The Asshole Olympics

Hi guys, welcome to the Asshole Olympics, the competition for the biggest asshole in the world of sports. Let the games begin!

It’s time for the first and only event of the Asshole games: the Biggest Asshole competition. The contestants were chosen by me, and were the first people I thought of after creating that neat logo.

Before we hand out the gold, silver, and bronze medals, let’s take a look at the runners-up:

7th Place: John Terry

In the spirit of international unity and stuff, I’ve invited a special guest to do the first entry. Please welcome my cousin from the UK, Ian Gareth Connelly:

Right, then. Welcome to the Cunt Olympics. Imagine, if you would, the biggest cunt in the world. Nah bollocks, you Yanks are probably just thinking of some huge bird who could fit a whole bloke inside her fanny. Here across the pond, the word “cunt” is synonymous with John Terry.

John Terry: Cunt personified.

The son of a thief and a drug dealer, John Terry spends most of his time cocking around like a pisshead, running arse over tit about London. In summary, John Terry is a right old cunt who can go have a wank in a trolley.

Yikes. My British cousin is quite vulgar, even by this blog’s standards. But to his point, Terry is a belligerent drinker, known to urinate everywhere and make 9/11 jokes to Americans tourists. Though I’m sure they were a barrel of laughs on the team bus ride, I have to say that September 12th, 2001 was probably a bit soon to be breaking out those 9/11 zingers with folks from the states. I am going to wait until a close family member of John Terry dies, then call him up just to be like: “Hahahahaha!! Loser! I bet you’re all sad and stuff. Your tragedy amuses me.” Then we will be even.

6th Place: Alex Rodriguez

Even a Red Sox fan would admit that A-rod is a great hitter, but even a Yankee fan would admit that he’s a first-ballot Hall of Fame Asshole. Here is a photo to illustrate that point. It is from some magazine story about how he likes herbs and spices a lot.

Nothing to see here, just a regular dude hanging out with some leaves and stuff.

The more news I hear about A-rod’s personal life, the less interest I have in ever hearing it again. In fact, that’s it. I’m tired of talking about this guy already. A-rod gets 6th place just for the funny leaves picture. He’s all like, “Dude, don’t even fuck with me when I’m holding kale. I love this shit.” Let’s just move on.

5th & 4th Place: Joe Buck & Tim McCarver

"Alright, Joe Buck and Tim McCarver are announcing the game!" - Nobody

How do these two jackwagons end up announcing the World Series? Probably because it doesn’t matter. While most fans enjoy good commentators, a sports announcer can rarely be so bad that I turn off the game, which FOX and CBS both seem to have realized. I’m not sure why the winning formula for the networks is “Guy with zero personality” + “Old cranky idiot” but I guess they know what moves the ratings needle more than I do.

Joe Buck is good at talking in a monotone voice, and not much else. He comes off as a detached corporate robot most of the time. Occasionally he’ll make some stupid joke like, “Thanks Tim, I guess now we know why chicks dig the long ball!” What a jerk. Good job reminding me about a lame baseball joke from 10 years ago. Plus it’s stupid, what are you talking about, “chicks dig the long ball”? Most of the “chicks” I know hate baseball. If anything, chicks probably dig strikeouts, double plays, and other events that make the baseball game end sooner. As for female baseball fans, what makes you think they prefer “the long ball” over bunts, stolen bases, or diving defensive plays? I suppose contact hitters like Jose Reyes and Ichiro Suzuki are less popular with the ladies, compared to heart-throbs like Russell Branyan and Wily Mo Pena. Sexist.

As for Tim McCarver, imagine someone like Larry King on crack, but also he’s a former baseball player. An annoying belief among some ex-athletes is that their playing experience makes them superior students of the game, whose opinions should always be considered above those who merely study their sport–this is wrong. Experience can add to the value of an intelligent sports analyst, but it is not a requirement and it is hardly sufficient. I would not ask a horse for its opinion on the Kentucky Derby. Yet sometimes, I fear this is the path we are headed down. I can picture a 2150 version of Woody Paige, wearing one of those future-looking V-neck jumpsuits with a space helmet, going off on a rant like, “I say only an actual horse knows what it takes to win. Until you’ve had metal shoes nailed to your feet, and until you’ve been forced to run in a circle with a tiny man sitting on you, you don’t know what this sport is really about.” I guess what I’m saying is, hearing Tim McCarver speak is about as informative as listening to a horse. There is no reason he should ever be given a microphone.

BRONZE MEDAL: Roger Clemens

To fully appreciate this legendary asshole, from past and present baseball lore, let us travel back in time: one score and zero years ago, to the year 1991.

1991: A year filled with promise

If you asked me twenty years ago, I would’ve told you my favorite song was “Ninja Rap” by Vanilla Ice. But that’s only because I was eight and the songs I knew were that song, “Jump” by Kris Kross, and a few alternate versions of “Jingle Bells” with lyrics about Batman. In spite of all that, MTV actually played music back then–and not just that TRL crap either. ’91 is often remembered for Nirvana’s Nevermind, but a long list of “strong to very strong” bands released albums that year, among them U2, Metallica, Pearl Jam, in addition to the Chili Peppers’ opus Blood Sugar Sex Magic. I think my favorite year for music was 1993, but I find it to be very close between the years 1991-1994.

For a long time, ABC’s murderer’s row TGIF lineup was anchored Family Matters. My favorite episodes where the ones where Urkel got involved in some wacky scheme with Carl Winslow, and they would end up stranded in a blizzard somewhere or being chased by bandits. But then there is a turning point, often accompanied by a poignant Winslow monologue (“Maybe I’ve been too hard on you, Steve…”) where they put their differences aside and come up with a plan. In the end, a good time was had by all.

The funny thing about 1991 is, that year Roger Clemens was my favorite athlete in the world. I had a dozen of his baseball cards, posters, and Starting Lineup figures in my room. I would read about this intense, flame-throwing hurler from Texas, who grew up idolizing Nolan Ryan, and kept his pitching hand strong by sticking it in a barrel of rice every day. I spent a few summer days throwing wiffle balls against the garage door, pretending I was Roger Clemens pitching a shutout in Game 7. When I played Little League, Roger Clemens was who I wanted to be.

Post-1991: not so good

Of course, the years subsequent to 1991 took a tool on these great talents: Cobain is long dead; the Chili Peppers have since evolved into some kind of Maroon 5 tribute band; and Mega-bands like U2 and Metallica can still tour pretty well, but frequently put out poor, hastily conceived studio albums.

TV shows are better today than in 1991, but if you were somehow unfortunate enough to have a television that only received ABC, you would probably think the opposite. I’m not entirely sure what they show on ABC today, but it seems to involve a lot of chimps in tuxedos juggling on unicycles, or people getting pied in the face, or both. Family Matters seemed to fall off a bit after Urkel built a machine that turned him into some GQ douchebag named Stefan Urquelle. I’m not sure why Urkel needed to build an elaborate machine to make him wear nice suits and talk three octaves lower. Couldn’t he just do that without any technology? I guess my reaction to Stefan was similar to what it would be if one of my nerdy friends showed up to work like that, wearing flashy suits and flaunting how suave he was. I wouldn’t be like, “Hey, great job being an asshole. Your performance is very convincing.” On the contrary, I would advise him not to act in such a way.

As for Clemens, his denouncement has been detailed at length, notably in the book: The Rocket That Fell to Earth: Roger Clemens and the Rage for Baseball Immortality by Jeff Pearlman. Clemens eventually left the Red Sox in 1996 and achieved success in Toronto, New York, and Houston–but burned bridges in all of those towns. In particular, Clemens pulled the old switcheroo on the Yankees by retiring in 2003, receiving dozens of farewell standing ovations in his final games, then un-retiring over the summer to sign with Houston. More famously, his steroid saga exposed him as a buffoon who was also willing to throw people under the bus to clear his name. I think it was Bill Simmons who said that when Clemens goes to the Hall of Fame, his plaque should have a cap with a middle finger on it. Due to his recent scandals, he may not have that problem–but he is always welcome here at the Asshole Olympics.

SILVER MEDAL: Skip Bayless

As a rule, men with the name “Skip” are compelled to pursue careers in meteorology or sports commentary. Our silver medalist is no exception. Bayless is ESPN’s star asshole from everyone’s least favorite sports show 1st and 10.  I find his Twitter account to be a good source of typical Bayless material.

Point: Michael Bolton sucks. But he did eat a jelly doughnut yesterday. Give him that. This is the kind of hard-hitting analysis you can count on from Skip Bayless.

WATCH THIS HATERS here’s another one.

Thanks for the heads up, Skip.

Right, 1st and 10 is going to be crazy today. I heard. By the way, this is not some Skip Bayless impostor we’re talking to here–we’ve all been fooled by one of those before. The Real Skip Bayless says today’s 1st and 10 is going to be epic, i.e. “Heroic or grand in scale or character.” What sort of magical tales does Skip Bayless have in store for today?

Here Skip, let me help you out: no, no & no, no, and no. That was not epic at all. The first topic is more or less summerized by the two Bayless tweets below:

Holy shit, Rob Ryan said some stuff, then Mike Vick also said some stuff. Stop the presses–we’ve got our headline. I am not at all joking, I totally give a monkey’s ass about this.

To the extent that I care about sports after the final whistle blows, I am mostly interested in highlights, X’s and O’s, trades talks, and so on. If an athlete does something noteworthy off the field, by all means report it. What I am tired of is: ESPN reporters shoving microphones in athletes faces, demanding they make controversial remarks about someone, then contriving a story when none exists. Bayless is the poster boy for this new media age, where athletes are made to go after each other, whether they like it or not.

GOLD MEDAL: Murray Chass
Some may consider it passé for a blogger to pick on Murray Chass. After all, negative opinions about Murray Chass are fairly easy to find on the internet.
Frankly, this is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. I could probably keep going here.
Chass has recently become a whipping boy for angry baseball nerds, most too young to appreciate his respected career as a baseball reporter. What do these young punks know about the award-winning Murray Chass? Not to mention, after his recent Asshole Monthly cover story, isn’t it time we gave poor Murray a break?

Why waste your money at news stands? Order now and get a free football phone.

Others warn that by attacking Murray Chass, I am falling into some clever trap of his, and merely emboldening his cause. Perhaps he’s using us naïve bloggers as pawns in a brilliant strategic play to increase the hit-rate for website. Let’s never speak of Murray Chass again, lest he profit from his online notoriety.

I reject both these schools of thought: criticism of Murray Chass should continue as long as he continues to write crap. It would be inaccurate to call this exercise beating a dead horse. It is more like attempting to kill a very resilient horse. For example, I am probably the 14 millionth person to point out that Murray Chass hates blogs, even though his website is by definition a blog. He says of his blog:

This is a site for baseball columns, not for baseball blogs … Murray Chass, who created this site, will do the column writing but will invite others to join him, the others being long-time columnists for daily newspapers who no longer work for newspapers.

According to Chass, modern parlance should explicitly distinguish between blogs written by former newspaper writers (“columns”) and blogs written by everyone else (“blogs”). The reason so many people have written about this is threefold:

1. It makes no sense.
2. It is the first thing on his about page, which he commands you to read before reading any of his “online columns” which happen to be in reverse chronological order.
3. Despite being corrected thousands of times, Chass continues to claim, in the face of worldwide disagreement and mockery, that his website is not a blog.

Furthermore, it seems far-fetched to me, the suggestion that Murray Chass would read a blog like this one, condemning him as a worthless hack, and think, “Ha ha ha, he’s playing right into my hands. I want to be known the world over as a hated individual.” Although it is common in our society for people to profit from being uniquely terrible, it is rare that someone sets out ahead of time to accomplish that. What is far more likely is for a fool to believe, upon hearing a loud chorus of boos, it is because they are doing something profound and revolutionary. This attitude was addressed by one of the first Chass-hating bloggers who noted: “You should take no joy in being so wrong about something that throngs of people rise up as one to denounce you. This should not be what it means to be a writer.”

Even if Chass has really devised a secret plan to get rich by creating the Plan 9 From Outer Space of sports blogs (which I doubt since there are no advertisements on his website) who am I to stop him? It’s not like my ambition is for Murray Chass to become a homeless bum. The real endgame for critics is not to destroy Chass’s career, but his reputation.

Sorry for the lengthy introduction. I could fill a book with thousands of stories of the woeful writing of Murray Chass. For now, I will just tell one. It’s about a couple of shitty columns he wrote (he even has me calling them “columns” now, they are actually “blog posts”) one week in late March 2011.

March 20, 2011
Chass publishes an entry that is largely standard fare for him: TAKING A SABRE TO SABREMETRICS. To those unfamiliar with the silly feud Chass is involved in, let me try and explain this in the least-nerdy way possible:

Murray Chass is a baseball fan. For a long time, he and others relied on statistics in order to measure the success of baseball players: batting average, wins, and fielding percentage to name a few. Eventually, what happened was some people came up with better statistics, and started using those instead.

For some reason, this makes Murray Chass furious. The fact that statistical analysis of baseball has evolved somewhat in his lifetime is utterly unacceptable to Chass. Forget that Major League Baseball is a huge money-making endeavor, and that the jobs of baseball front offices depend on the ability to field effective baseball teams. These people cannot afford to ignore new trends–that may give their teams a competitive advantage–just because they are stubborn blowhards who think baseball is “drowning in numbers.” While we’re at it, I think financial analysis is drowning in numbers. Hey Wall Street, stop ruining my enjoyment of stock trading with all this complex mathematical hoohah. I prefer having no information besides giant green up or red down arrows next to each stock. Besides, what does “drowning in numbers” even mean? Until the day that a bunch of engineers break down Murray Chass’s door and force him to look at spreadsheets, I simply do not see what his problem is.

This was the backdrop for the book Moneyball, which documented Billy Beane’s Oakland A’s, and more generally the challenge of fielding competitive teams for less money. Naturally, when Sheldon and Alan Hirsch came out with their book, The Beauty of Short Hops: How Chance and Circumstance Confound the Moneyball Approach to Baseball, Murray Chass was happier than kid in a candy store. The one extraordinary bit in this column, where Chass transcends from asshole to mega-asshole, is the following passage:

An obvious shortcoming in UZR, the authors say, is its consistently low ratings Derek Jeter earned until 2009. Jeter has demonstrated many unrated intangibles, most notably his retrieval of an errant throw and his backhand flip to get Jeremy Giambi at home plate for a series-saving out in the 2001 playoffs.

I wanted to highlight this passage because of the number of fallacies that are crammed into just 51 words. I will list the ways these two sentences fail as writing:

1. They were written by Murray Chass, whose credibility was suspect before this article.
2. The “low ratings Derek Jeter earned” are described as an “obvious shortcoming” with no further explanation.
3. Jeter is described as having “unrated intangibles” even though the example used to support this, the “backhand flip to get Jeremy Giambi” is in fact tangible. Jeter is credited with an assist (a baseball stat) on that play.
4. If any aspect of the play could be considered “intangibile” it would be the backhand flip, which has no impact on the outcome of the game. You don’t get more outs for throwing the ball behind your back to the catcher, nor for doing a flip in the process. The fact that he made a creative play does not make him a more effective fielder than someone who fields the ball normally, throws it overhand, and also gets the runner out.
5. No statistic, by definition, can measure intangibles. The fact that UZR does not capture Jeter’s “unrated intangibles” is not because it is a faulty statistic. “Unrated intangibles” can never be measured by any statistic.
6. One play is not indicative of a player’s overall defensive ability. I probably made a diving catch in Little League once, and it wasn’t like the coach said, “Billy, get the hell over to left field. Connelly’s our new shortstop now.” Good defense is more a matter of consistently executing the proper fundamentals, as opposed to occasionally making flashy plays.
7. Even if UZR were wrong about Derek Jeter, a supposedly self-evident fact according to Chass, that would not be grounds to trash the entire metric altogether. How well does measure the other players in the league? Who cares, any statistic that describes Derek Jeter in a less than favorable light is utter malarky.
8. The subtext here is that Jeter’s low UZR is an indictment by statisticians of Jeter as a player. This is a classic straw man argument–no baseball nerd worth his salt would argue that Derek Jeter is not a great player. Even a nerdy, blogging Red Sox fan would consider Jeter the 3rd best shortstop of all-time. But it is mostly due to his productive bat, and the fact that even below-average defense at shortstop is still valuable to a team. No one ever said Jeter was so bad that you might as well put Cecil Fielder out there.

Shockingly, this was only Round 1 for Murray. Chass would spend the next three days feeding pigeons and shaking his fist at young people, before putting on his writing cap once again.

March 24, 2011

Murray Chass wakes up, eats his breakfast, and thinks to himself: how can I take my asshole status to the next level? Attacking bloggers and nerds won’t do it, I need something bigger. Something that no one in the world will agree with, and many will find shocking and terrible.

Well, Murray Chass woke up on March 24th and wrote one of the most awful rants I’ve ever seen in print: Musial No Man of Honor, Mr. President.

I’m not sure where to begin here. Let’s start with Stan Musial. I read a great SI article about him a while back, he’s generally described as a kind man who used his celebrity for good, but also a nice guy you wouldn’t mind having a few beers with. No, says Murray Chass, he’s a racist prick. This just doesn’t square up with anything else I’ve heard.

I have no particular rooting interest for Musial, and might have been even more upset if Ted Williams or Pedro Martinez were the target. But generally, I think when any regular guy is being publicly admonished by a fruitcake on the internet, that more rational folks on the internet should come to the regular guy’s defense. There was a funny thread I read where people took turns coming up with fake Murray Chass headlines. Since this is technically supposed to be a humorous blog, I should try this one too:

• GHANDI – KIND OF A DICK
• STEVEN HAWKING – DUMBER THAN A STUMP
• KURT VONNEGUT – NO MURRAY CHASS
• MOTHER TERESA – TURNED TRICKS ON THE SIDE
• MLK JR. – ALWAYS HATED MEXICANS
• NANCY REAGEN – A HUGE NEEDLE FIEND
• MICHELLE OBAMA – WANTS YOUR KIDS TO BE FAT
• GEORGE W. BUSH – ALSO BORN IN KENYA
• DICK CHENEY – LOVES THE BAND PHISH
• BARACK OBAMA – BORN IN NUUK, GREENLAND

Sensational headlines are nothing new. But what particularly boneheaded writers like to do is take something people generally agree on, then proclaim: “You know what? No. I say the opposite is true.” This is only a good strategy once you have actually found information that casts doubt on the conventional wisdom. In lieu of that, you should at least have an idea of what your readers will take seriously.

The first paragraph of this abomination adds more egg to the face of Chass, even before he launches into his argument:

With the economy and international turmoil, President Obama has enough headaches; he doesn’t need any more. But his staff has created one for him with its failure to investigate fully the career and life of Stan Musial before recommending him for a Presidential Medal of Freedom that Obama bestowed on him last month.

Advisor: Sir, this just came over the news wires.
Obama: What the–Joe, get the door.
Biden: (shuts door)
Obama: What is the meaning of this?!? Stan Musial? No man of honor??
Advisor: Murray Chass broke the story wide open, sir.
Obama: Damn it. Murray Chass, you mean the online columnist?
Advisor: That’s affirmative. Chass is no blogger, he used to write for a newspaper.
Obama: Wait, what did you just say?
Advisor: He used to write for the New York Times.
Obama: Fuck me running, are you serious?
Advisor: That’s correct, sir.
Obama:  Well, I can forget about a second term now. Yep, you really got us by the balls this time, Murray.
Advisor: Sir, are you smoking again?
Obama: (sigh) When this job gets too tough, sometimes, the Marlboro Man is the only one I can depend on.
Advisor: I’ll cancel all of your meetings, sir.
Obama: Another headache, this is the last thing I need.

Even if Chass were a respected writer, which he is not, why on earth would President Obama lose sleep over a sports writer’s opinion of Stan Musial? With a smug, ridiculous line like, “President Obama has enough headaches” Chass is not only over-estimating the stakes involved here, he is also assuming the sale in regard to his bizarre accusation against Musial.

At this point, you’re probably wondering what sort of bombshell Murray is holding onto here. This most positive description I could find of the ensuing story came from Joe Posnanski, who called it “unethical and vomitous — with almost comically irresponsible phrases like ‘said a lawyer with no first-hand knowledge of the incident’.” In a nutshell, Chass talked to Marvin Miller who said Curt Flood said Stan Musial owned a restaurant that was racist to Flood one time in 1963. This is offered as evidence by Chass, despite the fact that Curt Flood himself wrote a book in which he described Stan Musial as ardently non-racist. He pads the article with this doosey about Jackie Robinson:

“When it became known that the Dodgers were going to bring up Robinson,” said a lawyer with no first-hand knowledge of the incident, “Musial tried to organize a boycott against playing them if he was on the team. Musial was outraged.”

Again, it is easy to make up arbitrary, insane claims about people. It is a bit harder to find out the actual truth, but this should be the job of a dedicated reporter. No, Stan Musial did not try to organize a boycott against Jackie Robinson. That simply did not happen.

You see the problem here, eventually one begins to lose energy addressing all of the wrong claims Chass makes. But that’s just in time for Murray to catch his second wind, and get riled up about something. “Ah, but what about this breaking story: I have it on good record that Rogers Hornsby was terrible at bridge! That’s right, mock my claims if you will!” Fine Murray, whatever.

March 27, 2011

I forgot to mention before, Murray Chass does not own a computer. Every morning, Chass rides his horse to the village square, where the local town cryer yells out the new emails of each villager, starting at sunrise and continuing in alphabetical order until high-noon.

Upon his return, he dictates each of his online columns to a stenographer, who records his musings with an ink quill. The outgoing columns are then tethered to the leg of a carrier pigeon, who magically delivers them to the internet somehow.

So you can forgive him when he takes a few days to respond. That I understand. But any response other than, “Oh my god, I was just kidnapped by a cult of Stan Musial-hating Wiccans. Did they attempt to write anything under my name?” would have been insufficient from Murray. Instead, we are left with this footnote at the end of his column (blog):

Among the many e-mail responses I received about last week’s column on Stan Musial, most but not all negative, two comments in particular prompt me to comment.

Several readers asked why I would trust the mind of a 93-year-old man, Marvin Miller, about something that happened 40 years ago or more. All I can tell you about this 93-year-old man, whom I have known and admired for 40 years, is his mind is as sharp and retentive as the mind of anyone a third his age.

On another matter, a couple of readers suggested that I wrote a deliberately controversial column about Musial to raise my page views. I barely know what that means, but I know it has something to do with the number of people who come to this Web site.

The idea that I would write a column to increase readership is interesting because I have no idea and have never cared what the readership of the column is. I write the columns because I enjoy writing them and I know there are people who enjoy reading them, people like George and Peter and Jason and Kevin, and I appreciate their interest.

I also appreciate, believe it or not, the readers who are consumed by sabermetrics. Their single-minded focus is mind-boggling. I miss the Red Sox fans who used to write. They probably think I have fallen off the face of the earth while Musial fans, who have set an e-mail record for this Web site with their responses, wish I would fall off the face of the earth.

This is hardly an apology, though it is not meant to be one. Nor does it help me understand what the hell is wrong with Murray Chass. The fact that he claims to be so stupid, he cannot infer what the term “page views” means in regard to webpages, almost makes me think he really is pulling a fast one on us.

What the hell, Murray. Look at this long, rambling blog you made me write. You suck.

GOP Feedback

Dear GOP,

I pretty much dislike all major political parties. Your party is sort of an exception, in the sense that I not only dislike your political platform, but I also hate most of you as human beings. Despite all of that, I was relatively bored today, so I figured I would give you Republicans some helpful advice for campaign season.

The worst thing about politicians is that they are all descendants of the ancient demon king Belphegor. The second-worst thing about politicians is that they seem totally obsessed with political buzz-phrases. Buzz-phrases, catch-phrases, slogans and the like work similarly to ads or billboards. Basically, the main goal is convince you of something without really providing any supporting evidence.

You’ll note that consumer advertisements rely heavily on tactic, which I find annoying but understandable. When I am driving down the freeway and you are trying to sell me microwave popcorn, I’m not going to devote a whole lot of time to what you have to say. You probably have about a second to get my attention, if that.

The government, on the other hand, is a company I am already doing business with. Despite my cynical attitude, I have to care about the government. If I said, “Fuck it, let’s vote for any old schmo,” I run the risk of being overtaxed, wrongfully imprisoned, etc. as a result of this decision.

Long story longer, when I hear a candidate using a catchy buzz-phrase to gloss over a complicated political issue, this is what it sounds like to me:

Hi, do you know what a congressman is? Never mind, it’s not important. Basically, you are trying to choose between me and some other guy, which is like deciding whether to buy Pepsi or Coke. Sure, you could do all your “research” and “fact-finding”. But what I’ve noticed is that people invariably just pick one, because who gives a shit about competing brands of cola. When the worst possible outcome of a decision is, “Yuck, this tastes like it has a slightly different concentration of high-fructose corn syrup,” most people will not lose too much sleep one way or the other.

This probably goes without saying, but I am counting on you to take the same hands-off approach when it comes to voting for Congress. In fact, your actual vote is probably less important than your preferred brand of soda. You only get one vote, which is far less than the margin of error involved in…sorry that was way too confusing. Look at me droning on like a nerd. Sorry guys, I may have a Ph.D. in Scientology, but I am totally down to earth like all you regular Joes. Seriously, don’t over-think this one too much. Both you and I will be happier if you do zero research about me or my historical track record.

You know what really grids my gears? Partisan bickering. Washington gridlock. I’ve had enough of politics as usual, especially from people who disagree with me. The solution to all of these problems is to vote for my party 100% of the time. I think. I am a Washington outsider so I don’t really know how this stuff works. That’s right, I’m a real trail-blazing maverick, not some professional politician who has experience working in legislative bodies with other politicians. I don’t even know where Washington D.C. is, and if elected, will need someone to give me directions from I-95 North.

Just look at my opponent. He is a cranky old curmudgeon, who constantly scowls at things, according to the one shitty photo of him I keep showing. Plus he is always accompanied by grim-sounding music in my campaign ads. In 2002, my opponent voted to create a new cabinet position called Secretary of Beating Up Old Ladies. What kind of jerk would vote for such a clearly terrible bill? I’ll tell you who, the same kind of jerk who thought he was voting for a normal House appropriations bill, only to have a series of unrelated, last-minute riders tacked on. What this example really shows is how I treat congressional voting like a political game, as opposed to an important responsibility bestowed upon me by the citizens of this great nation. U-S-A!

Now marvel at the juxtaposition of this obvious train-wreck with his polar opposite: me. Oh, how important and magnanimous this pressed suit makes me look. I have 2.3 kids and a Golden fucking Retriever. Check and mate, my friend.

Hold up a second. I just saw some really important thing off in the distance over there. It’s really fucking cool so I am just going to stare at that for a while. What, are we still rolling? I dunno just fade out or something. Listen, there’s a pile a blow with my name on it back at the hotel, so I’d be fine if we went ahead and wrapped things up here.

This rhetoric may seem “outlandish” or “not real” but it is hidden inside 99% of the political buzz-phrases that are thrown around today (the remaining 1% is stuff like, buzz-phrases used in the blog I am writing right now about buzz-phrases because I hate them).

All of that being said, they seem to be fairly popular on both sides of the isle. And even I have to admit that they seem to work sometimes. Like the phrase: Drill, baby, drill caught on for some reason. I’m not entirely sure why, though I have to say it is much better than: “I love offshore oil drilling so much, I speak about it like someone for whom I have sexual feelings,” the other tagline the GOP was kicking around for a while.

I should mention something about the Democrats here, and not to maintain any superficial sense of being fair and balanced. I think they love meaningless catch-phrases almost as much as the GOP. Their problem is more that buzz-phrases are not really their most effective style of propaganda.* The two most popular Democrat buzz-phrases I can remember are It’s the Economy, Stupid! and Change You Can Believe In. Note the proper punctuation, grammar and syntax in these slogans–classic rookie mistake. Commas, apostrophes, and complete sentences merely distract and confuse the idiots you are reaching out to.

* The trick that Democrats are really good at is the use of anecdotal evidence. Whenever a Democrat begins a speech like, “Let me tell you about a guy named…” and then the guy ends up losing his farm or some shit, then gets injured and can’t afford health care, then his favorite cow dies yadda yadda etc that is what I mean.

Obama probably realized this when he modified his slogan to the shorter, pithier Change We Need. Because before he was asking me to believe in stuff. After following politics for long enough, that just seems like a generally bad idea. But now with Change We Need he’s just saying: “Your current president sucks, and needs to be replaced.” This idea is much easier for the voting public to grasp. If there’s one thing voters hate, it’s the last president they voted for. Fuck that guy, remember all the bad shit that happened when he was President? Totally his fault.

I have just two more examples to discuss, starting with my least favorite buzz-phrase of all time: family values. It seems to imply that a “family” is really a group of strict assholes who oppose individual liberties and much of the US Constitution. I would politely ask you not to talk about the Connelly’s that way.

Excluding myself, probably any person with a family would by offended by this suggestion, that their family members share the same core values as Mitt Romney and his 8 wives or whatever. That was kind of a low blow. Sorry Mitt. The only reason I brought it up was because I truly dislike Mitt Romney and want to hurt his feelings. Hey, wait a second, I didn’t bring it up. Republicans did, when they made family values a part of their political agenda.

On a more positive note, I’ve decided my favorite political buzz-phrase is job-killing. Now the implication is more like Obama is a nefarious criminal mastermind, surrounded by a tank of man-eating piranhas, brutally murdering innocent jobs to fulfill some evil, job-killing fetish of his. This one sounds like a winner to me.

"The whole 'feeding people to piranhas' thing is more of a decoy than anything else. Soon my diabolical estate tax will pass through both houses unopposed!"

Oh yea, I forgot that I put “Dear GOP,” at the beginning of this post. To be honest, what you read was less of an actual letter to the GOP, and more of a blog post insulting them. I guess that’s all for now.

Love,
Quality Prose

Springtime for the Tea Party

I went to a Tea Party rally once. Two of my friends from work were going, and somehow convinced me to join them. This was a few years ago, so at the time I had not heard of the Tea Party as a political movement. I was disappointed when I got there and found out they did not actually serve any tea. I had taken the PATH to the WTC station and walked from there, so I was a little cold and could of used a nice hot beverage. I remember wearing a blue hoodie with a Phish logo and a flannel shirt and some other stuff, purposely so that I did not look like I was actively participating in the event. Most of the tea baggers, a phrase I’m not sure I knew at the time, probably assumed I was a pedestrian on my way to or from the nearby Starbucks.

The Tea Party actually began as a movement during the George W. Bush lame duck period. Some of their first protests were in response to the Wall Street bailouts, which I was never a big fan of either. My main issue with these angry protest movements is that they rarely attract people with nuanced beliefs. What struck me immediately about the people who spoke at the rally was the lack of a coherent ideology they had. It seemed like a forum for average Joe Republicians to rant, but under the guise of some underground movement.

I miss the days when Republicians were greedy board-room honchos, sitting around wearing their power ties and sipping scotch.

Republicans back in their glory days of power.

These days, your average Republician is likely to live in a log cabin in the mountains of Idaho, usually calling into the Rush Limbaugh show to talk about how they’re covering themselves in tin foil to hide from Obama’s Communist spy-satellites.

A new generation of GOP supporters.

Try reading some of the online comments for any Yahoo! News political article; they all sound like they are written by the two mountain men from Deleverance. The recent wave of crazy is perhaps a consequence of the Tea Party’s success as a popular movement.

I will take a look at some current representatives of the Tea Party, and how many of the things they say are stupid.

Glenn Beck

Here Glenn Beck starts off okay, calling Chris Matthews a balloon head. Then he continues, but without making any kind of point. Here you can really see Beck’s vast lexicon and strong command of english vocabulary:

“You sir, are a balloon head that was taught by a balloon head and all you did because you’re a balloon head was sit in your stupid balloon head Ivy League classroom and be indoctrinated by a balloon head and never ever used your balloon head to ask an intelligent question of the balloon head in the tweed jacket! You self-sanctimonious, self-important balloon head, America has had enough.”

As an Ivy League graduate, I can tell you that this was exactly what my college experience was like:

A typical lecture for MATH 294 - Linear Algebra at Cornell.

Thanks to Glenn Beck for calling out the Communist Ivy-League Indoctrination centers that brainwashed Chris Matthews. Shame on you, Holy Cross and University of North Carolina!

Apparently nobody listens to Glenn Beck anymore, so that is a relief. I think he had some conspiracy theory a while back that Egypt was being taken over by aliens. I don’t remember the details of that one. I think stuff like that eventually reduced his credibility among people who are not total wing-nuts, so his show got cancelled. Ha, sucks for him. But rules for pretty much everyone else.

Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul (R – KY) is a Tea Party candidate recently elected in 2010 to replace the infamous Jim Bunning. His platform isn’t the complete train-wreck that defines some of the other folks I mention here. He has a few positions I agree on, like he opposes oil subsidies, the war in Iraq, and the USA Patriot Act.

As it happens, Rand Paul smoked a fair amount of pot down at Baylor, at one point he worshipped a god named ‘Aqua Buddha’ which was presumably a talking bong.

My problem with all of these Tea Party candidates is they tend to treat “Federal Government is Bad” as an axiom, without really evaluating it on a case-by-case basis. Rand Paul is particularly fond of “leaving it to the states” in favor of Federal legislation. In many instances, I may agree with him. But other times, this stance can be very confusing to me. Here is his recent comment from a Senate vote that passed 96-1:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul was the sole “no” vote Thursday night on a measure that would make it a federal crime to aim a handheld laser pointer at an aircraft. The measure, offered by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as an amendment to a measure on funding the Federal Aviation Administration, passed on a 96-to-1 vote, with three senators not present. It would call for anyone who knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft to face fines or a prison term of up to five years.

Paul told reporters after Thursday’s vote that he believed the laser-pointer issue was one best handled by the states, not the federal government.
“There are a lot of states that already have laws, and I think states ought to take care of it,” Paul said.

I am not surprised this measure passed 96-1. FYI, when you shine a laser-pointer at an aircraft, it does not just project a tiny red dot in the interior of the airplane. The light can refract with the windshield of the plane and fill the cockpit with intense, blinding light. It is fairly obvious that this should be an illegal.

Paul’s assertion that the “states ought to take care of it” is a particularly bizarre one for this law. It would be irresponsible to assume that every state would pass the law, and use that to justify inaction at the federal level. What about the alternate scenario? Let’s say that every state in America voted on such a bill, and every state passed said bill except for Kentucky.

Kentucky now more dangerous for commercial aircrafts.

The problem is that this doesn’t just affect residents of Kentucky, it affects anyone who happens to be flying over Kentucky. If I wanted to fly from Indianapolis to Nashville, without being attacked by some jerk with a laser-pointer, I would now have to go well out of my way to accomplish that.

This would be extremely inconvenient.

Have you ever been on a flight that took off and landed in the same state? Probably not very many. Commercial airline flights are by nature a matter of interstate transportation. They are precisely the type of business that should be regulated by the Federal government, as opposed to the states. Rand Paul is wrong.

Michele Bachmann

Despite being a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Michele Bachmann is dumber than a pile of bricks. Not one for diplomatic tact, she stated in regard to Iran, “We can’t remove any options off the table [sic] and we should not remove the nuclear response.”

Just a heads up Iran, we’re playing around with the idea of blowing the shit out of you, but it’s only one of our many options on the table. The table is also full of various benign ideas like, “playing a charity wiffleball game” because Michele Bachmann has not removed any of them off yet.

This is how much of a fucking idiot I am.

We all know about the global warming hoax: invented by the USSR in a desperate, final attempt to derail the US economy and win the Cold War. Here is Mrs. Bachmann with an air-tight proof of the non-existence of climate change:

“Carbon dioxide … is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural …. We’re being told we have to reduce this natural [sic hey learn any new words lately] substance to create an arbitrary reduction [sic] in something that is naturally [sic] occurring in the earth.”

There you have it, anything that is naturally occurring in the earth is good for you. We’ll take tornados as an example. Suppose I built a giant Tornado Machine, and began deploying it in the center of Manhattan. Residents of New York City would not be happy about this at all. I imagine I’d be a very hated man there. On the other hand, I’d have the full support of Michele Bachmann, based on her reasoning above: Tornados are just some naturally occurring thing that can’t possibly be bad for us–who cares about a few more?

The other pillar of Bachmann’s climate change argument is that carbon dioxide is a “harmless gas”. Really, carbon dioxide is a very useful gas for humans. It allows us to exhale after breathing, which prevents us from exploding with oxygen atoms. It also facilitates the serving of beer in kegs. To my knowledge, no one is arguing that carbon dioxide is like that gas from The Rock where you drop a container and it starts melting your face.

Not carbon dioxide.

The environmental issue with carbon dioxide is that an abundance of it makes the Earth hotter. It is sort of like a coat. A coat itself is not hot; it keeps you warm using your own body heat.

In fact, it’s almost like one of those things–what do you call those houses made of all windows, where you put plants to keep them warm? I don’t remember.

At this point, I would go on to explain how an increase in global temperature melts the polar ice caps, if I were explaining basic Earth Science to a group of Second Grade children. I suppose if I were stuck in a conversation with Michelle Bachmann about it, I would just give her a bouncy ball to play with or something.

Sarah Palin

I almost forgot to do this last bit. Fortunately, I made a to-do list earlier today, and I just remembered to look at it.

I don’t have too much to say about Palin. She should tell her kids to stop mouthing off on Facebook or something. I have no opinion of Dancing with the Stars because I don’t watch that show.

There was one issue with Palin that was overlooked with all the other controversy surrounding her, some of which was false. She made that map that got over-criticized when the Arizona shooter came out, because she had sniper’s crosshairs on the political districts of 20 Democrats. This overshadowed the more relevant criticism of the map, that it was crazy and in poor taste:

Clearly the real map, it has Sarah Palin's signature.

Though Palin’s map would make a great spec for an Al-Qaeda video game, it’s not a map that anyone would pick up and say, “Yes Sarah, I agree to kill these people.” It is pretty clear she is just trying to get Republican votes and stuff. I simply find it weird that marksmen’s targets are being pointed at things on U.S. soil in a political ad. It’s a very bellicose campaign spot, is all I guess I am saying.

That’s all I have for now, I can’t remember any other Tea Party people I hate. Scott Brown is okay. I’ll have some other blog-type stuff soon. I’m guessing the topic will be me insulting various people.

Stupid Book Covers

Just a quick update: the polls are now closed, and I’m proud to announce BBQ sauce is our winner, narrowly beating out ranch dressing for the award of Best Dipping Sauce. Thanks to all our competitors for participating, you’re really all fantastic sauces, it’s too bad there could only be one winner.

Now onto this blog, I did some searching on amazon for the worst book covers I could find, which I have presented below. After a little while of this, the amazon recommendation engine started thinking I was a huge loser, and now it keeps recommending stuff like Success is a Choice by Rick Pitino or Jon Secada’s Greatest Hits. They should have some search setting where you specify that you’re only doing research for a satirical blog, and are not actually interested in buying these things. Anyways, here are the stupid book covers.

 

The Awakening — Kate Chopin

Yaaawwwwwnnn. Man, I almost fell asleep just looking at that. This book is about women’s issues or something. I was supposed to read it in high school. But I’m not sure why it looks like the cover of a Christopher Cross album. Actually now I remember, the beach is where she kills herself at the end. Whoops, spoiler alert. As you might imagine, anyone who doesn’t watch the Lifetime network will be extremely bored by this book.

 

Breaking Dawn — Stephenie Meyer

This cover is a real disappointment, because it gets me excited about chess for no reason. I always see this book in stores and I’m thinking like, Well I’m certainly no grandmaster, but I think white has a significant advantage here…Ah wait a sec, it’s one of those damn vampire books. They should put like a picture of fangs on the cover; or better yet, maybe a vampire couple kissing, so people also know it’s a chick novel. That way any male vampire enthusiasts will know to stay away as well.

 

The Five People You Meet in Heaven — Mitch Albom

A lot of people say that books are more educational than TV, which may be true. But I’d counter with the fact that dumb books have a more de-educational effect on the reader than TV shows of similar stupidity.

Think about it, once you pick up The Five People You Meet in Heaven, it’s like beginning a 198-page journey through Mitch Albom’s mind. You can read one of his hokey anecdotes and feel like you’re really there–immersed in the bland, shitty world of Mitch Albom. Suddenly you’re boring people at parties with your vapid tales of life and introspection. All your friends seem to be checking their cell phones or staring at the wall intently whenever you talk.

Inane TV shows don’t have as severe of an effect on the viewer. I can actually sit through about 35 minutes of The Kudlow Report before feeling any adverse effects.

 

Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama — Bill O’Reilly

I asked my friend Tom to suggest a crappy book cover, and he came back with this one–which is so terrible that I had to include it, even though there are two other conservative pundits on this list. Does the GOP have a monopoly on laughably bad book covers? O’Reilly’s ugly mug certainly helps the cause here. From the cover it is also apparent why Bill O’Reilly calls people pinheads. Pretty much everyone looks like a pinhead next to O’Reilly’s fat face and blubbery neck, the slender Obama not withstanding. So remember the next time Bill O’Reilly calls you a pinhead, he simply means, “someone without a fat, ugly head like mine.”

 

You Play to Win the Game: Leadership Lessons for Success On and Off the Field — Herman Edwards

I suppose if Herm Edwards’s book were about how he’s a crazy loudmouth who shouldn’t be taken seriously, then this cover would be entirely appropriate. But apparently this book is about leadership lessons for something or other. There were too many words on the cover so I wasn’t really paying attention. Also I usually steer clear of books where the cover is yelling at me.

Speaking of too many words, this next title is so long I had to take a piss break halfway through typing it.

 

Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve — Bernie Goldberg

Forgive me for being pedantic, Bernie, but aren’t the crazies actually to your right? If I am to believe the implied premise here—that the dumb, convoluted title of this book is actually hovering above Bernie Goldberg’s head, as he gesticulates his indignant frustration—then anything on his right would be on my left, since he’s facing the reader.

Here is a useful diagram for Bernie’s sake:

 

If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans — Ann Coulter

A better title for this book would be If Ann Coulter Had Any Tits, She’d Be Hot. For some reason I don’t suspect too many people will rethink their political views based on Ann Coulter calling them stupid, then making some alluring pose on her book cover. In fact, the title sounds very childish and is unbecoming of a Cornell graduate. I know you are conservative, what is the point of your book? A less shitty title would answer this question.

 

Ethan Frome — Edith Wharton

I feel this is a very appropriate cover for Ethan Frome. Whenever I’m browsing around for a book that makes me want to blow my head off, and I see a cover like this, I know I’m in business. Check out that small shack in the middle of nowhere, plus it’s all cold and shit. I would never want to visit this place ever, not even in fictional terms.

Mitch McConnell — Asshole

Here is an excerpt from today’s Face the Nation broadcast which proves Mitch McConnell is a partisan hack:

SCHIEFFER: Rand Paul, your newly elected colleague to the Senate from your home state of Kentucky, who you opposed in the Republican primary, says on ABC this morning he wants a 5 percent across-the- board cut in everything. He also says he wants to cut military spending. He wants a freeze on federal hiring. And he said you should also consider cutting the salaries of federal workers. How much of that do you favor?
MCCONNELL: Well, you know, he’s going to have an opportunity in the Senate to offer all of those ideas. We’ll get votes on them. I think he’s an exciting new member of the Senate. We worked closely together in his general election campaign. He’s coming here with a lot of enthusiasm and new ideas. And we’ll be happy to consider them in the Senate. And I’m sure they’ll be considered in the House as well.

Way to answer the question, dick. No one asked you whether Rand Paul was “an exciting new member of the Senate.” What Bob Schieffer asked was to what extent you agree with Rand Paul’s ideas.

What’s more, McConnell notes that Paul will “have an opportunity in the Senate to offer all of those ideas.” Thanks Mitch, no shit. That’s what generally happens when people get elected to the Senate. The question was how do you, Mitch McConnell, feel about those ideas? That’s okay, let’s try again:

SCHIEFFER: I mean, considering them and being for them — are you for those things?
MCCONNELL: Some of those things I may well be for. I may end up being for all of them. We’ll have to see.

What a ringing fucking endorsement. I know if I needed someone to stump for me, I’d sure as heck give McConnell a call. In fairness to Mitch, he learned who Rand Paul was right before the show …Ron Paul has a son? Impossible! Paul is a RINO/closet Libertarian, and everyone knows all Libertarians are also gay wiccans. However, Bob Schieffer reassured him that Rand was indeed Ron Paul’s son and just got elected to the Senate. “In fact, you worked closely with him in his general election campaign,” Schieffer informed McConnell.

Read more about Mitch McConnell’s trainwreck of a political platform here.

X’s & O’s: Giants Defense (or lack thereof)

Sorry, more football nonsense today. The thing is, when a defense as astonishingly bad as the 2009 New York Giants comes along, it deserves a second look.

I was listening to today’s Giants/Vikings game on the way back from Connecticut, and it was so bad that I couldn’t even turn it off. It was amazing–I hadn’t seen a group of 11 guys this bad at their collective job in quite some time.

Afterwards, I had to see it for myself. I took a look at the highlights on nfl.com, in hopes of finding a few players whose lack of talent really stood out from the rest. I certainly wasn’t disappointed, here is what I found (I couldn’t embed the video here, so click on the link to open in a separate tab):

0:10 — Danny Clark #55 falls down after a terrible block by the Vikings guy. I took a screenshot which highlights Clark’s humorous attempt at playing defense.

0:25 — Aaron Rouse #26 runs halfway across the field before he realizes it’s a run fake. Michael Boley #52 attempts to cover Rouse’s guy but is too far away at that point.

0:45 — Clark and Jonathan Goff #54 can be seen discussing last week’s episode of Bones when they realize that a member of the Minnesota Vikings is running by them with the football.

1:04 — DJ Johnson #29 (whom i’ve never heard of until today) either thinks he is 12 feet tall or has very poor depth perception, based on his attempt to defend this Brett Farve throw.

1:30 — Kevin Dockery #35 attempts to cover ex-Giant Visanthe Shiancoe, but is clearly too stoned to do so.

1:50 — Goff and Clark decide to double-cover Vikings TE Jeff Dugan (Shiancoe’s backup who has 5 receptions this year) leaving Shiancoe wide open down the field.

Note that the Giants’ brand of double-coverage involves two guys jogging behind the receiver, so I guess it was better that they just left Shiancoe open.

2:10 — The defensive game plan of shutting down Jeff Dugan really worked to perfection here. Aaron Rouse takes away the Dugan deep threat by cleverly backpedaling towards the corner of the endzone, as Farve is forced to settle for a wide open Sidney Rice.

2:34 — I’ve tried to avoid calling out defensive coordinator Bill Sheridan, mainly because he is such an easy target. But the play calling here is just bizarre. The defensive scheme on this play calls for six guys blitzing, and for some reason this guy is one of them (didn’t catch his number, probably Rouse or a member of the Johnson trio):

I like how the offense is inside the 15 in a clear passing formation, and he blitzes a guy who’s 15 yards away from the quarterback, thereby giving the defender a 0% chance to succeed on the play. Step into my office, Bill Sheridan–because you’re fucking fired.

2:51 — Danny Clark doesn’t know who to cover here and gets beat. Probably poor coaching, but also he sucks.

3:31 — Once again, notice the swarming coverage Jeff Dugan receives on this 4th-down play. You know what they say, when you play the Minnesota Vikings, you can’t let Dugan beat you.

Bill Belichick is smarter than you

For the sake of simplicity, I just made up some numbers that seemed pretty reasonable to me, and hopefully to you as well. As you can see, this is not at all a straight-forward decision:

Odds
Colts scoring from their own 30 = 30%
Colts scoring from the Pats’ 30 = 70%
Pats making a 4th and 2 = 70%

So if they punt the ball the Colts have a 30% chance to win. But if the Pats go for it, the Colts have a (100%-70%)*70% = 21% chance to win.

Since I am generally an anti-punting zealot, the amount of people who called Belichick’s decision the “worst coaching decision ever” sort of annoys me. Not just that people like Mike Francesa or Tom Peretti disagree, but that they consider it the worst decision in the history of NFL coaching strategy. NFL coaches tend to make gutless punting decisions as it is, and I fear that this reaction will only serve to augment that trend.

If you ask me, the worst coaching decision ever happened in the 2007 AFC Playoff game between Pittsburgh and Jacksonville, when Mike Tomlin went for a 2-point conversion from the 12-yard line, after a holding penalty on the previous attempt, with the score 28-23 Jaguars. After failing to convert and getting the ball back, Pittsburgh was compelled to go for two again after scoring a touchdown to make the score 29-28: this attempt also failed. Because they went for two on back-to-back touchdowns, the initial decision ended up costing the Steelers two points instead of just one. Needless to say, the final score was Jacksonville 31, Pittsburgh 29.

In conclusion, Bill Belichick is smart, whereas Mike Tomlin is dumb.

**UPDATE**
Three things here. I was discussing with DC Hero, an avid pats fan, who makes a couple good points:

“All the talking heads are focusing on the decision to go for it, which is the usual nonsense. If you know you’re going for it on 4th down, you run the ball on 3rd down–end of story. Make the colts use their last timeout. Instead, you throw the ball, then YOU use a timeout. [Then] they flank out faulk, and he is in press coverage with a safety.”

Agreed on all accounts. The clock management was bad, the 4th down play was iffy, and the pats had numerous chances to put the game away before that. Belichick certainly made his share of mistakes, just not with regard to this decision.

Now there are two common lines of arguments I’ve been hearing that I find sort of dumb:

“What message does this call send to your defense, that they can’t stop Manning?”

This is a very wishy-washy argument to me. So because Belichick trusts his offense and respects Peyton Manning, now the Pats’ defense will be moping around the field, too emotionally scarred to tackle or cover people? Give me a break. Football is about winning games, not being nice to people.

“Maybe this strategy works in Madden, but not the NFL.”

If there’s any team that makes you think you’re watching a game of Madden, it’s the Patroits. They scored 59 points against Tennessee for crying out loud. And are 4th downs really harder to convert in the NFL than Madden? Has this been studied? On the contrary, ESPN columnist Bill Simmons likes to talk about how NFL coaches should have a Madden-playing teenager on the sidelines, because they usually make better two-minute drill decisions. I would tend to agree with him.

**UPDATE 2**
No I did not plagiarize Joe Posnanski. Clearly this is a case of great minds thinking alike. But go ahead, side with Peter King (the subject of previous Quality Prose) and Trent Dilfer if you prefer.

Meet the Dead Rockstars, Part I

You’re probably wondering already if there will be a part II to this series–the answer is probably not. This damn thing had been sitting in my drafts folder for about a year, and I kept on trading my fake players and eventually ran out of racist jokes to make about the nationalities involved. So I figured I’d just stick a “Part I” on the title and be done with it.

So anyways, I have this fake baseball team on whatifsports.com. No, not fantasy baseball, although I do that too. This involves an extra level of geekdom because the players themselves are computer generated figments of our imagination. They come equipped with skill ratings in various baseball tasks, but not with personalities like the real ball players. So I decided to fix that today.

There are a lot of young promising players for the Seattle Dead Rockstars, a team that is surely destined for greatness in the near future. Let’s meet a few of them:

Designated Hitter – Brent Stewart

Brent Stewart Seattle Dead Rockstars Age: 25 B/T: R/R Born: Saratoga Spgs, NY Position(s): DH

This power-hitting righty hails from Saratoga Springs, New York–home to a number of sporting legends, including Seabiscuit and former Las Vegas Craps owner Tom Peretti. Brent’s parents own the popular chain of Stewart’s convenience stores that are a ubiquitous staple of upstate New York. Note that although they have almost the exact same logo as the Stewart’s soda brand, they are not the same company. The Stewart’s soda pop company is owned by Brent’s uncle Earl. Earl says that Brent is welcome to take over his soda pop chain one day. Brent said thanks, but that he was much more interested in playing baseball at the moment.

Catcher – Willie Sweeney

Willie Sweeney Seattle Dead Rockstars Age: 22 B/T: R/R Born: Hancock, MI Position(s): C/DH

With a powerful bat and patient eye, Bill Sweeney has established himself as one of the better young catchers in the game. While not playing baseball, Willie enjoys taking bong hits and playing Magic GarageBand on his computer. He also has a dog, Jim, who was named after the lyrics to a Phish song. Sweeney is a decent pitch-caller but struggles to throw runners out on steal attempts.

First Base – Neifi Almonte

Neifi Almonte Seattle Dead Rockstars Age: 23 B/T: L/L Born: Cariaco, VE Position(s): 1B

This swinging slugger from Cariaco, Venezuela was recently named AL Rookie of the Year! A few summers ago, Neifi hurt his neck beating up some roughians back home–members of the Venezuelan kidnapping mob Los Diablos who were after his Aunt Esmeralda. He unfortunately suffered a herniated disk while repeatedly slamming a mobster’s head in the front door of his Chevy Chevette. He’s since made his full recovery, hitting 63 homers in his rookie season to establish himself as one of the top young sluggers in fake baseball.

Second Base – Carter Fassero

Carter Fassero Seattle Dead Rockstars Age: 22 B/T: R/R Born: Madill, OK Position(s): 2B

This hot-shot youngster is a real all-around gamer. In addition to his dynamic repertoire of hitting, speed, and defense, he also possess top-notch health and durability ratings, thanks to his daily regimen of greenies and HGH.

Do you like to party? Carter sure does… in both the normal sense and the “wink-wink” sense of the word. A rampant cocaine habit has left his patience short and his temper high. Never since Tim Raines and Keith Hernandez has a 6-tool player come along quite like Fassero–his abilities to hit for average, hit for power, field, throw, run the bases, and consume narcotics are up there with the game’s elite.

Shortstop – Einar Ramirez

Einar Ramirez Seattle Dead Rockstars Age: 25 B/T: L/R Born: Anzoategui, VE Position(s): SS/IF/OF

Our International Scouting team really did a bang-up job in Venezuela. We saw young Einar playing in the streets one day; he and his friends from the small town of Anzoategui were using rocks as baseballs and milk cartons for gloves. The way Einar attacked those bouncing rocks with a folded milk carton in his left hand, we knew he would bring the same tenacity and enthusiasm to the shortstop position in Seattle. When asked about his hitting skills, or lack thereof, Einar chuckled and recalled being the subject of ridicule at many of his friends’ Piñata parties.

Center Field — Edgardo Tejera

Edgardo Tejera Seattle Dead Rockstars Age: 20 B/T: R/R Born: Guayubin, DO Position(s): 2B/LF/CF

Known as the Dominican God of Walks, or Dios Dominicana de Bases sobre los Bolas in his native town of Guayubin, Edgardo is a solid all-around talent.

In reality, Edgardo is merely above average in taking walks. However, Dominican youths are frequently taught to swing at every pitch thrown, as this strategy increases their slim chances of making it to the United States. But under the tutelage of his father, Eduardo Tejera (a notorious stickler for plate discipline as a Little League manager) Edgardo developed a keen batting eye unmatched by his local peers. As a result, Tejera is considered a prodigy of the base-on-balls in his homeland.

I’m afraid that’s all I have for now. Stay tuned for a continuation of the Presidential report card series!

Presidential Report Card, Parts I-V

I got this idea completely out of the blue, just bored on a Saturday morning. I’m up in CT housesitting my little brother. If I had my awesome new guitar with me I’d practice some arpeggios and stuff (the ‘rents have a guitar here but it is vastly inferior and currently out of tune).

Anywho, for a while I’ve wanted to do some objective, non-partisan political analysis. In my mind, the first step for me is to divulge my poltical leanings, which I’ll attempt to do in four sentences:

- I recently registered as a Democrat and voted for Obama.
- I tend to sympathize with libertarians on economic issues, but I don’t necessarily oppose government spending for potentially lucrative investments (e.g. I did not support the bank bailouts, but I liked aspects of the obama stimulus package).
- On social/international issues, the democrats are actually too far “right” for me at times, whereas limited government advocates tend to have more profound views on issues like legalization of drugs and non-intervention in foreign affairs.
- I am currently frustrated with third-party candidates who claim that the two major parties are “the same” yet fail to have a realistic gameplan for getting elected and enacting change.

Now that I’ve told you all that, why should you care? Well, no reason really. Just the fact that the remainder of this posting could be biased, as I will have written it.

If there are four things in the world that pisses me off, they are: Dane Cook, Coldplay, the Electric Slide, and political commentators who claim to be neutral and unbiased when they are clearly not. I’m looking in your general direction, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly.

''The spin stops here.''

No it doesn’t. But if you replace “spin” with “coherent thought” you could be on to something.

''I'm not a liberal, I'm an American.''

Unfortunately for us, you’re both. But just as before, we can correct the erroneous statement by substituting “liberal” with “reputable journalist” and “American” with “jackass”.

Long story short, I expect people to disagree with my presidential performance evaluations. But don’t get on your high horse and contend that my analysis is biased, yet there is some alternative analysis that should be universally accepted. Everyone is a biased, partisan ideologue in my book, including me.

Remember to file this one under work-in-progress. Frankly I don’t have as much historical political (or even current political) knowledge as I should, although really no one does. What I do have is a good bullshit detector to see past conventional wisdom, which tends to over weigh things like “Abe Lincoln freed the slaves” or “Gerry Ford fell down a lot” when evaluating presidents. So please provide any insight or constructive criticism, and I’ll definitely take it into account (especially for the ones I left blank).

1. George Washington (No party)
They didn’t put him on the dollar for nothing. For whatever reason, G-dubs is remembered more for beating down the redcoats than any of his Presidential achievements. Poppycock. For one thing, the decisive victory of the Revolutionary War was won by Benedict Arnold, while Washington’s troops were simultaneously losing the Battle of Brandywine to notorious British blunderer William Howe.

In contrast, Washington’s presidency was a rousing success, highlighted by numerous influential decisions and a legacy of fair-minded leadership. The list of federal entities created by Geroge Washington’s initiatives includes: the dollar, the US Mint, the National Bank, the District of Columbia, the US Navy, the Supreme Court, and the four major cabinet positions (Secretary of State/Treasury/Defense and Attorney General).

Historians such as Leonard D. White and Guy Who Edits Wikipedia describe Washington as, “an excellent delegator and judge of talent and character,” and “systematic, orderly, energetic, solicitous of the opinion of others but decisive, intent upon general goals and the consistency of particular actions with them.” Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796 warned future generations about the dangers of political parties and foreign alliances. Of course, future generations responded, “sure, whatever George” and here we are today.

The only area of criticism is that the federal entities established by Washington created a legacy of solving problems with more government. I believe it was a prudent strategy at the time, but one that has led to an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy today. Grade: A

2. John Adams (Federalist)
Like Sam Bowie, Darko Milicic, and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, John Adams was sort of a letdown at #2. Adams had a reputation as being somewhat tactless, and this manifested itself when his criticism of the French Revolution eventually led to the XYZ Affair and Quasi-War in 1798. More troubling to me were the absurdly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts which sought to place limits on immigration and free speech for political reasons. In contrast with Washington, Adams seemed to be almost an advocate of partisan politics. Grade: C

3. Thomas Jefferson (Democrat-Republican)
With the landmark Marbury v Madison case of 1803, instigated by Jefferson’s refusal to honor Adams’s Supreme Court appointments, the Supreme Court was given the power to declare laws and decisions unconstitutional. Surely, this has had some positive results over the years.

The problem here is that the Supreme Court is filled with people who consider themselves Democrats and Republicans–this makes no sense to me. The Supreme Court should uphold the law while making every effort to separate their political leanings from their decision. Jefferson realized this as well:

You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves

Well, judicial review is here to stay. If Jefferson had reservations, he ought to have done something about it. As you can see, these decisions made during our country’s infancy have had a profound impact today.

Overall, Jefferson was a very staunch defender of the constitution. He voided the Alien and Sedition Acts of Adams, and he spoke a great deal about the importance of individual liberties, rebellion, and states’ rights. To me, that makes him possibly the most quotable president ever, but not necessarily the most effective. He also founded the Democratic party, for better or worse. Grade: A-

4. James Madison (Democrat-Republican)
Madison opposed the creation of a National Bank, but he renewed its charter in order to finance the War of 1812. This was one of the earlier instances in American history of politicians veering from their principles for dubious reasons. In this case, the War of 1812 was a silly conflict between the United States and Britain that resulted in no territorial gains, (although it did provide a backdrop for Francis Scott Key to compose the Star-Spangled Banner).

Otherwise, Madison maintained a conservative approach to government spending. One of his final acts as president was vetoing a bill for “internal improvements”, such as roads, bridges, and canals. His reasoning was based on states’ rights: that federal legislation should be limited to infrastructure that would, “bind more closely together the various parts of our extended confederacy,” according to him.

The Federal Government’s defense of States’ rights, advocated in particular by Jefferson and Madison, seems to have faded away over the years. Today’s Democratic party would do well to remember their roots. Grade: B+

5. James Monroe (Democrat-Republican)
Monroe essentially continued the economic legacy of Jefferson/Madison, but where he is most remembered is foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine has been criticized by many as a justification for United States’ hegomony. Professor Noam Chomsky argues, “The Monroe Doctrine, which the US was not powerful enough to implement at the time, stated that the US would become the dominant force in this hemisphere.”

Although I believe this interpretation is valid, the doctrine was written in the context of the colonial era. It certainly dismisses the sovereignty of native tribal civilizations, but one could argue that the same is true of the United States Constitution. To me this is a very deep argument–how do we recognize the sovereignty of civilizations without political borders? It is somewhat less relevant today, although not completely moot.

But Monroe certainly erred on the side of aggression here. His policy towards Native Americans was also somewhat bellicose, although not to the extent of many of his successors. Grade: B-

Uh, I’m kinda lazy, so I’m gonna leave the rest for later… In the mean time, here’s a song about some of them:

NFL Draft Analysis

Greetings, sports fans. The greatest non-athletic event in sports kicked off yesterday, and it was quite an eventful day. I sat down with a couple of brews and a generous helping of wings courtesy of the new Parsippany Cluck-U to watch it all unfold.

From the perspective of a fan of the New York Giants and the NFL in general, here is what I saw:

Round 1

1) Detroit Lions — Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia
Meh. I’ve seen this guy a couple of times on TV. Granted Georgia was a disappointment this year. And he did look like an NFL quality QB. But #1 overall? $48 million guaranteed?? Personally I think he’s halfway between Alex Smith and Carson Palmer, but we’ll see.

2) St. Louis Rams — Jason Smith, OT, Baylor
6’6″ 305 lbs! Very pedestrian name though.

3) Kansas City Chiefs — Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU
Considered a reach, but I like that the Chiefs are using their annual Top 5 pick to assemble an all-LSU front four.

4) Seattle Seahawks — Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest
Did you know that “seahawk” is actually another word for osprey?

5) New York Jets* — Mark Sanchez, QB, USC
*from Cleveland
At this point I was rooting for the Browns to select Crabtree, which would have signaled a Braylon Edwards deal (hopefully to the Giants) was imminent. Of course, that wasn’t in the cards, but I like what the Jets did here. I think Sanchez can be a reliable, Joe Flacco type of guy for a team with a lot of other pieces in place.

6) Cincinnati Bengals — Andre Smith, OL, Alabama
The first “character issues” guy off the board. Honestly, I think all this finger-waiving by the NFL and the media is getting a little out of hand. It used to be that “off the field problems” meant running over kids who beat you in touch football, or pointing a gun at some kids in a McDonald’s parking lot. Now, we’re raising red flags when some guy leaves the NFL combine early? Kudos to the Bengals for not buying the negative hype.

7) Oakland Raiders — Darius Heyward-Bey, WR, Maryland
The Raiders are like the guy who takes Cole Hamels in the first round of your fantasy baseball draft. It’s not that I have a problem with Cole Hamels, it’s that you could’ve gotten him in the 2nd round at least. In the Raiders case, why didn’t they trade down?

8) Jacksonville Jaguars — Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia
Wow, this guy makes Jason Smith look like Gary Coleman, coming in at 6’6″ 315 lbs.

9) Green Bay Packers — B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College
One of the more impressive highlight reels I saw. Also fills a big need for the Packers, I like the pick.

10) San Francisco 49ers — Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech
Good fit for the 49ers, and fell into their lap at 10. He’s not as good as Calvin Johnson, the last marquee rookie wideout in the draft. But he’s certainly better than Arnaz Battle.

11) Buffalo Bills — Aaron Maybin, DE, Penn St
Doesn’t excite me.

12) Denver Broncos — Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia
This guy has a lot of O’s in his name.

13) Washington Redskins — Brian Orakpo, DE, Texas
This one could be a steal. The Redskins have really loaded up on defense this offseason, it should be really interesting to see how that group performs in 2009.

14) New Orleans Saints — Malcolm Jenkins, DB, Ohio St
I don’t think he will solve the Saints defensive woes, but he doesn’t need to with the teams high-powered offensive attack led by Drew Brees.

15) Houston Texans — Brian Cushing, LB, USC
At first I thought his name was “Crushing” which would be an unbelievably awesome name for a defensive player (outside of CB and FS perhaps). But “Cushing” is much less intimidating. What’s he gonna do, attack me with pillows? Lame.

16) San Diego Chargers — Larry English, DE, Northern Illinois
With Tomlinson and Gates wearing down, I would’ve gone for offense here. Maclin would’ve made sense.

17) Tampa Bay Buccaneers* — Josh Freeman, QB, Kansas St
*from N.Y. Jets through Cleveland
Ahoy matey! This 6’6″ scurvy dog be a very excitin’ prospect for ye. Lots o’ upside.

18) Denver Broncos — Robert Ayers, DE, Tennessee
The Broncos finally address their laughably bad defense. This guy is apparently good, but he will not prevent the Broncos from going 3-13 next year. Josh McDaniel will clearly be fired.

19) Philadelphia Eagles* — Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri
*from Tampa Bay through Cleveland
Probably not a good sign that the Eagles traded up for the guy I was hoping the Giants would trade up for. With Brian Westbrook, Deshaun Jackson, and Maclin, they have 3 guys on offense who are exceptional in space, and should give defensive coaches nightmares. The main question is whether McNabb and Westbrook can stay healthy and productive.

20) Detroit Lions* — Brandon Pettigrew, TE, Oklahoma St
*from Dallas in the worst trade of all time
The Lions certainly have a lot of defensive issues, but I like the strategy of trying to build one side at a time. They’ll suck again next year, so they should have a top pick to use for a stud defender.

21) Cleveland Browns* — Alex Mack, C, California
*from Philidelphia
Who can blame Cleveland for trading down three times for…

In addition to a 6’4″ 316 frame, Alex Mack’s strengths include telekinesis, electrokinesis, and the ability to morph into a liquid puddle. One area of concern for scouts is how Mack responds to bullying from co-star Jessica Alba.

22) Minnesota Vikings — Percy Harvin, WR, Florida
Considering the most recent Florida wideouts taken in rounds 1 & 2 have been Ike Hilliard, Reidel Anthony, Jacquez Green, Travis Taylor, Jabar Gaffney, Taylor Jacobs, Reche Caldwell, and Chad Jackson, I can’t exactly give a ringing endorsement of this pick.

23) Baltimore Ravens* — Michael Oher, OT, Mississippi
*from New England
Great value here, getting a potential stud LT late in the first round.

24) Atlanta Falcons — Paria Jerry, DT, Mississippi
I love typing out the word “Mississippi”. It’s like doing a little dance with your fingers. This guy probably sucks.

25) Miami Dolphins — Vontae Davis, DB, Illinois
Solid late 1st rounder, and what the Dolphins needed. I do know it took the Giants about 6 or 7 tries to draft a quality CB, so this guy could be hit-or-miss as well.

26) Green Bay Packers* — Clay Matthew, DE, USC
*from New England
I like how the Packers have addressed their defense in the 1st round. Considering they went 6-10 but actually scored more points then they gave up last year, the Pack may rebound very quickly.

27) Indianapolis Colts — Donald Brown, RB, Connecticut
The first of four UConn Huskies taken in the first two rounds! Nice player, although I would’ve gone with a defender myself.

28) Buffalo Bills* — Eric Wood, C, Louisville
*from Philadelphia through Carolina
Kinda looks like the fat kid from The Sandlot…”Hey, want a smore?” “How can I have some more of nothing?” “You’re killin’ me, Smalls.”

29) New York Giants — Hakeem Nicks, WR, North Carolina
As far as Giants fans are concerned, this guy better be good. With established receivers Braylon Edwards and Anquan Boldin on the trade block, GM Jerry Reese refused to include this 1st round pick in any potential deal. They also had an opportunity to trade up for Jeremy Maclin, but chose to stand pat while the Eagles “swooped in” by making a trade of their own.
Luckily, I think the Giants got the right guy. Nicks has good size, sticky hands, and is a beast after the catch.

I could even see him having the best NFL career out of the six WRs chosen in the 1st round. However, he might need some time to develop. And I doubt teams will double-cover him right away, meaning defenses can still keep an extra defender up for the run. The pressure will be on Eli, Nicks, Smith, Hixon, and Manningham to execute in the passing game in order to keep defenses honest.

30) Tennessee Titans — Kenny Britt, WR, Rutgers
The Giants could have opted for this hometown hero instead of Nicks; at 6’4″ he does provide more of the size element they were missing without Plax. But Britt does not have the same playmaking abilities as Nicks, and will probably not be an elite receiver in the NFL. He is probably a better fit for the Titans, who do not throw the ball as often as the Giants.

31) Arizona Cardinals — Chris “Beanie” Wells, RB, Ohio St
This OSU product is not to be confused with Evan Wells, a member of my pledge class who would have been picked #1 overall, but sustained a devastating knee injury running house laps. Beanie Wells is nevertheless a steal for the Cardinals at #31. Although he is not the ideal fit for Arizona’s spread offense, I think his overall talent and the added dimension he gives them is enough to justify this pick.

32) Pittsburgh Steelers — Evander “Ziggy” Hood, DT, Missouri
The Steelers primary need was offensive line, but they are also aging on defense and Ziggy gives the Super Bowl champs a long-term plan up front. Also, both his nickname and his real first name rule, and that’s more or less enough for me.

Rounds 2-7
Right now, as I sit here typing, we’re in the middle of Round 5. Here are some random thoughts on Round 2 from yesterday, and the action so far today:

-So far, hear is what the Giants have done:
45) Clint Sintim, LB, Virginia: We do need depth at the LB spot, and Sintim could mesh well with recently acquired Michael Boley. While Boley is terrific in pass coverage and pursuit, Sintim is a good run stuffer and can rush the passer. Personally I would have gone with Conner Barwin, whom the Texans selected with the next pick and seems as though he could probably play OLB.
60) Will Beatty, OT, UConn: An excellent pick. The Giants O-Line is one of the best in the league, but if there is any weakness, it’s LT David Diehl. He is an above-average offensive tackle, but has been exposed on occasion and could begin to wear down. But now he might have some competition as the Giants got a steal with this pick. Because of this draft’s depth at left tackle, Beatty slid past his true value, which was around late 1st/early 2nd according to most scouts.
85) Ramses Barden, WR, Cal Poly: At 6’6″ 227 lbs, this guy is built like a refrigerator, yet he clocks in at 4.5 in the 40. He is not an explosive player, but could be a reliable target for Eli once the Meadowlands winds start swirling.
100) Travis Beckum, TE, Wisconsin: Another good upside pick for Jerry Reese. He does not block well, but the Giants already have a sturdy blocking TE in Kevin Boss. Beckum’s strength is in the passing game, and the Giants will be thrilled if he can become a receiving threat.
129) Andre Brown, RB, NC State: This pick makes sense with the loss of Derrick Ward. More of a power back who will probably end up with a Reuben Droughens type role (hopefully better though).

-ESPN needs to promote Erin Andrews right away. Possessing a rare combination of Irish good looks and an unparalleled intellect and enthusiasm for journalism, Erin Andrews is the premiere sideline reporter in all of television. I find it criminal that Suzy Kolber and Michele Tafoya are allowed to roam the sidelines for Monday Night Football, while the clearly superior Andrews is deprived of an opportunity to shine on the national stage.

Erin Andrews, a beacon of quality journalism

-You have to like what New England did in Round 2. Trading out of the 1st round left them with 4 picks, which they used on: Patrick Chung (DB-Oregon), Ron Brace (DT-Boston College), Darius Butler (CB-UConn), and Sebastian Vollmer (OT-Houston). All of these guys have the potential to start and contribute. Also note that Vollmer is a 6’7″ 315 lbs German guy who barely spoke English upon arriving at Houston, which rules.

-The Eagles made their 2nd scary offensive pick taking LeShaun McCoy (RB-Pittsburgh) in Round 2. McCoy is a scat back but gives the Eagles yet another guy who is difficult for defenses to wrap up, especially when he gets the ball in space. With Westbrook becoming more of a health risk as he gets older, this is a very smart pick by Philly. However, they still lack a power running back that can pick up short yardage and move the chains.

-To the delight of both Giants and Eagles fans, the Dallas Cowboys officially suck. Already with the losses of Terrell Owens, Julius Jones, and Chris Canty, the Cowboys compounded their woes by trading their only pick in the first day of the draft. This 9-7 squad from a season ago is moving in the opposite direction as the rest of the division.