Sunday, October 18, 2009
Panthers (+4) v. BUCS = Panthers cover.
Chiefs v. SKINS (+4.5) = Chiefs lose but gamblers win.
Lions v. PACK (+11.5) = Lions lose but gamblers win.
Texans v. BENGALS (+4.5) = Bengals cover.
Gianst v. SAINTS (+4.5) = Giants lose but gamblers win.
Browns v. STEELERS (+14) = Browns lose but gamblers win.
Rams v. JAGS (+12.5) = Rams lose but gamblers win.
Ravens v. VIKINGS (+3) = Vikings cover.
Cardinals v. HAWKS (+2.5) = Hawks cover.
Eagles (+13.5) v. RAIDERS = Raiders lose but gamblers win.
Titans v. PATS (+9.5) = Pats cover.
Bills v. JETS (+9.5) = Bills lose but gamblers win.
Bears v. FALCONS (+3) = Bears lose but gamblers win.
Broncs v. CHARGERS (+4) = UPSET SPECIAL! Broncos.
Last week = 8-6 ; Upset special 1-0
Season to date = 44-28-2, Upset specials: 2-4
Friday, October 16, 2009
We had a post on the tragic case of Cameron Todd Willingham last month. Willingham was the father of three convicted of murdering his three children by arson back in 1991. Willingham was tried and convicted in August of 1992, the State's case was largely based on the "scientific evidence" gathered by two arson investigators: Manuel Vasquez and Douglas Fogg. We now know that the science used to arrive at this evidence was flat-out wrong.
So why are we revisiting this case? Well...the story has continued to be in the news thanks to Texas Governor Rick Perry's attempts to cover his ass by replacing four of nine members of the Texas Forensics Sciences Commission in recent weeks, just before the commission was to receive a report from the latest of the three investigations which find that arson WAS NOT the likely cause of the fire. One of those reports arrived on Perry's desk 88 minutes before Willingham was executed.
It is somewhat disturbing then, to watch Willingham's attorney get on national tv like he did last night and completely sell his client down the river. It is obvious from watching the video, that Martin is taking this case personal and has become offended that any outsider would question handling of the case. How an attorney can obtain such certitude in a field like the law is beyond me. The one thing I am sure of is we are all fallible. There is a reason it is called the "practice" of law. It can never be perfected. As such, I personally find Martin's comments ridiculous.
Hey, let me tell you what we did. Rob Dunn and I, who tried this case with me,
we went and bought carpet. We bought lighter fluid. We poured the lighter fluid
on the carpet. We set it on fire. And when it finished burning, it looked just
exactly like the carpet did in Todd Willingham's house.
If Mr. Martin was not so personally upset about this, he may realize how foolish those comments are. They fly in direct contention with the fundamental purpose of science. The scientific method, which is the root of all science, does not look for similarities. It's purpose is to focus on dissimilarities. Only through that way, can you be absolutely certain of something. It is apparent from his gung-ho belief in his own client's guilt, that Mr. Martin is blinded from seeing how that distinction is important, not only in science, but also in the courtroom.
We've come a long way in this country. But I think we can all admit that we will most likely never kill off racism. Given our country's history, racism will always be the permanent stain on our collective conscience.
We have come far enough though, that everyone pretty much acknowledges racism as a bad characteristic. Remember the old Chappelle routine where he talks about the racism down South? Well...Dave might as well have been talking about Tangipahoa Parish, LA.
See...Tangipahoa Parish is home to Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell. Bardwell got in the news this week for refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple "out of concern for any children the couple might have."
(Bardwell) says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way,"
Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black
friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them
just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about
marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them,
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites,
along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that
most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships,
and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
If I may point out a few things. First, if "success" was really a criteria, you shouldn't be marrying anyone, dipshit. Last study I saw showed something like 50% of marriages fail. Second, how beautifully racist is it for Bardwell to also blame his decision on Blacks? See...they can't accept those mixed kids--It's their fault. Lastly...it takes a real mouth-breathing, ignoramus to preach these views and then have the gall to say "I try to treat everyone equally."
Let me say this to Mr. Bardwell. This is America. You are certainly free to have these views and to let us all know about them. Unfortunately, you hold a public position: Justice of the Peace. As such, you let these views affect your carrying out of that office, you can't have it anymore. You don't get to tell people to go to another one. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Resign, asshole.
Maybe you could open a "colored" restroom or something.
Hattip to Polkey for the article.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
And the Souls keep it going. This is one of the 65 songs they wrote about Joe. They're all about pain...
Some acoustic Pumpkins (right in time for Halloween!) before Billy started looking like Michael Stipe and Uncle Fester's lovechild.
And finally a little Cranberries, complete with Delores rockin an entire ear of earrings.
Thom and Jonny take us home in Our Iron Lung...
Turns out...NASA stole that idea from Bob and Dave.
For those of you who wonder why, here's why:
"We have the technology. The time is now. Science can wait no longer. Children are our future. America can, should, must and will blow up the moon."
Picture: John D. Russell/Morning News.
Late add: WMBF's coverage.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Albano was key to wrestling's mainstream growth in the 1980s, when he teamed with Lauper to help the WWF reach out to the MTV generation. This almost makes up for the fact that he went to the University of Tennessee on a football scholarship. Almost.
RIP, Captain Lou. I'm sure you're collaborating with St. Peter on one hell of a card for the weekend.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
BTPC pick = Vikes cover.
CHIEFS (+8) v. Cowboys
BTPC pick = Cowboys cover.
Redskins (+3.5) v. PANTHERS
BTPC pick = Panthers cover.
Bucs (+15) v. EAGLES
BTPC pick = Eagles cover.
Bengals (+8.5) v. RAVENS
BTPC pick = Bengals.
GIANTS (-15) v. Raiders
BTPC pick = Giants cover.
Steelers (-10.5) v. LIONS
BTPC pick = Lions lose, but gamblers win.
Browns (+6) v. BILLS
BTPC pick = Browns keep it close and cover.
NINERS (-2.5) v. Falcons
BTPC pick = Niners cover.
SEAHAWKS (pk) v. Jags
BTPC pick = *late change: I didn't realize this was the triumphant return of Matt Hasselbeck. Since it is, I'll change my pick to the Hawks.
BRONCOS (+3.5) v. Patriots
BTPC pick = Pats cover.
Texans (+5.5) v. CARDS
BTPC pick = Texans keep it close.
Colts (-3.5) v. TITANS
BTPC pick = Colts cover.
DOLPHINS (+1.5) v. Jets
BTPC pick = Dolphins.
Last week = 8-6 ; Upset special 1-0
Season to date = 35-23-2
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
As if them absolutely sucking was not enough, now comes word that professional blowhard Rush Limbaugh is part of a group along with Dave Checketts who have submitted a proposal to buy the St. Louis Rams.
Limbaugh as an owner would create an interesting dynamic. Could he keep his piehole shut about league and team issues? Would ego-driven owners like Snyder and Jones want someone with such a bully pulpit coming into their playground? Would he reel back his anti-Obama rhetoric or keep going full steam ahead towards the crazy cliffs, potentially alienating a large percentage of the leagues players who will see such rhetoric as racially driven? Do his remarks about McNabb hurt the bid? What would a Limbaugh group's participation mean for the upcoming labor talks?
Listen...if it means just once he plays one of those black-face-type Obama parody songs on his show, only to walk into a locker room and get laid out by a pissed off Defensive tackle...I'd be all for it.
Monday, October 5, 2009
"Without totally going off the wall here, it's embarrassing to the game,"
Lewis told reporters after the game. "You can't do that. [Tom] Brady's good
enough to make a play. Let him make his own play. You can't end the play like
that, and then throw the flag. No, man. The embarrassing part is when he
understands that, and he walks up to one of us and says, 'Oh, that was a cheap
"That's not football," Lewis added. "And that's the embarrassing part about
it. Two great teams going at it, let them go at it. But you can't stop drives
like that, you can't throw flags and say, 'Oh, you touched the quarterback.' Put
flags on them. Put a red buzzer on them, so if we touch them, they're
The second call was when Terrell Suggs came diving towards Brady as he threw. At best, he brushed Brady's legs, as Brady was able to dodge to the side a little and avoid Suggs. But with the new "Brady rule," which prohibits coming at a QB below the waist, the flag was thrown.
Now, do I think these rules are silly? The first one definitely. I understand the need to draw a line somewhere, but a hand to the helmet should not be an automatic flag. The second one, I understand. It's like the rule about drilling an unprotected WR as he goes up for a catch. A Qb has to step into throws and is awfully vulnerable, just like a WR in the air trying to make a catch. I heard the guys on NFL Network complain, "but he didn't hit him!" That should not matter. If you want to stop the knee injuries, you have to throw the flag at "attempts" as well as "successes."
However, both of these rules are KNOWN. You can't do it. As Brady said...the Pats were warned about this crew and their propensity of calling shit tight. You got to know the rules and the refs.
But I got more problems with Ray than that. First...no call in a game is as embarrassing as a supposed superstar being a witness to a murder and not cooperating with the authorities. That is an embarrassment, Ray. Be a man and man up.
Second...you want to know what is really embarrassing? A fading superstar, jumping up and celebrating like he just scored the game-winning TD after his big "hit," not realizing that the journeyman RB actually picked up the yard needed for the first down and your opponent now has a 1st and goal from the 2 yard line. Seriously...watch that entire TD drive right at the end of the first/beginning of second by the Pats. First, Lewis got lost in the trash on a 2 & 10 from the 12. Then on the following 4 & 1 from the 3yd line, Ray Lewis got a clean, full shot on Sammy Morris and Morris won. But Lewis jumped up off the ground and went running around like he thought he won the battle when it was painfully obvious it was a first. Then, following a penalty and subsequent gain, Lewis had a chance at stopping Tom Brady and Brady powered through on a sneak on 2 & goal from the 1 for a TD.
Hey...we all fade, you know. But when you had a chance to stop the other team three times in 6 plays, how about shut up with excuses. Lewis is not even the third best defensive player on that team now. First is Ngata. Second, Ed Reed. Third, Terrell Suggs. Lewis is at best fourth. And he sounded like a punk after yesterday's game.
Come on, Ray. You were great once. Feared. You stole Eddie George's soul to the point that he heard your footsteps and let the game clinching int bounce off of his shoulder pads during the 2000 playoffs. Stop acting a fool and assume the role of elder statesman.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
"R-I-O!" said conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham, speaking the a ballroom of almost 2000 conservative activists. "May this be the first of many defeats for Chicago-style politics!"
Ingraham fantasized about being on the plane home from Copenhagen, where the International Olympic Committee handed down the decision, and watching Oprah Winfrey cry and Michelle Obama throw things with her "big arms." The crowd cheered...
Just so I know the rules...questioning the validity of a preemptive war when no evidence of the reason for necessary "preemptiveness" is discovered AND/OR questioning the use torture and what it means to surrender the rights and ideals this country was founded on is being unpatriotic and unamerican. Yet reveling in the defeats of our President abroad is okay? Really?
And for all those who have opined what a mistake it was for President Obama to try to help secure the Olympics or how its a process story of this administrations failure to know how to manage expectations, whatever. That's a load of horseshit. Give the man some credit for doing what he could to help and being willing to take one for the team.
And Ms. Ingraham...the arms? Really? You, my sister are a sell-out bitch. You should be ashamed of pandering to the cheap laughs of ignorant people by attacking a strong-woman's appearance. Why don't you go take some more come-hither-photos-like the one above and stop attacking a woman more accomplished and powerful than you. It makes you look catty.
In fact, after last weeks miraculous 12-3 run, the U.S. Government has offered to lend a hand, sending these guys behind the pine curtain to help us out.
I have no idea how Rod Tidwell, Kaiser Soze and Tootsie are supposed to help us, but how can I say no to help from three guys dressed like that Calvin Klein kid who mysteriously showed up in Hill Valley, CA back in 1955? I don't think I can.
Okay...on with the picks.
Lions (+10) v. BEARS = This Detroit team looks scrappy. But they're playing at Chicago and Kevin Smith is dinged up. I think this is a good test for the Bears. If they can beat the Lions by 10 at home without Urlacher, maybe they're a playoff contender. I do not yet believe.
BTPC pick = Lions lose, but gamblers win.
Bengals (-6) v. BROWNS = Hi...I'm Eric Mangini. Have you seen my team?
BTPC pick = Bengals cover.
Raiders (+9) v. TEXANS = This Texans team encapsulates the Texans problems from the last few years: no one knows what kind of team Houston is, nor which team will show up. How the hell do they lose a shootout at home to the Jags? How do you have that many quality defensive players and yet can't stop anyone? And my god...what is the deal with those god-awful red-unitard-looking uniforms? You all look like you lost a challenge on Big Brother. Add on top of this the news that a Texan was diagnosed with the swine flu and it makes this pick easy.
BTPC pick = Oakland loses but gamblers win.
Seahawks (+10.5) v. COLTS = This Seahawk team was also scrappy last week. I think Seneca and the boys keep it close.
BTPC pick = 'Hawks lose but gamblers win.
Titans (-3) v. JAGUARS = Always go with the 'stache over the coif.
BTPC pick = Titans cover.
Giants (-9) v. CHIEFS = Hey, Chiefs fans...on the plus side, I understand you have really good barbecue.
BTPC pick = Giants cover.
Ravens (+1.5) v. PATRIOTS = Tom Brady missed so many throws last week, that Gisele even covered her eyes.
Despite this, the Pats still beat a NFC contender (alleged) in Atlanta. The Ravens are the consensus favorites in the AFC. Bill Belicheck does not like that. That win last week for the Pats was a sign that the Pats still have it. Really good teams win games against good teams when they play like shit.
BTPC pick = Pats cover.
REDSKINS (-7.5) v. Bucs = UPSET SPECIAL! Considering I'm 0-4 on upset specials (my brilliant plan to pick two last week did not help matters at all), these only thing special about these upsets is how bad they are. So I figure, what the hell. I'm sorry...I just don't think the Jim Zorn-led Redskins are 7.5 points better than anyone. If you read Peter King's MMQB, you know that King was doing his regular name-dropping this week by talking about a super-secret, private, only-told-to-him-because-he-kisses-his-very-rotund-keister-so-well Mike Holmgren story. Why is that important? Because the football gods love punishing boy-king Danny Snyder and what better way than to have a terrible Bucs team walk into DC and whip your heavily favored club, leading to endless talk-radio ponderings on whether or not the Walrus is coming. I don't want the points. I don't need the points. But I'll take the points.
BTPC pick = Bucs
DOLPHINS (+1.5) v. Bills = I am nothing if not a homer. The Chad Henne era begins today in Miami. Here's to hoping it is better than the Jay Fiedler, Ray Lucas, Brian Griese and Gus Ferrote eras. The injury to Pennington is probably a good thing for Miami in both the short-term and long-term. Short term, it's gonna force Miami to focus more on Ronnie Brown, which they need to do. Brown is the type of guy who gets better with carriers. You have to keep putting the ball in his hands. Long term, Miami gets to a) see what they have in Henne; and, b) finally actually utilize Pat White in the Wildcat. Expect to see some throwing from the Wildcat this week.
BTPC pick = Miami and their new QB gets off the snide and covers.
SAINTS (-7) v. Jets = Mark Sanchez is turning out ok. But asking him to keep pace with Drew Brees...that ain't gonna happen. The Saints bring Big Green back to Earth.
BTPC pick = Saints cover.
BRONCOS (+3) v. Cowboys = Hi...I'm Tony Romo and I'm a...*gulp*...game manager. Boy...Dallas fans certainly did not think they would be talking up Romo's "game management" skills, did they? QB1 of the Cowboys ain't supposed to be a game manager. He's supposed to be a superhuman gunslinger. If we're going with game managers...I'm gonna go with the guy who has more experience in that area: Kyle Orton.
BTPC pick = Broncos cover.
NINERS (-9.5) v. Rams = I am so very sorry that Mike Singletary's young upstarts had to become the victims of this season's Brett-Favre-didn't-come-back-for-the-money-he-came-back-for-the-love-of-the-game-bullshit-pulling-it-out-of-his-ass-play. Don't worry Niners. You keep pluggin away and you can run back into those guys in November, when Old Father time has started breaking down and throwing pick-sixes. Until then...you guys go easy on the Rams, ok?
BTPC pick = Niners cover.
Chargers (+6.5) v. STEELERS = Rivers is out to show he's better than Big Ben. Big Ben can't hear him, because he's got a championship ring stuffed in one ear and sexual assault suit papers stuffed in the other. Fortunately for Rivers, he's got the most exciting player on the field on his side: Sproles.
BTPC pick = Chargers cover.
Packers (+3.5) v. VIKINGS = I can't qualify how much I would love to see Aaron Rodgers walk into the Hubert Humphrey Metrodome and whip the old man's ass. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening. It's still early in the season and Favre has not started his annual late-season swoon. I think the Vikes, riding the emotional high from last week, win this one and win it big enough to cover.
BTPC pick = Vikes cover.
Last week: 12-3, upsets 0-2
Season to date: 27-17-2, upsets 0-4