Suck it, Leno

Jay Leno returns to 'The Tonight Show' tonight after having successfully chased off a better comedian and host, Conan O'Brien. If there is any karma in the Universe, Leno will fail miserably. Horribly. He pushed Carson out before he was truly read to go, and he pushed out Conan when he failed miserably in primetime.

Conan is one of the funniest people I've ever seen. He "gets it". Wherever he ends up, he'll be successful. Leno, on the other hand, I have never understood his appeal. He's not funny. To quote Billy Crystal, he's neither fun, nor funny.

Don't believe me? Check out Conan on 'Inside the Actor's Studio". You can find it on Youtube. If you get through the first ten minutes and haven't laughed out loud, move on.

In the interim, please, check out David Letterman tonight. Or the Sham-Wow guy. Just don't watch Leno.

Tiger not out of the Woods

I love blogging. Well, not really. But it is a nice tool for archiving stuff. Like stupid predictions.

Hey! Here's a stupid prediction! At some point in the next month, Tiger Woods will "admit" to have a sex addiction of some kind, and go into "treatment" (or therapy) for it. Why? Because he needs an "out" of this mess, publicly. Ok, perhaps he actually has one. If he does, then I hope he gets better.

But for the sake of higher quality blog-like crap like this, we're going to assume he doesn't *really* have such an addiction.

He comes out, announces this, goes into some treatment center in Malibu for a few weeks or a month, then a couple weeks later goes on Oprah and tells "his side", admits all of this and asks for the forgiveness of everyone. Oprah, ever so appreciate of the record ratings and the exclusive, takes his side and paints him in the best possible light.

It may not go down that way, but if I was Tiger that's what I would do and that's how I would paint this. We'll see over the next 3 months. But you heard it here first.

Bad news for the Redskins

(note: Facebookies, these Notes copy over from my blog, http://wellformedthoughts.blogspot.com/)

Back on September 8 I wrote the following:


Maryland Terrapins - 5-7 (yes, I know they already got killed by Cal)
Washington Redskins - 6-10

Opinion: If Maryland goes 5-7, as I think, Ralph Freidgen should resign. You need to recruit better OL/DL/LB types, Ralph. Peer E Uhd. Speculation: Last year for Jason Campbell in a Redskins uniform. Last year for Jim Zorn as head coach. Albert Haynesworth will remind people more of Dana Stubblefield than of Reggie White, and he'll miss at least 3 games. And hopefully, if they hire a Bill Cowher / Mike Shannahan / Jon Gruden type to come in, it means bye-bye for Vinny Cerrato. I'll help you pack your office, Vinny.


Ok, so I was actually optimistic on both, even though at the time I was in the very low end of most opinions. And the opinions and speculations, I stand by those.

Maryland Football, it's a mess, and frankly, they are now being cost-conscious which means they won't be good for a while. Like 10 years.

But the Redskins. Oi. People, it's NOT going to get better. Why? I read in an article where Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato recently both took a trip to scout Colt McCoy, QB at Texas and Heisman hopeful.

And that's it in a nutshell.

Problem A. NFL owners are NOT qualified to scout college players. I don't care how smart you are, or how much money you make, or how successful you are in business. Dan Snyder has no business evaluating college talent. If he's got that much free time, come wash my car. Remember last year when Snyder was in love with Mark Sanchez (of USC, who went to the Jets), Jake Cutler, and who knows how many else QBs? Clearly, Snyder has a thing for "big name" QBs.

Problem B. If Snyder is jet-setting around the country with Vinny, he's not getting rid of Vinny any time soon. So, if you accept A and B as true, as I do, you come to the conclusion it will be business as usual next year for the Redskins. More losing, more mediocrity.

At this point, I can't imagine there are ANY big name coaches (established difference makers) who will work in this scenario.

There has been exactly ONE coach who has finished his tenure with the Snyder-owned Redskins at .500 (no coach in the Snyder era has compiled a winning record) - Marty Schottenheimer. Read this article (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/12/schottenheimer_on_cerrato.html?wprss=dcsportsbog) and you'll see things more clearly.

Prediction? Way too early, but right now, Zorn gets fired, Vinny stays, no established coach wants to come here and the Redskins reach on some young college guy or NFL assistant. Just like they did with Jim Zorn. Then they draft a big name college QB (McCoy, or Sam Bradford, or Jimmy Clausen), a WR, and a RB. They won't address the OL, DE, or LB issues significantly. And they'll go 4-12 or 6-10 next year.

Jason Reid of the Washington Post put it perfectly - "Dan Snyder could go out and hire a big name coach/GM to handle all the football operations, win 4 of the next 5 Super Bowls, and he would be miserable because he didn't do it himself."

Darker days lay ahead, Redskins fans. Darker than we've seen and darker than you can imagine.

Flame On!

I'm tired. Really.

I'm not just sleepy tired, although I am sleepy tired. Specifically, I'm tired of people. Not just all people, but certain people. Maybe I'm just annoyed, more than tired. But I digress.

I'm tired of people who think that because they belong to some sort of group, or hold some sort of ideology, or have certain physical traits, that they are better than someone / everyone else, or people who are outside of whatever category "empowers" them to think they are superior.

Just because you are (insert your chosen faith here) doesn't make you ANY better than someone who isn't (insert your chosen faith here).

Just because you are (insert your chosen political party here) doesn't make you ANY better than someone who isn't (insert your chosen political party here).

I'm tired of "in shape" people who think they are better than "fat" people.

I'm tired of people of ANY race who think they are better than any other race.

The list goes on, and on, and on....

I believe the problems with our society, our country, and our world, largely stem from people who think that because they are (whatever) they are better than people who aren't (whatever). I think if YOU are one of those people, I think YOU are the problem. And I mean this in complete sincerity - If you ARE one of those people, I don't want to know you, anymore, ever again. Period. Delete my email address. Erase my phone numbers. Unfriend me from Facebook. Take me off your Christmas card list. Consider me dead and forget I ever existed.

See, I prefer to think that being part of a group, either by choice or by heritage, is nothing more or less than that. You're a part of a group. The value of a person, the worth and quality of that person, are defined by the actions we take in life. The way we treat other people. How we chose to interact with the world.

Don't get me wrong - I don't devalue ANY of these groups, beliefs, or people. I have no problem if someone wants to be a Catholic, a Muslim, a Pagan, a Boy Scout, a Soldier, Straight or Gay, a Democrat or a Republican, it's doesn't matter. Heck, you can even be ignorant for all I care, it's up to you. Being something is a good thing, it can give you a sense of of belonging and community, a feeling of accomplishment.

BEING something isn't wrong. Thinking it makes you better than me by simply being it, yeah, I'm done with that, and I'm done with those people. And I won't miss you.

This world has become so polarized it's not funny, and that's a bad thing. I truly believe the "American Way" is two things: One, a system of government where the people are ultimately responsible, and Two, the freedom to be ANYTHING you want WITHOUT someone judging you for being that thing (ok, disclaimer here - anything legal. Yeah, if you're an Axe Murderer or a Kid Toucher, you're going to get judged, rightly so. I'm more on an ideological rant than a literal rant).

I'm not asking for everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbayah. I think disagreement is fine, and in fact I think it's necessary. But you know what else is fine? Civility. Modesty. Live and let live.

Actions, people. What we DO matters most.

Besides, everyone knows smart people, like myself, are better than everyone else, anyway. ;-)

The Chicken or the Egg?

I once asked my friend Steve what was more important to him, the freedoms granted in the Constitution, or the process defined in the Constitution for the people to perform self-governance? Don't worry, I had to explain my question to Steve as well :-D

Basically, it works out to be, what's more important - the specific freedoms we presently enjoy, or, the freedom of process to decide what rights we have as a society. For example, presently we have things like the freedom to bear arms, free speech, protections against searches and seizure, etc. as amendments to the Constitution. But what if those amendments changed in a legal and valid fashion?

The Constitution defines the process for amending itself (you can't repeal an amendment if you want to remove it, you have to pass an amendment nullifying a different amendment) that requires Congressional approval followed by 3/4 of the states ratifying that amendment via a Constitutional Convention. Sound complicated? It's supposed to be.

So why do I bring this up? I was recently made aware of a group called "Oath Keepers" that got me thinking about this again. Intrigued, I spent an hour or so reading their website. It's quite the noble organization, but I found some discrepancies I simply couldn't just dismiss. Their mission statement reads as follows:

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution."

I'm good with that, makes sense as I see it. But once I kept reading, I discovered their Declarations, which begins as such:

"Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:"

and then it goes on to list the 10 orders they will not follow, the first of which reads "1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.".

Hmmmmm.

So here's the problem. Simply put, you cannot decide which amendments to the Constitution are "right" and which are "less important" when you promise to defend the Constitution. For example, WHAT IF the American people decide they no longer want to guarantee the right to bear arms, and ratify a valid, legal amendment to Constitution that removes the Second Amendment?

What now? Defend the Constitution, or defend the specific amendment? Chicken, or Egg?

Anyone who knows me knows I would say the Constitution is the more important thing. I like the way it is presently structured and support the freedoms in grants. But I support the document, the process of the people to self govern, above those amendments. I think a lot of people get caught up in the specifics of the amendments as the driving doctrine, and often miss a lot of the big picture.

All that said, if you can get 38 states to agree on ANYTHING, it's probably a no-brainer.

And what did Steve answer? He thought about it for a few weeks, and he decided the process was the thing as well, but, he also said he thought that some of the freedoms should be untouchable as well. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz In other words, he couldn't really decide.

Chicken, or Egg?

A lesson in being unpopular

Today is September 11, 2009. It marks the 8th Anniversary of the terrorist attacks involving 4 commercial airliners against the United States of America. For the majority of Americans, and maybe even the world, it's the day that has defined and shaped much of the 21st Century.

I say majority of Americans, but not all. Because it wasn't that kind of day for me.

Before I start on this let me say this: I love my country. I consider myself to be an upstanding citizen, and I think we here in the U.S. have figured out a pretty good system of government. I am in no-way "anti-American" and believe in the Constitution of the United States. I believe the society that has arisen from this document is special and unique and worth preserving.

9/11 simply doesn't have the impact for me that has for most people. On 9/11 I remember logging into my AOL account and seeing a news report that a plane had hit the World Trade Center and assumed it was some knucklehead from Yonkers in his twin-engine Cessna who couldn't figure out how to steer his plane. Just before leaving for work I decided to check out the news, and for the next two hours I watched the second tower get hit, heard the reports of the Pentagon being hit, and saw the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. And then I called my mom, who was at Johns Hopkins in the final days of her battle with Pancreatic cancer, a battle we knew she was rapidly losing, a battle she would ultimately lose 10 days later.

A lot of things happened over the next few days, but the circumstances of that time will always be overshadowed, for me, by the loss of my mom. We talked about 9/11 a couple of times, and she was worried about the world she was leaving us to look after. I told her I thought everything would be ok, we'd figure out who did this and where they were, and remove them from existence. I still hope I'm right about that. I truly did believe that at the time, that we would deal with this, figure out who did it and systematically remove then from the face of the earth. I think the saddest part of the whole thing is that eight years later we're still in Afghanistan chasing around the knuckleheads behind all this.

I understand why it affected so many people, why it was such an important event. Historical significance is not lost on me, it's the emotional attachment to the event that I guess is different for me than it is for a lot of people. I've never been a person to just accept what I was told and pretty much question everything. A complete cynic in many ways. And I've always felt the very best thing we can do to defeat the actions of 9/11 was to return to "life as normal", rebuild the buildings as they were, and go about our lives in a way that says "you can attack us, but you can't hurt us, you can't change us".

Was 9/11 a tragedy? Of course. Does it deserve a National holiday? Absolutely not. Memorials, Remembrances, of course, but not a National holiday. For me, it wasn't even the worst day of that week.

I realize this isn't my best blog post ever, so thanks for bearing with me.

2009 Football Predictions

(note: Facebookies, these Notes copy over from my blog, http://wellformedthoughts.blogspot.com/)

It's September 8, and I want to put these out for the record:

Maryland Terrapins - 5-7 (yes, I know they already got killed by Cal)
Washington Redskins - 6-10

Opinion: If Maryland goes 5-7, as I think, Ralph Freidgen should resign. You need to recruit better OL/DL/LB types, Ralph. Peer E Uhd.

Speculation: Last year for Jason Campbell in a Redskins uniform. Last year for Jim Zorn as head coach. Albert Haynesworth will remind people more of Dana Stubblefield than of Reggie White, and he'll miss at least 3 games. And hopefully, if they hire a Bill Cowher / Mike Shannahan / Jon Gruden type to come in, it means bye-bye for Vinny Cerrato. I'll help you pack your office, Vinny.

I'm down on both teams. Why? With both, it's the obvious lack of physical talent in the right areas. The Redskins will be more competitive because their defense has a chance to be quite good. I hope I'm wrong, but this is how I see it.

A Big Problem

I was 21 years old in 1988 when the movie "Big" came out, and I remember going to see the movie with my friends Tim and Frank. For those of you who might be cinematically impaired, "Big" is a story about a boy who makes a wish and wakes up the next day as an adult, and follows his adventures over the span of a few months as he learns to be an adult all while trying to become a kid again. At the end of the movie, Tom Hank's character (Josh Baskin) goes back to being a kid and all is well.

When the movie was done, we began discussing how each of us would have handled that scenario. Back then, Tim was 22, and Frank was probably 35 or so. I steadfastly argued that Josh made a huge mistake going back, and should have continued his life as an adult. Sure, he went from being 11 to probably 30, but, in his short time as an adult he landed a great job (toy company executive), an awesome loft apartment, and a legitimate relationship with one of the most elegant and beautiful women I've ever seen (Elizabeth Perkins) in my entire life (even still to this day).

Frank was adamant that you had to go back to being a kid, and Tim agreed with Frank. Now, over the course of the last 21 years, I've forgotten why Tim took that position, but Frank took his stance based on the idea you could still have all those things later in life. I argued that was crazy, and that Josh had basically won the life lottery and might never get those things back.

And here I sit, 21 years later, at the age of 42, having just watched the middle portions of "Big" on cable, and it started me thinking about that discussion. And while I still think did win the life lottery, I have to admit I'm reconsidering my viewpoint. Perhaps it's my age, the extra life experience, perhaps it's just a mid-life crisis, but I'm starting to think Josh made the right decision in going back to being a kid, even if that meant giving up Elizabeth Perkins. Now, was Josh stupid for not liquidating all his assets and placing them in an offshore account before he went back so he'd be able to keep all that he earned? Maybe ;-)

What I'm really curious to know is, how would you handle that scenario? Would you stay as an adult or go back?