A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Osweiler, Sanchez, Elway and the Quarterback Premium

My sister (il) commented a response to my last post over on Facebook and I think it needs a lengthier reply than Facilebook tends to be convenient for.  Regarding Brock Osweiler leaving the Broncos, and more to the point Elway letting him go, she notes:

I know you're going to blast me for saying this but...I can't help but think some of this has to do with Elway's ego and preserving his place in Bronco history.
It's not like he didn't have seasons as a young QB when people questioned whether or not he should be there, before he became beloved in Denver's eyes.

That was most certainly true regarding the purge of Tim Tebow, or at least it appeared to be at the time.  Tebow was remarkably well loved in Denver.  I certainly didn't think he was a great quarterback, but 2011 was magical, one of the most fun seasons I've ever watched as a Broncos fan.  The list of Denver quarterbacks who've racked 7 straight wins is awfully short, and Tebow is on it, along with a couple of other guys named Elway and Manning.  Tebow actually holds a notable trivia record as a Bronco:  He threw the first touchdown pass on the first play of postseason overtime under the NFLs new overtime rules.  It definitely seemed personal when Elway went after Peyton Manning, drafted Osweiler and then traded Tebow to the Jets.  I think history will show that to be a very shrewd business move.  I admit that it was extremely jarring to the Broncos faithful.

To me, the Osweiler situation seems very different.  The Broncos traded away their first round draft pick in 2012, mostly because that little sh#t McDaniels had left the team draft deficient to trade up for Tebow.  The Broncos took Derek Wolfe early in round 2, a pick that has payed great dividends, and then Osweiler later in the round at the 57th pick.  I remember clearly that even then, people were scratching their heads.  The scouting reports on Brock had him going in round 2 or 3 to a team that needed a quarterback, and the Broncos had just scored a certain Hall of Famer at the position.  Osweiler had the size and mobility that Elway was looking for, reminiscent of himself I imagine.  But the Broncos had so many needs in that year that the draft pick earned a C grade from scout Bucky Brooks.   Much was made of the fact that Osweiler was the friend of Elway's son, again inserting the argument of Elway's ego where it may actually be misplaced.  Side note, the Broncos took Malik Jackson in round 5 of 2012 and it has been speculated that Denver will miss him on the D line more than Brock Osweiler under center.  What makes that speculation important is this, the Broncos scraped the bottom of the league last year in offensive production, even with Osweiler starting 7 games.  They were almost from week 1 the very top ranked defense, in part because of the fifth round pick at defensive tackle, Malik Jackson.  Osweiler, very much like Tebow, won very important games, two of them in overtime.  But an actual look at his stats shows a very pedestrian performance for a guy who had 3 years as under-study to one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time.

Osweiler has amazing physical skills and a load of talent.  Pairing him with Lamar Miller and DeAndre Hopkins may prove that he can become elite in the league.  Montana pride demands that I hope so.  Professional football is still a business, and one has to ask if he's worth elite money.  At this point, the answer would have to be "No.".  At 15 million a year with incentives, the Broncos offered a fair deal to the man they had payed and Elway personally took a chance on.  I don't think Elway's ego had anything to do with Osweiler's decisions.  It was a money chase, and a smart one for the young QB.  This is a tight market year for quarterbacks.  The draft has only two top level QBs in Wentz and Goff.  The free agent market is slim, with only backups and two experienced men young enough to be reclamation projects, RGIII and Colin Kaepernick.  Quarterbacks are at a premium this year, and are cashing in on that fact.

Environment has (more than discussed) to do with that.  Last year, two perennial backups became franchise saviors.  Ryan Fitzpatrick damned near lead the Jets into the playoffs and Kirk Cousins was so important to the Washington Taterskins that they laid a franchise tag on him.  Washington let go the number 2 draft pick of 2012, Robert Griffin the third, who earned offensive rookie of the year in that season.  Too many teams are suffering from NoHasQB Simplex 1.   Over 45 different men started games at quarterback last year; I lost true count about week 12.  32 teams in the league, and over half of them relied on a backup or backup to backup to get the win.  4 of the 6 AFC playoff teams had started multiple people under center.  That fact is not lost on GMs or coaches.  The league is QB scared and willing to pay for not being so again.  Ball huckers are in high demand right now and there just aren't that many available in either draft or free agency.  The consequence is clear.  Middling quarterbacks are being payed near elite money.  Drew Brees, a certain Hall of Famer who holds the only passing records not surpassed by Peyton Manning, makes about 19.5 million dollars a year.  Brock Osweiler, who never started a full season in college and has only started 7 games in the NFL is now making 18 million a year.  Sam Bradford, who has yet to make it through an NFL season uninjured is making 18 million a year.  Kirk Cousins, a perennial backup, under the franchise tag is slated to make a whole lot more.  Mid-level quarterbacks are having  a banner year, and good on them for chasing the paycheck.  Still, that drives the price up for every team, even those like the Broncos who have had success by paying defense.  Elway was not egotistical in refusing to pay a middling QB elite money.  He was smart.  He still has to negotiate a long term contract with Von Miller, which will likely make Miller the highest payed defensive player in history.  He still has to negotiate for a running back, with C.J. Anderson accepting tender from Miami.  He still has to find a way to pay Demarcus Ware, or let him go.  I don't think Elway's ego had anything to do with this.  I think it was all business from the get go.  Given the fact that Denver just won a Super Bowl on the power of its defense, it's hard to imagine that Elway would do anything other that shop the bargain bin for suport under center.

Which brings us, strangely, back to Tebow and Sanchez.  One of the teams that Tebow beat in 2011 was the New York Jets.  Sanchez was the established star in the game, having led the Jets to two straight AFC title games.  Denver won in overtime.  After the 2011 season it was very difficult to see Mark Sanchez as anything but a backup quarterback.  That is, unless he had a stellar defense to carry the load and a quarterback whisperer in his ear.  That's what he has in Denver.  The game is still afoot.  If Elway can extinguish the other fires, Anderson, Miller and Ware, then the QB situation can be addressed, either through trade or draft.  I agree with this assessment, that it's time for Bronco Nation to just RELAX.  This story isn't over just yet.

Week 6 Picks

I remain in awe of the statistical significance of what we saw happening Sunday afternoon in Dallas.  Records fell or were bullied by the offensive output of the Cowboys and the Broncos.  I won't belabor all the records and stats here, save one.    A team that scores 48 points has less than  one in a hundred chance of losing that game.  As my friend Mark kept saying:  It was epic.

The Good:

The New Orleans Saints.  As much as the Bronco's offense is an unstoppable Juggernaut, the Saints have a package of unstoppable offense and solid defense.  Drew Brees would be my obvious pick for MVP (if not for that otherworldly QB in Denver) but he's not doing it alone.  This is a Team on a Mission.

The other Team on a Mission has scored 50+ points in the last two games.  The Peyton Manning Broncos are very good.  The Cowboys found one way to beat the Broncos.  You have to audaciously outscore them.  Yeah, about that ...  A lot of folks want to blame Romo for what happened at the end of that scoring maelstrom.  Nope.  That was incredable effort by Denver's Danny Trevathon.  Like Wesley Woodyard before him, Trevathon will be an under-noted over-achiever.  The Broncos host Jacksonville this weekend, and then their defense ramps up with Bailey and Miller in the house of the Colts.  Count the Colts among 'the good', but we'll see if they can accomplish the Dallas strategem and out-score the Denver Broncos.  I'm not convinced that anybody can, save maybe the Saints.

A Good to Knowshon Moreno of the Broncos.  It has been obvious that every Denver game since the Giants has been an attempt to get the running game going.  Grading running back by committee, no Denver back has been as valuable, as committed or as reliable as Moreno.  You need yards, he gets yards.  You need him to forgo a touchdown and drop on the one?  He does it.  You need a pass caught three yards downfield?  Fine.  He'll turn that into 15.

Finally, Tony Romo.  Totally good.  Most quarterbacks never get to experience the success that Romo had on Sunday.  He broke records set by Hall of Famer, Troy Aikman, and Don Meredith.  That performance alone earned his gaudy salary.  This may not have been a moral victory (see below), but it proved Romo as one of the elite.

There really isn't any more good to spread to the NFC.  It's looking hinky this year, save the Saints.  Yet now there are 3.  5-0.  I hesitate to post this under the good because the Chiefs are in the Broncos division.

The Bad: 

It's disconcerting when one of the finest teams in the league falls off.  It's downright jarring when that team begins the season with an 'elite' quarterback and the concensus 'best receiving corp' in the game.  But somehow, the Falcons have managed to find ways to lose, and have looked really mediocre doing it.  Their defense is awful, their receivers have massively under-performed (especially Roddy White) and now they face the prospect of a season without Julio Jones.  Whatever post-season hopes that Atlanta had came crashing down on Monday night.  They will still win a game or two; they are in the same division as Carolina and Tampa Bay.  But for January ball, stick a fork in them, they're done.

No, Jerry Jones.  There is no such thing in the NFL as a "moral victory".  Football is not an inherently moral or immoral game.  This is not pro-wrestling with 'good guys' and 'bad guys'.  Your Cowboys played very well, exceptional even.  You've got that going for you.  But it appears that you have bought well into the idea that the Cowboys are 'America's Team', and if you believe in a moral victory in defeat, than the purchase price was too high.

The Jacksonville Jaguars are bad.  That is the only way to put it.  They play gutsy football well below anything expected from an NFL team.  I will not be in the least surprised if they become the second team in history to go 0-16.  And frankly, whoever among management or coaching thought Blaine Gabbert was an NFL quarterback should be fired, yesterday.  Chad Henne is a better choice, not that it will matter against the Denver Juggernaut.

The Ugly:

I've seen multiple polls now asking which winless team will score their first victory.  Personally, I think it will be the Steelers.  It most certainly won't be the Giants.  There are all kinds of losing in the world.  There is losing nobly, like the Cowboys this past week.  There is losing ugly, like the Chargers to the Raiders.  There is losing stupidly, like the Chiefs did all last season.  Then there is losing ugly stupid like the Giants have commited to this year.  A Coughlin coached team this disgusting makes me lose faith that humanity deserves to survive.

 LeSean McCoy has decided to troll other running backs on the Twitters.  In addition to attacking other winning RBs, he wrote so eloquently that "Knowshon Moreno sucks".  The ugly part of this is that he plays on a 2-3 team that's letting opposing defenses shove his head up his own ass.  Yes, he will likely put up big numbers against a Tampa defense that couldn't stop a WalMart shopper in a moterized fat-folk cart.  But trolling the league is never pretty.

Thursday

New York Giants (0-5) at Chicago (3-2) - Bears (21 - 27, Bears)

Sunday

Cincinnati (3-2) at Buffalo (2-3) - Bengals (27 - 24, Bengals)

Detroit (3-2) at Cleveland (3-2) - Lions (31 - 17, Lions)

Oakland (2-3) at Kansas City (5-0) - Chiefs (7 - 24, Chiefs)

Carolina (1-3) at Minnesota (1-3) - Panthers (35 - 10, Panthers)

Pittsburgh (0-4) at New York Jets (3-2) - Steelers (19 - 6, Steelers)

Philadelphia (2-3) at Tampa Bay (0-4) - Eagles (31 - 20, Eagles)

Green Bay (2-2) at Baltimore (3-2) - Packers (19 - 17, Packers)

St. Louis (2-3) at Houston (2-3) - Texans (38 - 13, Rams)

Jacksonville (0-5) at Denver (5-0) - Broncos (19 - 35, Broncos)

Tennessee (3-2) at Seattle (4-1) - Seahawks (13 - 20, Seahawks)

New Orleans (5-0) at New England (4-1)- Saints (27 - 30, Patriots)

Arizona (3-2) at San Francisco (3-2) - 49ers (20 - 32, 49ers)

Sunday Night

Washington (1-3) at Dallas (2-3) - Cowboys (16 - 31, Cowboys)

Monday Night

Indianapolis (4-1) at San Diego (2-3) - Colts (9 - 19, Chargers)

Byes:  Atlanta and Miami

Last Week's score:  10-4, 71%  Overall:  50-27,  64%

A Tale Of Trust and Humanity

Alternate title:  Joe O'Brien, a football life.  Yes, I know, I can hear the caterwahl right now that 'Wulfgar is just posting about football, AGAIN!'  Not really.  The story that Paul Kix wrote is a true story of trust, betrayal, suspicion and redemption.  Read this:

Breaking Good

That was a very tumultuous time to be paying attention to Bobcat football, or be a denizen of the MSU community.  The head coach in 2002-2003 was Mike Kramer, the man who put the 'ass' in asshole.  I was not the only person thinking/wishing/hoping that Joe O'Brien would soon be Head Coach.  And then Joe got arrested.  The stories flew hot and heavy about how Joe was selling meth outside of a school in Townsend and we simply must THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!  When the facts of the case came out, they were remarkably underreported.  I was one of the many who were completely pissed off that this meth-head had so shamed the University and its athletics program.   It took a homicide a couple of years later to put things in a bit of perspective.

A couple of years ago, the MSU Bookstore's general book manager had the foresight to book Joe O'Brien to a signing of his book, Busted Bronco, From Addiction To Redemption.  That was the first and only time I ever got to meet Joe O'Brien.  I was struck by the fact that he defied every stereotype of the broken felon.  He seemed willing, almost eager, to face the harm he had done on the very home ground of those he had 'betrayed'.  I had the chance to ask him if he thought he would ever coach again, a task he was extremely good at, methed up or not.  His response was simple, direct and polite.  "No."  A short couple of days after that book signing, we received direct word that some of the powerful on campus were none too happy with us for hosting such a loathsome human who betrayed us all by making MSU look bad; guilt by association and some such.

I've thought about that from time to time, and here's a few things I don't get and have rarely ever gotten.  Societally, we expect convicts to be broken people, worthy of our disdain because they are broken.  This is not a mystery.  What is curious to me, though, is that we seem to need them to be broken such that 'us good folk' can continue to thrive.  We as a society seem to have conceded the moral ground that bad guys can be good guys unless they get caught.  Then they can never be forgiven.  Why?  Not because they are bad guys or good guys but because they got caught.  Isn't that actually celebrating the success of poor decision and  punishing a crime not for the offense but rather for what the offense means to us when it is exposed?  The choices people make have context.  O'Brien made bad life choices that affected many many people.  But on the gridiron, his choices were exemplary.  Yet we are a vindictive culture.  His meth addiction did not color his coaching abilities, and he is proving that his coaching abilities are well above average without the meth.  But still there are those small minded folk who think only in terms of danger and fear.

Though I likely won't have the opportunity to do it, I want to go see a Simms Tigers football game.  I encourage any denizen of Great Falls to do so.  8 man football is awesome, and O'Brien is a helluva coach.

Good Riddance, 2009

If one follows the editorial cartoons, then 2009 was a very bad year.  It was toxic, and we need to go byebye.  In truth, I agree, though maybe not for the same reasons.

The Good:

1)  Barack Obama became the first black President of the United States of America.  If you can, put all the racial shit aside and just soak that in.  We've grown up as a country, even as people struggle against that growth.

2)  We have respected standing in the world once more.  This was the key issue for me in 2008. That's why I supported Bill Richardson.  We are not going to get everything we want and wanted, but we are no longer the bully pariah.  I have waited 8 long fucking years for this to take place.  And it has.  Many thanks, love and kudos to our SOS, Hillary Clinton.  We are no longer the deformed step-child with the biggest stick.  We are now a player in what will prove to be the biggest game of the 21st century, global politics.

3)  Things at work have achieved a weird form of equilibrium.  That is all I will say.

4)  My mother has support.  It might end up costing me my sanity, but she is at least taken care of.  This is big.

5)  Meeting the ECW community.  And Gregg has an awesome existence next to an awesome river.

The Bad:

1)  Tea Parties.  These people don't know what they're doing other than voicing outrage at things they get from FOX news.

2)  Health care reform, that isn't.  Focus, mofos, focus.  What will likely pass will be Insurance reform to some degree, but the Congress tried to bundle too many things into one.

3)  Things at work have achieved a weird form of equilibrium.  That is all I will say.

4)  Downtown blowing up, and those who seek to profit thereby.   That morning sucked, seriously.  So let's go after deep pockets ... drool ...

5)  The state legislature.  Allowing for horse slaughterhouses?  Get real.

6)  The loss of my dog.  I can't overstate how much bad this lends to my life.  I have another dog who is 12, and a cat who is 18, at least.  I'm now terrified of losing them.

7)  Craig went dark.

The Ugly:

1)  Health care reform.  Need I say more?

2)  Tokarski going psycho.

3)  The Broncos going 6 and 0, and now they may not even make the playoffs.

4)  National unemployment continues it's sad rise.  This sucks, people.

5)  Tea Parties.  These people don't know what they're doing other than voicing outrage at things they get from FOX news.  Oh, and Sarah Palin.  She quit being a Governor to be a better servant of the people?  She's fucking insane.

This has not been a nice year.  I posit to you that none of the 9s I remember have been.  '79 sucked, lots of unrequited love.  '89 sucked, a divorce and marriage to someone not balanced (nor was I at that point.)  '99, waiting for the Y2k to kick in, and being diminished for the role I actually played.  Here we are, 2009, and this year sincerely sucked.  So, good riddance to 2009.  With greatest hopes, I look forward to 2010 (that's twentyten, y'all.)

Happy New Year, Folks.  All my love.

We'll miss you, Ted

When Warren Zevon was dying from cancer, he claimed that he wouldn't die until he got to see the next James Bond movie.  He made that goal, and a little beyond.  It was obvious that Ted Kennedy was set to vote on Health Care reform.  That wasn't to be.  But his legacy will certainly influence how the debate plays out from this point forward.  And even if there were nothing else, that would establish him as one of the Good Guys.  But there is more; a lot more.

Edward Kennedy is already being eulogized vastly better than I could do here.  Most of those eulogies involve using his own impressive words, from a life spent helping, serving and showing others what leadership should look like.  The simple truth is, I didn't know the man, other than as a Senator and a fine leader in that august body.  That he earned respect (and some fear) on both sides of the aisle is a testament to the man's legacy as a serious leader in that circus of clowns we call 'the Senate'.  The Good is that Senator Kennedy's legacy is so potent it will likely be fondly remembered far longer than that of his more distinguished brothers.

The Bad:  many of those opposed to that aforementioned legacy have been gracious concerning his passing.  At least for now.  That includes Our Unhinged Lady of the Concentration Camps, strangely enough.  Too many others, however, seem in competition to see who can sully Kennedy's legacy the harshest and quickest.  Their work is almost cloned from each other.  'His works were not good works because he was not a good man.'  I don't need to point out how backward that kind of Ad Hominem is.  But then again, backwards thinking is the bread and butter of these folks.  Their complaints will be long forgotten before the Congress ever forgets the legacy of Ted Kennedy.

The Ugly:  As the right fumes over the fact that Health Care reform, part of Kennedy's life work, might actually bear his name, at least one is already dismissing his role in defense of the mob.

Meet Jeb Hensarling (idiot, Texas):

"Certainly people honor Sen. Ted Kennedy for all of his work," Hensarling, a top House Republican, said during an appearance on CNBC. "But at the end of the day, this is a democracy, and I think the voice of the people have [sic] been heard quite loudly in the month of August."

Funny, I don't remember any elections held this August.  One has to wonder what kind of fool would invoke "honor" while promoting a complete disregard for a founding tenet of our Country.  Democracy isn't a hollow word to be sullied by misuse of those who've vowed to serve the Constitution ... except to Jeb, apparently.  That alone does more dishonor to Kennedy's legacy and America than any ranting about alcohol abuse from online wingnuts.

Truth Is Hard

Yo, Ted, you're gay.

In an AP interview this month before an appearance in front of TV critics in California, Haggard described his sexuality as complex and something that can't be put into "stereotypical boxes."

You're not the precious little martyr that Jesus forgot to save from his impulses.   You're not a completely misunderstood symbol of a radical new sexuality.  And life didn't deal you any hand that it was unwilling to deal to others.  You're gay.  So What?

There's really nothing wrong with that ... except that Ted spent so many years trying to convince others that being gay is hated, he learned to hate himself.  Though I do not understand such a compulsion to destroy oneself,  I have sympathy for the guy.  This is one seriously screwed up individual.

And the ugly part is this:  HBO is doing a 'documentary'  (read drama) about his travails, once again pointing out how abhorrent 'the gay' is in our society, that it could bring down the mighty.   That is at least what I expect, but hope for better.  At best, it would be a story of self-loathing and hypocrisy.  At worse, it will be a tale of how a good man was corrupted by outside forces causing his dick to go where it shouldn't have gone.  At worst, it will be prurient entertainment whereby the audience can unreflectively point and laugh at the misfortunes of others.   What it should be is just more evidence that those who profit in telling us what is moral and right don't have any grasp on their subject matter at all, when they sacrifice others to that end.

Here's the truth, Ted.  You're gay.  And what might be more painful to you is the realization of how miserably ineffective you were in teaching the rest of us, gay and straight, that that you should be hated because you're gay.  In fact, painful as it will likely be for you, that might be your salvation.  Realize that a lot of people aren't that good at hating, and someone male might find it in his heart to love you one day.  And, though you've little reason to believe this from me, I think Jesus will love you, regardless.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ... One Third Edition

So here we find ourselves (approximately) a third of the way through the NFL season and seriously ... WTF?  Absolutely unbelievable shit has already happened.  Carson Palmer throws for 6 touchdowns in a game ... and loses?  The Patriots run for less than 70 yards in a game ... and win 48 to 27?  What the hell is going on here?
Some things expected are happening with no difficulties whatsoever.  Others ... are just not so much.  So, let's review the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The Good:

1)  The Colts are just cruising.  After watching all the punditry talk smack about the Super Bowl Champs weren't any better than last year (hello?  Super Bowl win?) it's refreshing to see them all back off of the crap as regards the Colts.  They are a good team ... a very good team.

2)  The Jaguars running game.  They have a fireplug running the ball for them.  Jones-Drew is one of the scariest running backs I think I've ever seen.  He's only like five foot something ... wide.  This guy is going to impact the NFL for many years.

3)  Adrian Peterson is your Rookie of the Year.  Hang it up as a competition.  This guy already staked his claim and he ain't backin' off.  I predicted that the Vikes would win the NFC North.  They still might ... unless ...

4)  Brett Farooking Favre.  Who put a quarter in this guy?  When he decided to return I knew he would probably break John Elway's total win record.  I knew he would probably break many of The Whiner's records as well.  But hell!  This guy isn't just breaking records (that he knows will be broken by Manning, anyway).  He's winning games like a pup.  I realize that it's only a third of the season, but anybody who counts Green Bay out ... shake your head in shame.   Favre came back to play, and play he  will.

5)  The Dallas Cowboys.  I know, I know.  The  Hatetriots  whupped on Dallas last night.  But this is a really good team.  It reminds me of the Pittsburgh squad that went through AFC ranked numbers 3, 1 and 2 to make and win the Super Bowl.  They're having fun ... a shitload of fun.  Don't count these Cowboys out.

6)  The Cleveland Browns.  Apparently, no one told them that they weren't that good.

The Bad:

1)  The Chicago Bears defense.  They are legendary for being the best ... except they ain't.  I thought Chicago would fall ... and I was right.

2)  Norv Turner.  He didn't have to do anything with the Chargers.  NOTHING! And yet they lost and lost, and looked pathetic while doing so.  That's coaching people.  I told you he'd suck.  Believe me. 

3)  Quarterback controversy.  An old guy came into the game after one series and led the Panthers to victory.  Of course, that old guy was Vinnie Testeverde, Heisman trophy winner a bajillian years ago.  I couldn't be happier for Vinnie, but really, WTF?  Pick a quarterback and stick.  San Fran, Arizona, Carolina, Oakland ... give us a freakin' break.  The quarterback ain't the team.  Pick one.

4)  The New Orleans Saints.  Maybe they'll get it together; I don't know.  But that team has just looked bad.

5)  The Seattle Seahawks.  I've just never been a big fan of Holmgren, and this season is showing why.  They're going to win the NFC west, but only because everybody else totally sucks!  That is unless, and that's a big if hanging out there, the 49'ers can pull there shit together.   Then, the Seahawks will just suck.

The Ugly:

First and foremost, the Denver Broncos.  I posted that they had no pressure attack on QBs, and no run defense.  The worst home loss in 41 years kinda proved that I was right.  They aren't pulling things together.  Travis Henry may be out for a year.  Tom Nalen is out for the year.  Simean Rice is ... pathetic.  Dry Bly is succeptable.  Sam Adams is very good at what he does, when he can do it.  But you don't play a 350# fat ass on every play.  It doesn't matter whether your offense is in sinc or not, if your defense just can't stop shit.  The Broncos will be lucky to go 6 and 10.

2)  The Hatriots.  Filming the opposition from the sidelines?  When you're that good?  Give me a break!  This is the best team that money can buy.  You have to hate them on principle, just because they felt the need to cheat .., for no reason.  They might indeed go undefeated through the season ... and that will only make people hate them more.  I offer a giant middle finger to the team from Boston!

3)  The Redskins.  That much talent and that much losing.  They're really pathetic.  Really.

4)  Sports reporters as regards Donovan McNabb.  I don't want to say y'all are racists or nothing but holy shit, can you guys be more negative?  I doubt it ... seriously, I doubt it.

5)  Larry Johnson's holdout.  Chief's fans everywhere should want his scalp on a platter.  The Chiefs could be 5 and 1 ...

That pretty much sums up the season ... so far.

The Enemy of My Enemy

In a response to my last post, Craig, the man with whom I am duty bound to disagree about everything!, expressed reservations that voting for Democrats might help our current malaise in governance.  Being slightly lazy, I recognized the opportunity for a post, so here goes.  Craig wrote:

So, as small-government types, we're just supposed to cast our lot with the big-government types? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

Dick Morris said it best the other night with regards to the whole Foley thing, and I'm paraphrasing here: It's not an R thing, it's not a D thing, it's a congress thing. People in power will always pull crap like this. Look around, and you'll find this thing going on in almost organization that has the two volatile ingredients: young people with stars in their eyes, and older people with power over them.

Now, considering that I urged a change to the Democrats in Congress in that post, it's pretty clear where Craig is coming from.  Why should he, a man that respects the stated values of what the Republicans could be, vote for those who don't agree with those values (Democrats)?  That's a damn fair question, so allow me to retort:

Craig, it has been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Over the last half century, the Republican party has turned that into a mantra for success, hence the focus on single issue voting.  In most cases, it's rarely or only circumstantially true, but in this case it is, and I have a pretty clear idea why.

The Democrats are seen through the filter of history as being the party of tax and spend, in the interests of expanding government.  The Republicans have tried to be the party of small government and values and security ... and have proven themselves failures on all counts.  Lies all around.  The Democrats appear to be liars, so people voted them out of power.  The Republicans obviously are liars, so people want to vote them out but fear the Democrats in control.  At this point, Dave Budge would have us raise our hands in despair and cry "Feh ... a pox on both their houses".  As pointless as I find that, I do somewhat agree with it as effective strategy.

See, Dave would have us reject the lies from both sides without considering the same lie that flows from both.  Both parties exist under the delusion that they are or are not in control.  A lot of our frustration, yours and mine Craig, is firmly grounded in the knowledge that they aren't in control ... we are, we the people.  So why on Earth aren't we exercising that control to put the lie to rest?  Many libertarians would have us look for an alternative party (not necessarily Dave; he tends to remain vague on who he would support, if not on what.)  The same problem remains, that the people serve a party, a collective will.

Not so very damn much.  Ultimately, the people will vote to serve their own needs and desires.  The constraints on those desires and provision for those needs is based solely on who we elect, not what.  That makes it near; that makes it personal.  Burns claims that he will provide, when in fact, he's screwed me over with a horrible debt and an erosion of my Constitutionally promised freedoms.  Tester says he can do better for me.  I don't know if he can, but if I waste time trying to wheedle out of him the admission that he will really screw me over, I tend to forget that Burns really is.

Here's my thing; I shouldn't give a crap whether Tester will or Burns is hosing me.  I should care about whether Tester will hose Burns.  I know, as established fact, that Burns is a screw-up in representing me.  He's forgotten something, however.  I'm a voter.  He works for me, not vice-versa.  My power is that I get to tell him to go home.  That's a pretty big power.

Now, we have a Congress that most of us don't trust and most of us don't like, all based on the idea that everyone of those assholes will lie to us and cheat us.  Screw 'em.  Their enemy ... my friend.  And when that friend proves himself faithless, I have another friend waiting in the wings.

Are the Democrats a solution to all problems, as Dave ridiculously seems to think I believe?  No.  But Tester solves one problem for me; Conrad Burns.  I don't agree with Tester on everything, but I know that he works for me.  And when he proves himself a feckless toady of special interest, I'll smack him down too.

We can say that the "system" is broken all we wish.  There are those ever eager to point out that we aren't getting all that we want and it's the other guy's fault.  Notice that they will always point to the broken system; liberal media, *LIES*, all politicians are corrupt, Faux News, lobbyists, money, whatever.  We'll blame everybody but ourselves.  But the one thing that we will agree on is that we've been outsmarted (except for libertarians who are *never* outsmarted).  The one thing that everybody seems to agree on is that the control lies elsewhere.  We want to believe that so badly that we reshape the founders into God-fearing Christians, even though most weren't.  We drool for it so much that we think we'll never vote for a party supported by Oliver Willis (admit it, wasn't that one of the dumbest damn things ever written?)  We really really have to believe that its the system and not us.

Bullshit.  We've abdicated our power and our responsibility.  It's time to take it back.  It isn't the system, it's us.  We have the control.  So, if we really believe that our elected officials are assholes, lets clarify who runs the show.  Joe Lieberman?  He's not a centrist icon; he's an arrogant prick who thinks he knows more than the electorate.  Gone.  Conrad Burns?  Look at that guy over there; he hasn't done a god damned thing.  We may look at the laundry list that we wish our officials to wash into beauty, but the power we have isn't to force them into our will.  The power we have is to play them into compliance.  The power we have is to get the folks who will serve us.

In this year, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  I want my Congress back.  I want Habeas Corpus back.  I want a Congress where pages aren't sex objects for the rich and powerful, while others cover that disgusting lie.  I want representatives that recognize that the power belongs to us, not them.  You, Craig, pointed out that the powerful will always pull crap like that.  Not if they recognize where power comes from.  It truly comes from us.  The Republicans, by all admission, have neglected that.  It's time to punish them.  It's time to remind them who runs this show.  It's time to vote for Democrats.  And when they  serve themselves instead of us ... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In the comments to that last post, Jon, and how I adore him for his clarity, had a damned fine question to ask:

I watch the news and see other countries rioting in the streets when their politicians turn out to be dumb, corrupt perverts.

How come we never riot here? I think our Congress is like this because we make it seem as if we really don't care.

Yes, we do.  We let them get away with anything.  This stops now.  In simplest terms, we cast our lot with those we disagree with on one thing because we need them to agree on the thing:  This our country and we won't give it up without a fight.

Meet The Blogs

Heh. Lord knows I’ve written on blogging often enough. And no one really understands its impact yet. So there’s no way in h*ll I’m going to offer any criticism of Adams’ story. It’s as fair an assessment as any I’ve seen.

Okay, touchstone, you're the writer ... quit being a wuss.

Apparently my face is gracing the cover of the Independent. So, um, yeah, I’m sorry.

Yeah, boyish good looks really suck, Matt.

Over all, it is a fair coverage, complete with images and descriptions of your favorite and least favorite bloggers.

Come on, Shane, we can do better than that ...

All of these guys are referring to the featured article appearing today in the Missoula Independent.  The article is titled "Meet the Bloggers", and it just so happens that, yes, many of our mugs do grace the cover of the issue.  (Reminiscent of the game 'one of these things is not like the others', there is a craggy visage surrounded by youthful charm.  I've always said that I have a voice for radio and a face for blogging ... now you know.)  It's surprising to me that the blogish reaction to the article so far has been one of self-depreciation.  I've no difficulty scoring points in that game, but I think we'd be remiss as bloggers if we don't examine things just a little deeper, yes?

When Craig posted about this coming article, I posited that talking to the author, John Adams, was like talking to Karl Kolchak (the NightStalker), willing to enter any seedy otherworldy den of evil for his story.  Indeed, I think he has, but he doesn't really grasp where he's been. 

John says:

So, all of that said, I’ll be curious to read your insightful analysis of my piece…or, I guess I’ll have to take my bitter medicine in the blogosphere. .

I feel that others are very happy with the coverage and notoriety, as am I, but a critique is not only inevitable, but demanded.  Allow me to offer one.

As a general impression, I don't think the article focused as much on the bloggers as it did the blogging.  One of the failings of the inter-tubes is that  many fail to recognize that their are people behind every word written that appears on the screen.  It was my hope that the article would focus more on those than on what we write.  In the case of Matt Singer, I think the focus was well directed, but for the rest of us ... not so much.  We appear almost as if we are our blogs.

That may not seem like a failing except for this:  People have history, and blogs don't seem to ... yet they do.  Much of John's research appears to be recent in nature.  Those who are attempting to examine loggers through the filter of "what have you written for me lately" aren't examining anybody at all.  They are taking a slice of time and presenting as fact what they find there.  That works terrific for audits but not so much for a dialog such as you find in  on line communication.  Blogs are organic, and not open to much accountancy.  Perhaps the perfect example would be Michelle, formerly proprietor of the website "A Small Victory".  The website went from being a pop-culture iconograph to being a pro-war site, to being a (soon non-existent) refutation of exposure.  Those, like myself, who watched Michelle's efforts saw the change, the progression.  Slice in time reporting fails to capture the person, and ultimately the blog.

The only blogger examined through history in this article was Matt.  I certainly don't call that a failure, but I would call it a bias.  Not a political one, mind you, but a bias towards impact of the story.  Matt has a history that involves blogging, and that was exposed to a degree.    The article would have been richer if the same care had been taken with others.

There are other biases rife throughout the article.  The first and foremost being that those who support Democrats are liberal.  In Montana, at least, this isn't true.

For their part, Montana’s bloggers believe Tester is in a position to become the next poster boy of their liberal Internet activism.

Uhhmmmm, no.  Some Montana bloggers just believe that Tester is the right man for the job.  There is no political ideology involved in that, and it's certainly not driven by 'liberal' leanings.  Many of us just believe that Conrad is corrupt and bad for the state.  Calling what we do "liberal Internet activism" is buying into a biased stereotype and undeserved.  It seems obvious that John wanted to support the rifts that divide the nation right now with such verbiage, but that's not actually factual to what he is reporting.

Let me be plain:  I think this article was objective, but not fair.  (It was very well written, and I offer my thanks to John for that.)  Much of the angry banter that takes place in the Montana blogoworld concerns the objectivity of the press.  Face it, folks, the press will be objective to the point that they get a story.  That's not a liberal bias, or otherwise.  It's a bias towards the juicy tidbits that people wish to read.  Is John "Guilty" of such a thing?  Of course.  Only an idiot wouldn't think so.  (Hi, Eric.)  But that doesn't mean he wasn't objective.  The filters that the story uses are based on "common sense", that those of the left are liberal (as if that means anything anymore) and those on the right are conservative.  These are easily viewed biases from the outside, and make very good copy, but whether they have anything to do with facts is always open to question.  John was very objective, sometimes far too much so in removing himself from the presentation.  But that doesn't mean that what he presented was 'true'.

The bloggers themselves downplay their importance to Montana politics. They might just be modest, or they might not realize how far their voices travel.

Most bloggers, including myself, have been self-depreciating.  I'd say that's a "duh now" kinda thing.

Then again they might just be keeping their heads low for more calculated reasons.

Here we go.  Objectivity with absolutely no reason behind that.  What is the evidence of our calculating nature?  None.  Notta.  Zip.  Except that Chucky Denowh wants to tie Tester to liberal bloggers.  Since when did Montana bloggers become afraid of Chuck?  Uh, Never?

“Leftist blogaholics have been working overtime to fund Jon Tester’s Senate Campaign…These liberal sites see Montana as little more than an opportunity to pick up another Senate seat for New York and California,” Denowh writes.

John missed a grand opportunity here.  He wasn't writing about liberal bloggers and he didn't interview the dark lord, Markos.  Did any of you who talked to him (except Eric, the idiot) offer anything that suggests we want Montana to become more like New York or LA?  No!  And he didn't delve into that, did he?

Montana bloggers are Montanans, and we're not really willing to take a bunch of crap from those who think they pull our strings.  Not New Yorkers, and not little Chucky Denowh.  That might have been kind of a nice angle for John to explore, don't you think?  That Montanans might actually be supportive of our state over all the other crap that comes our way?  We're not Markos.  We're not Atrios.  We're a bunch of folks who want to do right, in the Montana way.  Yes, John was objective, but he lost sight of who he was dealing with.  We are Montanans first, and beyond that ...  Our agenda is one of belief, not of covert machinations.  That might have been the better focus for the story.  Just sayin'

I would be remiss in critiquing this article if I didn't point out the factual inaccuracies.  So, allow me to do so now:

Rob Kailey is quite possibly the most rabidly partisan liberal blogger in the state.

I've said this about a million times and proven it every single time.  I am not a partisan liberal.  I am a bigot.  I am bigoted against stupidity, period.  I don't willfully attack conservatives or Republicants; I just have no tolerance for stupidity.  If John had researched beyond the last two weeks, he might have encountered that thought.

Coobs carries the torch as the lone ultra-conservative voice in the Montana blogosphere, and he does it with a passion that’s admirable.

A) It's not admirable, it's pathetic.

B)  He's not alone.  Craig is an ultra-conservative who John interviewed but failed to mention.  Unlike Eric, Craig really is conservative, ultra even, and Craig has admirable thoughts.  So much so that he is one of the men who inspired me o start blogging.  Eric isn't ultra-conservative.  He's a mouthpiece.

C)  The phrase "What's White in Montana" was coined by my sister in law, and when I use it, there is no "half-joking" at all.  Eric has commentors from Stormfront dot org.  If one builds a roach motel, one shouldn't disavow the denizens who move in.

If you judge a blog’s success by the number of comments it receives, then the controversy has been good for WRIM. It gets more comments, anonymous and otherwise, than any other Montana blog.

Not true.  The most popular website in Montana (on that standard) isn't a political website at all.  It is Os basso's "Views from the back row".  Nicked folk trump politics every time.

Seriously, John Adams wrote a good article.  I'm not at all fond of his characterization of me or my website (he has no sense of history) but I do appreciate his efforts.  He wrote what he encountered.  That would be objective, if not factual.  The readers should make up their own minds.

Speaking strictly personally:

His quasi-satirical tone is unmistakable, but often comes across as the shrill ravings of a liberal madman.

Dude, my tone is totally satirical. You only aid the pathetic when you call it shrill ravings.  {Insult stricken}  I've posted well more than what you've presented here.  I've posted much more than just foul rants, so learn a little bit about blog history, or give up up your effort to define us.  Seriously.

Update:  First, I've struck an insult I wrote to John Adams.  He didn't deserve it and I am sorry for writing it.  I would call it being severely irritated, but I'm sure he would call it "anger getting the best of me".  Keep this in mind, one of my guiding dictums to life under the incompetent Bush administration is this:  If you aren't pissed off, then you're not paying attention.  Though I am obviously the uber-partisan around these web parts, it should be noted how many Montana Republicans agree with that sentiment ... completely.  So I tend to assume that those who aren't pissed off are afraid or ignorant.  That's not necessarily true and I shouldn't do that.  That is my bad.

Second, I didn't write nearly as much as I wished to for this post.  I type slow, and many of you know what this week has been about for me.  Let me clarify a few things for John:  a)  As time goes on, you will notice this, that your premise for the article fails in that What's White in Montana has had, is having and will have absolutely no effect on the current Senate race, except in Eric's mind.  This is where history matters.  He started the website earlier this year as a forum to discuss how awesome Conrad is for Montana, and yet you can count the number of posts they've made about Conrad on one hand.  They are not interested in defending Conrad, either on the front, or in comments.  You might have mentioned that.  b)  If you really wanted to see the Montana blog-o-world in action, politically, you should have inquired  concerning "Dirt Between Lightbulbs".  c) It does seem that you asked others about your subjects as opposed to asking your subjects about themselves.  That's a good way to be "objective", but not a good way to find facts.  Trust me, not as a blogger but as a credentialed philosopher, objectivity is not all it's cracked up to be.

Third, now that Eric has posted his impressions of the article, it is obvious where the idea that I am the most "rabidly partisan" blogger came from.  Yeah, if I want to know about somebody, I always ask their enemies to provide the truth. Heh.  It still strikes me as funny that the What's White In Montana crowd consider me their most dangerous boogie-man.  I'm thinking at this point, that Eric just holds a grudge for getting his ass kicked good.

Oh, and Eric?

Bite me.

Spagetti Western Opinions

The Big Sky Democrats have their lists of What's Hot and What's Not.  Touchstone has his most excellent daily links post.  For those moments I don't feel like waxing at length on any given topic, I'm more partial to doing quick lists of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

The Good:  FINALLY, Jon Tester has pointed out in public that John Morrison will be embroiled with an ethics battle against Conrad Burns ... a battle that he will lose.

The Bad:  It's a month until the primary and Tester has a lot of ground to make up if he is to win the Democratic nomination.

The Ugly:  The drooling glee with which Burns supporters anticipate a Morrison candidacy.

The Good:  Governor Schweitzer has pardoned those convicted under heinous anti-sedition laws in Montana.

The Bad:  That anti-sedition laws are meaningless, and yet not, in a world where priorities are just so fucked up.

The Ugly:   Have you seen the haircuts on most of those Montanans convicted?  They should be pardoned for those ...

The Good:  Porter Goss heads for the hills before he gets embroiled in the whole hookers for favors scam.

The Bad: Stephen Colbert was seditious, seditious I tell you!

The Ugly:  Paula Yawn (Zahn).

The Good:  Sara's post about porn.  It's terrific in insight and rationality.

The Bad:  That people worry about what others do so much that they will let their government strangle our rights.  That goes for the right and the left.

The Ugly:  The first sentence of NeoMadison's fact-free caterwauling at Freeper Montana.  The only one needed, I offer Exhibit A:

Yesterday the Helena Independent Record had an article today with some interesting talk from Schweitzer.

That's a quantum kind of ugly.