Premier Club Rock Bands

EPL Talk has a cool entry on if Premier clubs were rock bands. As luck would have it, my two favorite clubs (Chelsea and Newcastle United) also are matched with two of my most fav bands!!

• Arsenal - The Gunners used to be on top of the world, but no matter how gifted they are, they still feel like REM to me. Lots of talent but they’re never going to be as big as they once were.
• Aston Villa - Martin O’Neill, himself from Northern Ireland, would feel right at home with The Undertones, the Northern Irish band best known for the song “Teenage Kicks.” While they’re not teenagers, Villa has plenty of youth talent such as Ashley Young, James Milnar, Isaiah Osbourne and Curtis Davies.
• Blackburn Rovers - The heavy metal sound of Motorhead is a perfect accompaniment to Blackburn’s rough and tumble style of play. It makes you wonder if Motorhead’s “Ace Up Your Sleeve” tour was named for Blackburn’s own “ace,” aging striker Robbie Fowler.
• Bolton Wanderers - It’s appropriate that Bolton is synonymous with Metallica. “Enter Sandman” is an appropriate title for watching Bolton apply their physical tactics which can quickly become boring to watch.
• Chelsea - If the Blues move from Stamford Bridge to Battersea, then Pink Floyd would be the best resemblance to Chelsea. But if a move isn’t on the cards, then the closest thing to the Chelsea of the 1970’s would be the Sex Pistols, who routinely hung out at boutique shops on the trendy Kings Road near Chelsea’s home.
• Fulham - While not a rock band per se, Blur’s bass player Alex James is a massive Fulham supporter.
• Everton - The most famous rock star synonymous with Everton is the one and only Paul McCartney, a self-confessed Toffees supporter.
• Hull City - What do Hull City and Faith No More have in common? One hit wonders.
• Liverpool - Most neutral fans continue to be awestruck by the amazing football anthems that emanate from Anfield stadium on Merseyside. The only rock band that gets strangers singing as much as Liverpool fans do is Queen, creator of several rock anthems. Plus, like Liverpool, they were big in the late seventies and early eighties.
• Manchester City - With a song called “Champagne Supernova,” who else but Oasis would be a perfect fit for City, especially since the band members are already massive fans.
• Manchester United - There are few football clubs who are as big worldwide and as polished as U2. It often seems that they can’t do any wrong. Alex Ferguson is Bono, saying whatever he wants whenever he feels like it. Both United and U2 seem indestructible.
• Middlesbrough - Middlesbrough supporter and rocker Chris Rea is best known for the aptly named single “The Road To Hell.”
• Newcastle United - Did AC/DC lead singer Brian Johnson pick Newcastle as his favorite team, or was it the other way around? AC/DC’s song titles seem made for Newcastle United. Consider “It’s A Long Way To The Top,” “Ballbreaker” (a tribute to Joey Barton?), “Moneytalks” (Mike Ashley), “Highway to Hell” and “The Razors Edge” (on the precipice of relegation).
• Portsmouth - The Pompey squad features seven Frenchmen, and players from Cameroon (Lauren), Iceland (Hermann Hreiðarsson ), Senegal (Papa Bouba Diop), Nigeria (John Utaka and Kanu), Croatia (Niko Kranj?ar), Scotland (Richard Hughes ), Wales (Richard Duffy), Mali (Djimi Traoré), Ireland (Marc Wilson) and Canada (Asmir Begovic). If Portsmouth was a rock band, they’d be Motley Crue.
• Stoke City - When you think of Stoke’s Rory Delap, you have to think Cheap Trick.
• Sunderland - If Sunderland was a rock band, it’d be the Eurythmics fronted by guitarist and Sunderland supporter Dave Stewart.
• Tottenham Hotspur - Genesis’s lead singer and drummer Phil Collins is reportedly a massive Spurs fan.
• West Bromwich Albion - Tony Mowbray’s side this season hasn’t been playing like worldbeaters, but they have the world’s greatest guitarists, Eric Clapton, as one of their fans. Clapton played a concert for skipper John Wile’s testimonial year back in 1982 and draped an Albion scarf across his guitar on the back sleeve of his album “Backless.”
• West Ham United - Any investor considering a buy-out of West Ham United should heed the song title “Run to the Hills” by Iron Maiden whose band leader Steve Harris is a massive Hammers fan.
• Wigan Athletic - It’s only fitting that the best known band from Wigan, The Verve, have a discography with an album titled “A Northern Soul” and song titles such as “Lucky Man” and “Bitter Sweet Symphony.” “Lucky Man” could have been written about Paul Jewell after he helped the club escape relegation. And the chorus of “Bitter Sweet Symphony” with the lyrics “I can’t change, I can’t change” could sum up the mood of the town of Wigan who seem rooted to their rugby league roots instead of coming out in droves to watch their local football team.

Veteran's Day

Thank you to all who serve or have served to keep the nation free.

High Cost of Education - Why?

When I went to college, starting in 1980, the cost was a bargain compared to today. In 1980, I think it cost about $1000 a year. I enjoyed college sooo much I wound up going for seven years!! Of course, I didn't go for education but went to party my ass off. I was not very productive... I majored in sex, drugs and rock and roll. It's truly amazing I survived to become such a productive member of society.

For some time now, we've heard about the increased cost of higher education. How it's increased over the years.

For the 2000-01 academic year, annual prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board were estimated to be $7,621 at public colleges and $21,423 at private colleges. Between 1990-91 and 2000-01, prices at public colleges rose by 23 percent, and prices at private colleges increased by 27 percent, after adjustment for inflation.

And how it's eaten into the median family income:

Tuition has risen 126 percent (after inflation) since 1984 and is eating up an ever-growing chunk of family incomes. In 1984, the tuition and fees at a public, four-year college was just 4.8 percent of the median family income; today it's 9.5 percent.

These stats are from almost a decade ago and the increase is far greater today.

• The cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at public four-year universities has increased 52 percent, from $8,439 in 2000-2001 to $12,796 in 2006-2007 (in current dollars); and
  

• The cost of tuition, fees, room, and board at private four-year universities has increased 37 percent, from $22,240 in 2000-2001 to $30,367 in 2006-2007 (in current dollars).

We've heard about Obama's desire to provide affordable higher education to the masses:

we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

[...]

Finally, Obama says he will create a tax credit that would ensure the first $4,000 of a college education is free for most Americans.

This sounds great. I'm not exactly sure how he's going to pay for it all with the tax credits. But I can guarantee you the cost of higher education explode of the government winds up paying for everyone's college expenses. It's just economics. The universities will begin to inflate the fees knowing the government will payout. When the money finally runs out, where will we be left...

Now here the jest of this post.

Have any of you looked at the endowments of the major universities? Here's a definition of endowment:

Dictionary: endowment (ĕn-dou'mənt)
n.

1. The act of endowing.
2. Funds or property donated to an institution, individual, or group as a source of income.

Notice the phrase 'source of income'. It amazes me our higher learning institutions are charging outrageous tuitions while hoarding vast sums of money. Harvard's endowment in 2007? It's $34.6 BILLION dollars !! That's $1,456,940 per student (2006)!! Yale? How about $22.5 billion!! Public systems are not as fortunate, but let's not feel too sorry for them. The University of Texas has an endowment of $15.6 billion, University of Michigan has $7.1 billion...

I find it truly amazing all the major universities have such a vast pool of money they are accumulating while raising the cost of tuition at such an inflated rate. Where's the outcry from the Democrats? Why aren't they targeting their excesses? Could it be because the campuses are their playground?

I'm not for playing Robin Hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor (or Obama's desire to 'spread the wealth'). So I'd like to be consistent. But what's the difference between high class executives getting such high salaries while their workers earn such meager wages and high class universities gorging on such exorbitant endowments (not to mention high faculty salaries) while placing their student body in such debt? Where is the common good in this?

Until the Democrats address such inequities, I'll judge them to be insincere and in the pocket of the intelligentsia just as the Republicans are in bed with the corporate oligarchy.

Either way both parties have become our plutocracy, our ruling elite...

peace

Madness at White Hart Lane

At the beginning of the Barclay's Premier League ( formerly the English Premier League), the hot teams were Tottenham Hot Spurs and Aston Villa. I picked them to place 6th with Villa in 5th and qualifying for UEFA. While Villa currently reside in 6th on the table, Tottenham dwell in last with an unbelievable 2 pts!! They've looked horrible!! They lost Keane to (hated) Liverpool and Berbatov to (evil) ManU, so they lost the heart of their scoring and it shows this season with only 4 goals and a -6 goal differential.

So after shafting manager Martin Jol last season, they've now dismissed Juande Ramos and are trolling after Portsmouth's Harry Redknapp. As good as ol' Harry is, I don't think he can save them from relegation. Only Southhampton ever fended off relegation with so few points.

The Guardian has an interesting take on the cause of the Hot Spur's woes. Seems Garth Bale is a jinx! I thought he was a promising young Welsh left back. I went so far as to pick him in a fantasy league for a bit. But the numbers just don't lie:

With Bale P: 15 W: 0 D: 6 L: 9 F: 19 A: 30 GD: -11 Pts: 6

Without Bale P: 32 W: 11 D: 9 L: 12 F: 53 A: 45 GD: +8 Pts: 42

peace

Obama's too late for Iran

Much has been said about Obama insisting he never said he'd talk to Iran (or other 'bad' nations) without preconditions, although there's tape of him saying just that during a Democratic 'debate'.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

But what is truly amazing is his stand may be for naught. Seems the fine leaders of Iran have other ideas like preconditions for us!! How about the U.S. leaving the Middle East and to stop supporting Israel!!

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.

It is the Americans who are in dire need of reestablishing ties with Iran, he underlined.

Iran is not obliged to reestablish ties with the U.S., he said.

"If they take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared," he said.

It is stupidity to hold talks without any change in U.S. attitude, he underlined.

Well, it's good to know someone is clear on where they stand...

Debate and Election

Took in the debate tonight. I've come to the conclusion this election is Obama's lose. His command of presence and eloquence is so superior to McCain it's not even funny. He's a natural where as McCain is surly and just not charismatic.

I think Obama was the designated victor tonight. He was just smooth and more in command. McCain, I'm sure, tried to be personable but failed. A side note - if I still drank, I'd love to play a drinking game with McCain's "my friends". We'd all be plastered after an hour and a half....

In reviewing the post-debate pundits, the consensus seems to be a clear Obama victory. There wasn't much McCain could do to close the gap and sure enough nothing happened to change it. As could be predicted, CNN and MSNBC clearly sided with Obama while Fox went with McCain. Have I mentioned recently how much I can't stand Keith Olbermann? He just makes my hair stand on end. He's as bad as Hannity but tries to pass himself off as a newsman. I just have a hard time watching him without gagging.

So, let's get ready for an Obama administration. It will be interesting and I hope it is a successful one. However, my biggest fear is an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic congress will run roughshod with a Progressive agenda on par with the New Deal era. If they enact all their desires, we will embark on a Socialist path with more government intrusion and dubious economic policies.

As much as I'm a political junkie, I think I'll have to abstain and just watch some baseball. I think it's only going to turn nasty and I just don't want to watch how ugly it's going to get.

Peace

Biden's Lack of Charity and Other Thoughts

Well, Palin's tax returns were released on Friday. The Palin's earned only $166,080 for 2007. I think that's kinda low for a two income family where one happens to be a governor of a state, but then I don't know how much Todd worked in 2007 if he was the primary care giver of the family since she was in Juneau. Either way, this shows they truly are a middle-income family.

I'd heard how much (or how little) the Biden's had given to charity a couple of weeks ago and was aghast at how little it was. They've given only $3,690 to charity since 1998!! This in spite of earning $284,000 in 2006 and 2007 alone. Only $3,690 for the last 10 years?!?!? I'm insulted!! Here is a man who is eagerly, willing and wantonly, planning on using MY taxes to redistribute America's wealth and yet he is unwilling to use his own money to assist those less fortunate than him. I guess he feels his taxes are enough of a personal commitment. So much for his Catholic faith of providing for the poor. I guess his belief of taxes being patriotic is his new faith:

“Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most,” he said.

It reinforces the belief that Democrats just don't get how many Americans feel. We'd rather give our money to charities of our own choice than to give it to Government for them to dole out. Sad, just sad.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Watched the VP debate on Thursday after a colonoscopy...talk about joy! I came in with questions about Palin after her interview with Katie Couric. The bits I saw were disturbing. Let's say some of the luster was lost. I began to question her readiness. There's no doubt she's set to be a major political player, but I was beginning to think it was a bit too soon.

However, after watching the debate, my fears were allayed. Don't get me wrong. She's still extremely green and has a lot to learn, but the foundation is there for her to be a power player. She held her own and sounded competent. She had a couple gaffes like that wacky expanding of the VP powers and mis-stating the commander in Afghanistan, but not nearly as bad as Biden's claim of the UN peacekeeping forces (at the behest of France and US) pushing out Hezbollah, his backing of 'clean' coal or that Obama never said he'd meet Iranian leader without preconditions. It's a shame Palin didn't pounce on these and nail him on them.

But I'm growing weary of this silly season and to think we have four more weeks of this nonsense.

Peace

Policy, Not Race

Here's an article by Ross Balano in the KC Star which outlines my thoughts on voting for Obama.

So the race card has been played again this election; nothing new about that either. Democrats do it every election cycle. But I thought Obama was supposed to transcend race.

Now again, if you aren’t liberal, you must be some kind of racist, right? After all, there’s no other reason why anyone would not vote for Obama, correct?

So let me get this straight. With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you don’t want higher taxes, you might be a racist.

If you think we should drill for more domestic oil, you could be a racist.

If you believe we should secure the borders, you might be a racist.

If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, the sanctity of life or winning the war on terror, you just might be a racist.

Heck, if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be a racist.

I, for one, am tired of this old routine.

Let me be very clear: The problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Rather, it has to do with positions, beliefs and associations and the lack of any substantial experience that would qualify him to be president.

As I've mentioned before, my objection to voting for Obama comes clearly from not agreeing with his policies and nothing else. I happen to think he's the epitome of Cool.

Although I've seen several articles on a national scale posit the belief that if you don't vote for Obama, it MUST be because you're racist and worse, watch out if he loses. All hell will break loose, because it must have been stolen from him...Bullshit. I don't vote for Buddhists, because they're Buddhists. I don't vote for Texans, because they're Texan. I don't vote for whites, because they're white and I don't withhold my vote just because a candidate is not white. I'm tired of hearing this nonsense. There will be Crackers out there who will not vote for Obama just because he's black, but also there will be others who DO vote for him just because he IS black. All of these people are ill informed and ignorant.

I feel fortunate to have friends on both sides who are not so shallow. We've had discussions on this topic and I'm glad to say we've all moved to a better place where color is not a factor to judging a person's merit.

Please, be informed and vote on merit. If America wants to vote in a Dem, then let it happen. We'll survive (although God help us if both the President AND Congress are Dems . . .). Obama is a good man, just not my cup o' tea.

Peace.

Debate 092608

OK, I'm back...

I've refrained from blogging during the lonnnnng political season because it's been just that, lonnnnng. How I wish we were limited to no more than six months of campaigning. I'm a political junky but man, this has been tiring. And we're not even going to bring up the Sarah Palin issue. (maybe later!)

So I watched the debate. I came in thinking McCain was going to be in trouble. He's old... He's a curmudgeon. Yet, he held himself together without blowing up. I think he scored points on the economy by pointing out Obama's earmarks. I'm still wondering how Obama is going to cut taxes on 95% of America, those under 250K while increasing spending by billions of dollars. Does he expect 5% of America to pay for all that? Quite frankly, I don't believe him.

I've heard how the middle-class has been shrinking for the past 10 yrs. Has no one thought that it's shrinking because to "upper-class" has increased? From what I've read, the lower class has shrunk along with the middle class. So, where do these people go....

Back to the debate. I think Obama shows he's a bright man. He's in charge of the facts and a very good 'debater'. McCain's strength is his experience, especially in foreign policy and military issues. Obama's very personable while McCain is not.

As I've discussed with friends, I'd be honored to vote for Obama if I shared his beliefs. I think he's a good man, but I've studied him and truly believe he's not for me. Being a Libertarian, I feel he's for increasing Government's intrusion into our lives. McCain at least shows an inclination to get Government off our backs.

I don't think I'll have a candidate I'll be truly satisfied for years to come...

Now, a bit about the post debate discussion - I normally watch MSNBC and Fox. I applaud MSNBC's move of getting Olberman off as the face of these programs. I watched him on both conventions as truly was revolted. While I do think Fox is more on the conservative side, besides their 'opinion' talking heads, I think they can be some what objective. During this 'silly' season, MSNBC has shown me that they really are on the left. Olberman has tried to portray himself as next Edward R. Murrow but he's so in the pocket for the Dems that I have to disregard anything he says, just like Hannity. But at least Hannity doesn't try to portray himself as a 'newsman'...

Anyway, the post script on MSNBC has been mixed. Matthews has been a bit harsh, repeatedly leading on how McCain didn't look at Obama. how troll like McCain was and bringing up a load of 'talking points' that Obama missed. On Fox, the scooped MSNBC by having Bidden on right after the debate. Wallace tried to 'get' him on the experience issue but Bidden adroitly deflected the issue. I just can't wait for Maddow...not!! I can tell you how she's going to spin it... wanna bet?

Overall, I think McCain has to consider this a victory since he came in as an 'underdog' when it comes to debating. He scored some points while not blowing up. Obama scored some point by his knowledge and his skill.

Man, I can't wait for this to be over...

Financial Bailout

As I've mentioned before, I have little or no sympathy for those who've mortgaged their lives for a better house while those of us who have sacrificed with smaller dwellings saved and worked for a better life. While I've always questioned the massive payout clauses to departing CEOs, I've never begrudged them anymore than I would a sports athlete or movie celebrity. It's what the market pays out. Shareholders are ultimately responsible for those golden parachutes just as fans are responsible for the sport salaries.

I do scoff at the political gamesmanship currently en vogue in Washington. Democrats are aghast at what's happened even though their leadership was in charge of 'oversight' while the present administration's laissez faire only contributed to the nod-nod-wink-wink of the money shell game. All are culpable and yet we are left holding the bag.

I still don't know how I feel about bailing out the financial crisis. Being a Libertairian, I feel failure is the best medicine. We don't have a significant debt since we've made a conscious effort to live within our means, but we'd still feel the pain caused by those frivolous buffoons. And yet...I'd be willing to suffer if it righted the ship.

Below is an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson, pls enjoy:

Dr. Frankenstein's Wall Street

By Victor Davis Hanson

When the mortgage bubble burst, Americans were "shocked" at how many Wall Street buccaneers had been gambling in a vast pyramid scheme with someone else's money. Paper fortunes were made buying and selling questionable sub-prime mortgages on the silly assumption that such gargantuan inside profiting would always expand -- even as the number of homebuyers able to buy overpriced properties was shrinking.

Now after the recent crash in sub-prime mortgages and the stock of several investment firms, a trillion dollars in "assets" could be nearly worthless. An already indebted American government must restore some sort of trust to banks and markets by either printing money or borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign creditors to guarantee loans.

All that remains of this Ponzi scheme is the election-year blame game. Republicans charge that important financial firewalls were dismantled by the Clinton administration while insider liberal senators got shady campaign donations in exchange for aiding Wall Street. Democrats counter that the laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Republicans for two decades encouraged financial piracy while tax policy favored the rich speculator over the middle-class wage earner.

But no one dares to ask what really drove the wheeler-dealer portfolio managers. Who re-elected these shady politicians of both parties? Who fostered the cash-in culture in which both Wall Street profit mongering and Washington lobbying are nourished and thrive? We citizens did -- red-state conservatives and blue-state liberals, Republicans and Democrats, alike. We may be victims of Wall Street greed -- but not quite innocent victims.

Let me explain. The profiteering was not just the result of a few thousand scoundrels on Wall Street or in Washington, as greedy and as bonus-hungry as many of them no doubt were. Look at the housing market as a sort of musical chairs in which everyone profited as long he grabbed a seat when the music stopped. Then those left standing -- with high-priced loans and negative equity when the crash came -- defaulted and stuck taxpayers with debt in the billions of dollars. But until then, most owners who had sold homes cashed out beyond their wildest dreams.

Thousands of dollars in past profits are still in sellers' bank accounts or were spent on their own consumption. If the shaky buyer at the bottom of the pyramid should not have borrowed to buy an overpriced house, then the luckier seller higher up hardly worried that the cash-strapped fool was paying him way too much with unsecured borrowed money.

We created the cultural climate for this shared madness. Television shows advised how to "flip" a house after putting in cosmetic improvements. Real-estate seminars and popular videos convinced us that homes were not places to live in and raise a family but rather no different from piles of chips on a Vegas table.

We created the phony populist creed that everyone deserved to own a house. So lawmakers got the message to relax lending standards in service to "fairness." But Americans forgot that historically nearly four in 10 of us aren't ever ready, or able, to sacrifice for a down payment, monthly mortgage bills, home maintenance and yearly taxes -- and so should stick to renting.

The problem went way beyond real-estate fantasies. Five-percent interest as a return on our money was once considered pretty good -- especially inasmuch as a factory or farm on the other side of the banking equation could not really stay in business paying 10 percent in interest to banks for its necessary borrowing.

But soon retirement-account holders and institutional investors began to expect as a given 7, 10 -- and even 20 -- percent "return" on their portfolios. Wage earners and professionals alike compared the glossy brochures that appeared in the mail, and then jumped to this 401(k) investment or that mutual fund to "maximize" retirement portfolio earnings.

How Wall Street managers, eager for more multimillion-dollar bonuses, planned to deliver on their promised sky-high returns no one asked. But it often proved to be more by hook-and-crook shell games than by financing new productive businesses or by extending credit for the production of real goods in vital plants.

In a larger sense, this zeal for quick profits and easy money reflected an oblivious too-good-to-be-true culture in which we drove larger cars but demanded more oil drilling from everyone except ourselves. We expected both expanded government entitlements and lower taxes.

Our government borrowed ever more money from foreign creditors, because it was a collective reflection of our own profligate financial habits. Of course, we should reform Wall Street and Washington -- and punish severely the crooks in both places. But Americans should remember that Frankenstein was not the name of the monster but of its creator.

Premier League Predictions!!

I've been smitten with English League soccer for the last couple of years. Here's my hand at the year end table.



1. Chelsea - one of my two fav teams. Just too much firepower.

2. Manchester United - the hated ManU . . . one can hope for relegation, eh?

3. Liverpool - Torres, Gerrard? `nuff said.

4. Aston Villa - great moves off season.

5. Arsenal - beautiful football peters out over the long haul.

6. Tottenham - a lot of offense, but gave up a lot, too.

7. Portsmouth - Crouch and Defoe may click after a time.

8. Everton - didn't do squat in the off season.

9. West Ham Utd. - average last year, average this year.

10. Sunderland - greatly improved, tough manager, Keene.

11. Manchester City - owner turmoil, should self destruct.

12. Blackburn - new manager, up four levels. Can Ince keep it going?

13. Newcastle - my other fav team, but a whacked team. Who knows where they'll be.

14. Wigan - team as tough as their manager, Bruce.

15. Fulham - scrappy team who made improvements.

16. Middlesbrough - in the mix for relegation.

17. West Brom - relegation battle to the last day?

18. Bolton - just not impressed, manager will probably be the first to go, too.

19. Hull City - my heart says they stay up, but my head says down for the drop.

20. Stoke City - nobody could be as bad as last year's Derby, right?


These predictions are always a challenge. The August transfer window is still open and there are still rumors of pending transfers. In addition, the January transfer window allows those still hanging in there to make a bold move. I just hope Newcastle doesn't implode.

Personal Responsibility

Several years ago during the high times of this decade, my wife and I made a choice. We were torn between moving from our 'cracker-box' rambler we'd owned for 10 years to a more up-scale neighborhood or refinancing it from a 30 yr to a 15 yr mortgage. It was tough. Our current school district is the worst in our county. Therefore we make a conscious choice of sending our children to a parochial school where they get a top-notch education. Some of our friends call us 'education elitists'. We wear that moniker proudly!! So, if we moved just two mile into the newer developments, we'd be able to consider public education.

Well, we chose to re-finance and were able to pay the same monthly mortgage payment as before and stay in our 'cracker-box'. We made the informed and correct choice.

Meanwhile, all around us, folks who decided to upgrade are struggling. I have NO sympathy for them. We knew what we were doing and so did these people.

Here's an Op-ed piece from Glenn Beck where I agree 100%. Whether it's people who doubled their mortgages to get a piece of the high life or states who think changing the rules only apply to 'other' states, our collective mindset for personal responsibility has evaporated as surely as the value of housing market.

We are doomed.

Obama in the Real World

As an opened minded chap, I really do look at all the candidates to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses for the real world. I'm not locked out of them just yet. But that's not to say I'd really vote for all of them.

Appeal Experience Philosophy Electability

Obama McCain McCain McCain

McCain Clinton Clinton Obama

Clinton Obama Obama Clinton

I guess I'm most satisfied with McCain, but his age predicates him selecting a strong VP. If he chooses someone like Huckabee I'd be disappointed. But I've heard scuttlebutt that there's talk of a McCain/Condi Rice ticket. Now THAT'd be a fun Presidential race, eh? McCain/Rice v. Clinton/Obama.

I absolutely love the fact that we have an opportunity to pick between a woman and a person "of color". I just wish they were not so liberal. Being a fiscal conservative/social liberal, I have no choice but to pick McCain. As Hillary has already said, "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all." We know she has grand ideas, but all of them will be coming out of my checkbook. With Obama, we know he's the most liberal Senator currently sitting. However, what will he do once he's in the Real World? Obama sounds great. I enjoy his speeches, so positive and uplifting. Unlike John Edwards, who is renown as an orator, but became so negative with his 'two Americas'.

Here's an article by Michael Totten discussing Obama's Syria policy. Once again, he's spot on. Is Obama just using the Bush-hating rhetoric - “Washington musts rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans” - to get elected or is he really that naive to think ALL of the Arab world and world in general is wrong in dealing with Assad and Syria. I hope he's just using the anti-Bush language and once in office (maybe) he'll begin to realize life is not so simplistic.

Senator Barack Obama went on the record about the never-ending political meltdown in Lebanon, and for a moment there I thought he might have it just right.

“The ongoing political crisis is resulting in the destabilization of Lebanon,” he said, “which is an important country in the Middle East. The US cannot watch while Lebanon’s fresh democracy is about to collapse.” So far so good. “We must keep supporting the democratically-elected government of PM Fouad Siniora, strengthening the Lebanese army and insisting on the disarmament of Hezbollah before it leads Lebanon into another unnecessary war.”

This is all excellent, so let’s get something out of the way. Barack Obama is not a leftist. He is a liberal. The difference between an American liberal and an American leftist on Lebanon is enormous. I can’t tell you how many Western leftists I’ve met who ran off to Beirut where they endlessly excuse or even outright support Hezbollah. (They are “victims” of Zionism, they aren’t pro-American like those icky “right-wing” bourgeois Maronite Christians, etc.) Some of these Hezbollah supporters, tragically, are journalists. They put me in the right-wing “imperialist” and “orientalist” camp for no more than saying what Barack Obama just said.

Obama’s problem isn’t that he’s on the wrong side. His problem is he’s the latest in a seemingly limitless supply of naïve Westerners who think they can reason with Syria’s tyrant Bashar Assad.

“Washington must rectify the wrong policy of President George Bush in Lebanon and resort to an efficient and permanent diplomacy, rather than empty slogans,” he said.

“What is bizarre about this sentence,” Lebanese political analyst Tony Badran said to me in an email, “is that the Lebanon policy has been precisely that. While Sen. Obama’s statement — and indeed conventional wisdom — tries to paint all Bush administration policies with the old brush of arrogant unilateralism, in reality, the Lebanon policy has always been a multilateral policy of consensus, through the UN security council, through international law, and through close partnership with European and regional allies like France and Saudi Arabia. It is unclear how Sen. Obama wishes to ‘replace’ that. The current policy is as consensual, multilateral and internationalist as you can get. What you need to replace ‘hollow rhetoric,’ as he put it, is not more ‘diplomatic engagement,’ it’s more tools of pressure.”

This is exactly right. Pressure of one kind or another is the only thing Bashar Assad, or his more ruthless father Hafez Assad, ever responds to.

Syria has exported terrorism to almost all its neighbors – to Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey. So far only Turkey has managed to put an end to it once for all, and did so by threatening to invade. Turkey could smash Syria to pieces almost as quickly and easily as the Israelis were they so included. So that, as they say, was that.

Likewise, Assad withdrew all his occupation troops from Lebanon in 2004 after a million Lebanese citizens – almost a third of the total population – protested in Beirut’s Martyr’s Square and demanded their evacuation. It wasn’t the protest, though, that forced Assad out. It was what he felt was extraordinary pressure from the international community, most pointedly from the United States. “I am not Saddam Hussein,” he said at the time. “I want to cooperate.”

I doubt the Bush Administration threatened an invasion of Syria. It wasn’t necessary. The United States had just pulled the trigger in Iraq.

“We have,” Tony Badran continued, “as have our allies and friends, tried talking to the Syrians and the result is always the same: disastrous failure. Mr. Obama might think that his own personal charm is enough to turn Assad into a gushing 14 year old girl at an N’Sync concert, but he should pay close attention to the recent experience of one of our closest trans-Atlantic allies, French president Nicholas Sarkozy.”

Sarkozy thought he could achieve what Obama says he’ll achieve. After finally getting over the learning curve he decided, as have all others before him, that the only solution is a united Western front against Syria. That united Western front would join the already existing united Arab front against Syria. Every Arab government in the world is aligned against Syria already. The only Assad-friendly government in the region is the (Persian) Islamic Republic of Iran. All Arab governments are ahead of Obama, just as they were ahead of Sarkozy, who refused to listen when they warned him.

Assad is not going to break the Syrian-Iranian-Hamas-Hezbollah axis because Obama talks him into it over tea after everyone else who has ever tried has failed utterly. Obama could be counted on to iron out at least some differences with European diplomats and Republicans in Congress, but that’s because they’re democratic, civilized, and basically on the same side. Syria is an enemy state and acts accordingly. Assad isn’t a spouse in a troubled marriage on the Dr. Phil show. Obama is no more able to flip Syria into the Western camp than Syria can convince the U.S. to join Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Common ground does not exist. We have nothing to talk about because what Assad wants first and foremost – Syria’s re-domination of Lebanon and its absorption into its state-sponsored terrorist axis – is unacceptable for everyone involved from Barack Obama to Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Seniora to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

A united Arab-Western front against Syria might be effective. That’s what Assad is afraid of, and it’s the reason he continues to pretend what he wants is just “dialogue.” As if he just wants a friend and Bush is mean for not listening, as if “dialogue” is a cry for help so someone can help him kick his terrorist habit. There is always another sucker, somewhere, who thinks he or she can talk sense into the man and is willing to sabotage a united front in order to try.

Everyone who has ever tried to reason with Assad at length will tell you what I’m telling you now. It’s not a “liberal” or “conservative” thing, it just is. Obama is like the smart and popular college kid with a bright future, yet who still needs time to learn how the world works. He hasn’t acquired any foreign policy experience or expertise, and unfortunately his advisors are failing him here. They, of all people, should know this by now, yet they do not.

Obama desperately needs an advisor who understands Syria, and if he wants one who isn’t conservative he could could far worse than bringing on board political analyst and blogger Abu Kais, a Lebanese Shia who moved to Washington during his country’s civil war and is a Democratic opponent of the Bush Administration.

“Murder has been profitable in our country, and in the region,” he wrote last month after assassins murdered anti-terrorist investigator Wissam Eid with a car bomb. “No one is going after the killers – their harshest punishment to date took the form of ‘initiatives’ and ‘dialogue.’ Lebanon, once again, is where anything goes, a free killing zone sanctioned by its enemies, and by friends who talk too much and do nothing.”

Something About Bill

I've never had a hardon for Bill Clinton like the Republicans. I thought he was a pretty good president, considering what other presidents have done in the past. I thought his many peccadilloes were disgraceful but not worthy of impeachment.

But I've grown weary of him like never before. His grandstanding and greater-than-thou attitude during this campaign season is revolting. He's using his past presidency as if gives him the right of anointing the next president, oh and she just happens to be his wife. His righteous indignation is laughable.

I've enjoyed the Democratic kerfuffle over racism and sexism in this race. I think it truly wonderful that a political party in America is seriously considering the nomination of both a 'person of color' and/or a woman. It's also truly a shame that for political reasons only I can not vote for either of them. I really wish I could, but I feel both of them are nothing more than socialist. The old white men don't thrill me either...

But I'm off on a tangent, back to Bill.

What a pompous ass he's become. His attitude is so condescending and pejorative. I find it insulting. The Bill and Hil show has become a tag team now. You just know they'll be one in the White House. This is something I dread even more than just Hilary.

Football in a Snow Globe

That was some game.

The forecast on Friday called for cold but no snow. However, when I turned on TV on Saturday and saw the snow, I knew we were doomed. The Brett seems invincible in snow. The Packers didn't need any help but got loads from Marcus Pollard. (photo by Jeff Hanisch/US Presswire)

He's not solely to blame for the loss and considering Seattle is 0-8 in postseason road games since their only road win in 1983.

Is ANYONE going to stop The Magical Tom Brady? His performance was wonderful. What a show it'll be Brett v. Tom! Of course, they both have to get through one more game...

NFL Playoffs

OK, time to see if the Seahawks are for real!!

Seattle 23 Packers 21
Pats 28 Jax 10
Colts 24 Bolts 14
Giants 21 Cowboys 20

Go Hawks!

A Little Diddy on Immigration

I'll delve into the morass of immigration probably at a later date, but here's an article from Victor Davis Hanson. It is short and concise and lays out a political plan for both the Dems and Repubs. It is a measured plan for which I can buy into:

What then might an astute candidate advocate?

Close the border now through fencing, more agents, employer sanctions, enforcement of the law and verifiable identification. Restore faith in the melting pot by insisting that new legal arrivals learn English and the customs and protocols of the United States.

Explain to the Mexican and Central American governments that using the United States to avoid addressing internal problems -- while making easy dollars off the backs of their own expatriate laborers -- is over.

Finally, deport aliens who have broken the law, are not working or have just arrived. Some illegal aliens will not like the new atmosphere of tough enforcement and will voluntarily go back home. Others may have criminal records or no history of employment and should leave as well.

We, as a nation, need to come up with a reasonable plan. One that closes the boarder, punishes the employer and allows those here to prove and earn their stay.

So Sad - Where's the Outrage?

I can't express my outrage enough when I see stories as outlandish as the one in Texas or the one recently in Canada. These are classified by the media as "Honor Killings", but I just can't call it that. There is no 'honor' in murdering your child or worse your children over some misguided belief of false pride. This 'pride' is not necessarily Muslim in origin, but Islam has embraced it with a blood lust. I tried searching the net to find any non-Muslim 'honor killing', but couldn't. Either it's virtually non-existent or just plain old murder. To murder your children takes a monster.

Here's a story from a couple months ago that should have had women all over the world uniting in outrage, but except for a few nights on the news cycle it was not as unifying as I'd have hoped. This is another example of Islam's misogyny and don't tell me I'm 'misunderstanding' Islam. Women are treated as chattel and you can't tell me different. It disgusting and I'm ashamed that women here and all over the world have not united to call these people out.

There is no cultural relativism with either the 'honor killings' nor Islam's misogyny. Both are wrong and evil, pure and simple.

Sticking to my word, here’re a few thoughts for today:

>How `bout them Seahawks!!

Got all caught up in this game. Nothing like the playoff on a blustery winter day. Man, that was a great first half and a nerve wracking third quarter. But Hasselbeck is a stud. On to Green Bay next weekend. I like our chances since our defense is playing so well.

> EPL Football --

Man, I’m hooked on English football! I’ve been watching matches most weekends and recording ones I can’t watch live. I got hooked a bit last year, but am absorbed this year. Since I don’t have any ties or know anybody from England to attach my banner to what ever teams have caught my fancy.

Last year, I landed on Chelsea and Wigan. I wanted to pick one of the top four (Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool) and one from the ‘commoners’. Not exactly how I chose Chelsea. I like Terry and Lampard from the World Cup, but I think it was subconscious. The others’ colors are primarily red while Chelsea is blue. Also, I couldn’t find myself rooting for Man Utd since it would be like rooting for the Yankees. So I decided to root for the Blues.

Picking Wigan was pretty simple at the time. They had the only player in the league with the last name of McCulloch. Lee McCulloch was a pretty good striker from Scotland. So, it was a no brainer. But he went back to Scotland and joined the Rangers.

That left me in a bind. I had no loyalty to Wigan, so I decided to pick another team. I narrowed it down to Everton, Reading and Newcastle Utd. I like the way Everton plays and almost picked them, but chose Newcastle.

My logic in choosing Newcastle has been outted as faulty. Here’s my problem- I decided to choose Newcastle since it’s the region Dick Francis used to write about. He’s a mystery writer and former jockey. I love his books and his subject deals with horses and horse racing. Now here’s the problem – Dick Francis writes about Newmarket and NOT Newcastle . . . what a boob. I figured this out about four months into the season. Oh, well. I’ll keep rooting for them (at least for this year!!)

Back to Blogging

Howdy! OK, here's the deal. I plan on takin' up the blog again. Let's see if I can post more than 13 times in two years, eh? That's quite pathetic really.

It's not that I haven't had much to say, but found myself just burnt out from politics and worldly crap. I find myself with more time on my hands now that I've quit drinking. Sad but true. My high blood pressure finally caught up with me. Thirty years of imbibing was truly a grand time, but when I became a walking time bomb (155+/100+) it's time to stop. So, I'm on 2 months sober with barely a twinge. Wish me luck.

Anyway, get ready for some more drivel. This can't be helped with the political season upon us. I just can't believe how much is riding on white bread Iowa and recalcitrant NH. Iowa is nothing but a popularity contest with who can turn out the most supporters. Oh the madness. More on this later. I don't want to get carried away on my first post back in the groove!