate, unhygienic, penis-worshipping child molesters.

Friday, October 06, 2006

He was in NBA Jam! Where is he now?

NBA Jam featured the greatest stars of the NBA playing 2-on-2. As the Milwaukee Bucks possessed no stars to speak of, their squad featured Blue Edwards and Brad Lohaus. Bucks fans love Brad Lohaus. In many ways he was the forerunner to Dirk Nowitzki, a power forward who could knock down the three and create his own shot. He also couldn't play defense very well or rebound, just like Dirk. Brad was one of the best in a long line of tall, lanky, white Bucks. Fred Roberts, Larry Kryst...Larry long, Polish name, Jack Sikma, Marty Conlon, Frank Brickowski, Danny Schayes, Randy Brewer, Paul Mokeski, etc.

Friend and commenter Scott H managed to track Brad down. If anyone is interested.

And while we're on the subject of NBA Jam and sports video games, Scott F (an entirely different Scott) tracked down this list of exceptional highlights.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Bad Science, Bad People

Paul Ehrlich, author of the famous book "The Population Bomb" has made many, many predictions over the course of his life, and as far as I know, they have all been wrong. Ehrlich and his wife Anne are firm believers in the idea that the world is overpopulated and that ideally there would be about 2 billion people. Paul's two most famous predictions, that the earth would undergo a major famine killing hundreds of millions of people:

[t]he battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines -- hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.


and that the prices of most natural resources would rise over time (as chronicled in his famous wager with Julian Simon), would prove to be losers.

But he and his wife are sticking to their guns. I knew that they were bad "scientists," to use the term loosely. What I never knew, however, is that they're also lousy human beings. I get the NewScientist podcast every Monday. It is generally excellent. However, this Monday, I heard Anne Ehrlich say the following while recommending that the Earth's population be reduced:

As witness the Chinese solution. Although there are a great many people who disapprove of China because it resorted to rather draconian means to get the birthrate down, but they did succeed and they had very good reasons for becoming draconian. (Emphasis mine.)

-Anne Ehrlich


That's right, Anne Ehrlich just simultaneously endorsed communism while supporting government sponsored abortion and infant exposure.

What a despicable person. You can listen for yourself here.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Winnerness

If you go to NFL.com right now to check out the scores, you will notice that the Falcons have 32 points. You might think that the Falcon QB Michael Vick has had a good game, but this really isn't the case. Mikey is having a nice game as a RB, hitting the 100 yard mark, but he's only thrown for 157 yards to this point, and he's thrown a pick (which was returned 99 yards for a TD).

If you check out the individual scores in that game you will notice that the Falcons have kicked 6 field goals, not exactly the mark of a dominant offense. You will also notice that the two Falcon TDs came on a DeAngelo Hall interception return for a TD, and a long Jerious Norwood TD run. Vick had little, if anything to do with either of these plays.

Yet I'm sure that at some point this week I will hear someone refer to Michael Vick as a winner. I hate this. He's not as terrible as I often make him out to be. Sure, he can't pass, but his running is nothing to sneeze at. That said, Atlanta wins primarily because of a good O-Line and a solid defense, not a stellar QB.

Believe it or not, I have a few friends who happen to be Bear fans who still maintain that Kyle Orton should be starting because "he's a winner."

There seems to be a strong human compulsion to attribute some mystical "winner" quality to any member of a plus-.500 team. It's very irritating. Baseball is the best example. Baseball routinely awards its Cy Young award, which is to award the best pitcher in baseball, to the guy with the most "Wins." "Wins" is probably the most annoying stat in baseball, because a pitcher will be more likely to get a win if he plays on a team with a good offense. and pitching has nothing to do with the pitcher's team's offense. Roger Clemens is routinely the best pitcher in the National League, rarely giving up more than 2 runs a game, but his team, the Houston Astros, boasts one of the most inept offenses in baseball. As a result, Clemens routinely misses out on "wins" through no fault of his own. Only his name recognition has allowed him to win the Cy Young in more recent years.

(Don't even get me started on the MVP award and its focus on the deplorable RBI.)

So, people (And sportswriters) apparently care a great deal about the mystical voodoo quality of "winnerness." Rather than seek out the true cause of the winning they just assign everyone a slice and assume that if not for that person's winnerness the team would cease to win.

The fact is the Kyle Orton (and Michael Vick) aren't winners. They're members of the "Winner" entourage, shamelessly mooching off of the winning contributions of others while grabbing as much spotlight as they can while their patrons allow it.

What do we really know about the Packers?

Not much, really. We know that the Packers are 1-2, but they have (as I write this) only lost to undefeated teams. Then again, those undefeated teams have only played 3 games, and one of those three wins came against the Packers so it's more like they're 2-0, which doesn't tell you very much. Moreover, the lone Packer win has come against the Detroit Lions, and I think we can all agree that his merely proves that you are (mercifully) better than the Detroit lions.

We know that Al Harris is better when he can focus on the other team's #1 receiver, and that moving him around in coverage schemes this year has been a huge mistake. We know that Charles Woodson is horrible, but at least he's really expensive.

We know that Nick Barnett is still too small and still loves to celebrate at inappropriate moments. We don't know anything about A.J. Hawk. We know, shockingly, in my opinion, that Aaron Kampman is a far superior player to his linemate KGB. It's not really even close at this point. I believe that Cullen Jenkins is also superior, although we don't know this yet.

We don't know anything about kicking, except that we don't know anything. I guess that's something.

We know that Favre is lousy when he gets behind, but fine when he's close or ahead. One thing that only I know is that Brett's huge interception total from last year was much, much worse than it looked and is not indicative of anything. It is, however, a testament to the deceptiveness of raw, gross numbers. After you throw 3 picks in a game, your chances of winning are very, very low. The marginal cost of another interception is, therefore, very, very low. Especially when compared to the potential benefits of risk taking when down a large amount. So Brett's fine, is all I'm sayin'.

We know that Ahman Green can still run inside, but I suspect he's no Vernand Morency. But I guess we'll find out on Monday. We know that he no longer has speed to the outside. He can still catch though.

We know that Donald Driver is a great #2 receiver. We know that Greg Jennings is a huge talent, and he will likely be the #1 guy for years.

Lastly, we know almost nothing about the offensive line. We know that they're young, and we know that they're learning a new system. This is a lot of noise in the data. They may continue to struggle all year, or they may put it together and become dominant. I have no idea.

There are some reasons to be optimistic. Ahman Green did rush for over 100 yards against the Bears (although this may say more about the Bears than the Packers). I also feel that they usually give up sacks in total breakdowns rather than on an individual being beaten. These are tactical problems, not talent problems, and you can fix tactical problems.

I think that there is reason to be optimistic. If the Pack can put together some semblance of a line, the addition of Jennings should be huge. I'm worried about the defense. I'm specifically worried that the coaches will never figure out that they have to help out Woodson because of his name recognition. At least with Ahmad Carroll you knew he was terrible an could adjust accordingly, but Woodson has the wool pulled over everyone's eyes. This is similar to what has become the KGB problem.

Will they win on Monday Night? We don't know that. The Eagles look very good, just a hair from unbeaten themselves. But, they're hurt, they have one win over the 49ers, which counts as much as the Packers' win over the Lions, and they barely lost to a Giants team that we also have no idea about.

Really, we know nothing at all. This is always the case early in the season, and it bugs me when analysts try to separate the "real" 3-0 teams from the "fake" 3-0 teams and other nonsense like that. I've listened to everyone try to explain the Saints victory last week on the emotion of returning to New Orleans, but what about their huge upgrade at QB? What about Reggie Bush? I suspect that these factors (and the typical overrating of Atlanta and the "new" Michael Vick) played bigger factors in their Monday night win.

In conclusion, we can always come back to one thing. On certainty with which to anchor our belief systems, whatever they may be.

Robert "Turd" Ferguson sucks.


 
Search:
Keywords:
Amazon Logo