The Case for Hope

For generations, American youth have been mired in a fog of apathy and cynicism that wasn't projected to rise any time soon. We've been labeled with letters which define who we're supposed to be and how we're supposed to act. Those who defined us were the first ones to turn our backs on us. The didn't fail to speak to us, they decided that we weren't worth the time. They decided that the next generation of Americans meant less than their bitter partisan wars and power squabbles in Washington.

It took a popularly unpopular presidency for the politicians in Washington, mainly the Democrats, to recognize that we care. And even then, they failed to take advantage of an abhorred administration to rally us. Even then, they failed because, simply put, we weren't convinced. They secretly looked down their collective noses at us and we saw through it.

However, now there is someone who understands our importance in preserving the American ideal. Senator Obama recognizes that the government needs the involvement and support of a younger generation. He says the time for avante garde politicians and hardline party officials is at an end. We've responded and there's been an infusion of younger talent in Washington. We need that trend to go all the way to the top.

The critics of Senator Obama continually emphasize that he's big on rhetoric and short on substance. They say his big speeches are just that - words. They say he offers nothing but false hope without clear cut solutions. Perhaps America needs a light of hope to show us the way into the 21st century. Solutions and proposed policies at this stage are bound to be watered down and completely unrecognizable by the time they pass through Congress. So whatever Senator Clinton, or Obama for that matter, say in terms of policy, should be taken with a grain of salt. But Obama offers us something that Clinton doesn't - hope and unity. And those two propositions cannot be attacked directly nor diluted by partisan rivals. Those two propositions cannot be watered down by journeys through Congressional gauntlets.

Senator Obama sees greatness in this country that few politicians since Jack and Bobby Kennedy have dared to openly express. He recognizes that a Democracy can become truly effective only when the people take responsibility and are willing to sacrifice their effort and time. His plan to base financial aid for higher education upon involvement in civic programs such as the Peace Corps and Americorps seeks to give young people a chance at education and simultaneously integrate a sense of civic duty into an ethos of a generation.

He had the foresight to vote against the war in Iraq. Although I don't necessarily agree with his proposed withdrawal scheme, I acknowledge that his initial opposition to the war demonstrates great insight into politics and foreign relations. In 2002 the idea of war with Iraq, with all the evidence of weapons of mass destruction, was relatively popular in America. Even Democrats such as Senator Clinton voted for the incursion. However, Senator Obama was astute enough to stand tall and oppose. In the general election, he's the only candidate left who can face the American people and say that. And with the war being a cornerstone issue of this election, the Democrats would have an advantage in nominating Obama. Something they'd give up if Clinton were to win.

Barack Obama is an individual and civic leader that appears only once a generation. He is the type of person that can can change the course of a nation. He can get people involved in their country and make a difference. He can revitalize JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you" mantra. In fact, several international publications have named him the only current United States politician that has the potential to change the world. And in a time where America's world image has been tarnished, a figure like Obama can give our allies, and enemies, reason to believe in us again. More importantly, he can give us a chance to believe in ourselves again.

I'll Leave the Hockey Articles to B-Rad

Honestly, for a pseudo hockey fan, like myself, this time of year is terrible in terms of sports action. The NBA is in its second half, which means absolutely nothing because the playoff teams were pretty much set about two months ago. The hockey season is probably in full swing, but who really knows? I only follow the Sabres in the standings box and during the playoffs. They're the only team I can watch because it reminds me of the days when beer was cheap, the ladies were sexy, and living was an afterthought. Soccer is awesome in my book, but its a chore to watch in the US. College basketball is only fun when there's pride/money invested in a bracket which ultimately busts.

So what the hell is left? Well, its an ELECTION YEAR. So lets do a biased breakdown of the candidates with some sort of statistical analysis following. As a disclaimer, these statistics were brought to you by CNN and their exit polls from the most recent primaries. If you didn't follow the 2000 election, these things have about a 55% chance of being bullshit. Basically, I'm saying any crappy prediction I make is more insured during this presidential campaign than during a legitimate sports season. Also, I'm a Democrat who sways towards classical liberalism in terms of economic thought. That means I like free trade and outsourcing. As a bonus, I agree with the Republican candidates on their view of the war in Iraq. Now that you know where I'm coming from, here's my analysis.

John McCain

Ah, the war hero. Everyone loves him, but his party hates him. He's a rare type of candidate that the public and his opponents cannot publicly hate because he's a goddamn war hero. This guy refused to leave a prisoner of war camp until his fellow POWs were released. That seriously takes some balls. And all he was left with was the inability to raise his arms above his shoulders. Sorry, but trying to garner public hatred toward McCain is like trying to convince an Indian girl to give you a blowjob. Damn near impossible and probably not even worth the effort in the end.

McCain poses a lot of problems for either Democratic candidate this summer. He's a self avowed moderate and social Republican. I have no idea what social Republican means but I'm guessing he believes in Darwin's theory of evolution and doesn't hate minorities. In fact, McCain's immigration policies are probably more liberal than Hillary Clinton's. This may be the result of pandering to his Arizona constituency, but I honestly believe McCain doesn't want to close the borders like the rest of the GOP. His stance on free trade supports his immigration reform policies. McCain is the only candidate left that is willing to let globalization take its course and let the economy work its way out of the slump. While this may put him on bad terms with most voters, it is probably the best solution to our current economic crisis. However, its too early to make that call and the nation might be in need of some Keynesian adjustments.

The one major hurdle that McCain faces is his lack of support from the GOP base. The true conservatives of the party view him as being too far left of center to be an effective representative of Republican ideals. There is much talk among pundits that preaches that many conservatives will vote for Obama instead of McCain in a general election. They feel that Obama reaches across the abyss of partisanship to effectively work with Republicans in constructing solutions. Whether or not true right wingers will cross the line and vote for a liberal like Senator Obama is questionable at best, but it provides for an interesting storyline. McCain needs to find a vice presidential candidate that the Republican base can support. Mitt Romney may be the best choice, but unlikely because of their verbal feud in the primaries.

Hillary Clinton

Senator Clinton has gone from being the inevitable Democratic nominee to the also ran who is struggling to keep her head above water. She's definitely the most polarizing candidate of the remaining three serious contenders who might actually have the hardest time convincing independents and moderate conservatives to cast a ballot for her in the general election. She admirably appeals to the sensibilities of her supporters and the voter base. Her speeches are more substance than flair and her policies resonate with the Democratic base. In other words, she talks about what she wants to do and it makes sense.

Her biggest weakness is that she's running against a candidate that channels charisma on the levels of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy. In comparison, she looks bland and vanilla. In any other year, Senator Clinton would probably have the nomination locked up by now. But against a candidate like Senator Obama, who certainly has as much content as Clinton and ten times as much speaking skill, her support has dwindled. Additionally, it's been reported that the Clinton campaign was so confident that they failed to set up any sort of political infrastructure for the primaries. In essence, they have been out-hustled by the Obama campaign in every facet. And now they are struggling to keep up.

If Senator Clinton wins the nomination from the Democratic side, her chances of beating Senator McCain look decent. I think that particular match up is a coin toss. Independents are weary of Clinton because she represents the old guard of politics. She is effectively the establishment in this election and McCain is sort of the firebrand in this contest. He refuses to conform to the Republican school of thought whereas Clinton is a cookie cutter Democrat in terms of her stance on the issues. And as the primaries show, Obama and McCain have been winning the independent vote in their respective primaries. Furthermore, Clinton's initial support on the war in Iraq makes her seem like a hypocrite. She voted for the war but now wants to pull out. McCain and the Republicans will nail this issue into the coffin during the general election and make the public question her effectiveness in generating foreign policy. If the Democrats nominate Clinton, they virtually forfeit any advantage they had on arguably the biggest issue in this election.

Barack Obama

I'm a huge supporter of Senator Obama and will do a follow up article this weekend on why the American electorate should seriously consider him for the presidency. I feel like I've given the other candidates a fair shake in this extra long post, but personal bias rules this day and Obama will be given his own feature. Also, for you Hillary supporters, I'll give you a bonus posting on why she isn't the candidate that should garner the Democratic nomination.

Four reasons why the Patriots Lost the Super Bowl

1. Bill Belichick wore a ridiculous hoody.

What was Bill Belichick thinking??? He wears the same hoody every game. It even has a cool "BB" stitched on it. Sure, it is ugly, but it is Bill Belichick, I challenge anyone to conjure a mental picture of Bitter Bill without thinking of that grey hoody. So the day of the big game he changes it up and wears an atrocious red hoody? Unbelievable. Belichick made some questionable coaching moves, as most losing Super Bowl coaches do, but wearing the red hoody? Inexcusable.

2. Jeremy Shockey did not play.

I'm on board with those who think the Giants are better off without Shockey. It is not that Boss is a better tight end, but Shockey's over the top body language and demands for the ball seem too much for Eli to handle. Don't believe me? How about this stat: in the Bears and Vikings games where the Giants were beat (embarassingly by the Vikings) Shockey was the intended receiver on five of the six interceptions Eli threw in those games. Four of them went for pick six touchdowns. Bottom line: Eli has been a great, not good, quarterback in Shockey's absence.

3. Peyton Manning gives good sloppy brain.

This is by far the most disturbing commercial I have ever seen. The oral sex allusions are overwhelming. One can only surmise that Peyton serviced Eli pregame. There is no other way to describe how the erratic, NFL interception leader became a cool customer.

4. Helmet catch, defensive line pressure, and overall toughness.

The insane Tyree catch and Manning's elusiveness to set it up, pounding Brady 18 times (Justin Tuck should have been the MVP), and beating the Patriots up all game also probably had a role in the outcome but a distant fourth to the above three reasons.

What the Fuck is Juice?!

Apparently, Eli Manning is fucking juice. After somehow engineering a winning drive where he threw about 2 tailor made-for-interception ducks and avoided a 20 yard sack on third down, he's definitely juice at this point. Thanks for making me look like a complete asshole Eli. Eh, nothing new.

Credit goes to the Giants defense which put Brady on his ass for about half the game. The only time they didn't was when the Pats decided, intelligently, to go into a no huddle. The Giants' defensive linemen were on the sidelines catching air and Tommy took one into the promised land. Too bad, they didn't do this until the 4th quarter. It was obvious that the Giants were going all out on every possession. I expected more cutthroat play calling from Belichick.

Anyway, thanks go out to the New York Giants for ensuring that Hell will have air conditioning by the time I arrive. Really appreciate that, guys.

What's better than the Super Bowl??

Last night I wasted time watching the UCLA/Arizona game. Usually, these games are pretty exciting on their own. However, this night, something special was in the air. If you saw the game, you noticed that the camera spent alot of time on Erin Andrews. Who can blame them? Take a look at her! They just don't make 'em like that anymore.

Hope everyone enjoys the Super Bowl. As much as I hate the Patriots..I can't stand to see the Giants win this one.

Hi I'm Gregg Easterfuck and I Know Nothing About Football

I just finished reading this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback over at ESPN.com. Yes, I realize that it is Friday. But Easterbrook is completely incapable of 1.) making a point in less than 800 words and 2.) making any fucking sense whatsoever. What I really don't understand is why ESPN rehired this piece of shit after his anti semitic remarks. Granted, his political articles in the Atlantic Monthly prove that he has some intelligence and writing proficiency, Easterbrook doesn't know shit about shit when it comes to the No Fun League.

The very first point that Easterbrook makes is that the 2007 Patriots will only be considered the greatest only if the evidence shows that they didn't use the tapes to cheat. Sure Camera Gate happened and the Pats were caught stealing signals from the Jets. But that was the first fucking game of the season. And honestly, looking back, would New England really have lost that game? Definitely not.

Then Easterbrook poses the question whether or not the Pats still cheated during the season or if they will have cheated in the Super Bowl. Yeah, Easterbrook, I'm sure die Fuhrer Goodell isn't watching the Pats with an eagle eye after what happened in week one. This is the guy that would penalize his own son for trying to bang the head cheerleader of the high school team under the stands during practice. And I'm pretty sure Belichick isn't stupid enough to try twice. Especially when his teams won by a margin of about 3 touchdowns every game.

If that weren't enough stupidity for one article, Easterbrook goes on a morality rant for a paragraph. He tries to hammer home the issue of how supporting the Patriots teaches our children to cheat. Everyone who has played a contact sport in their lives knows that every play involves each player trying to push the limits of the rules and possibly breaking them without getting caught by the ref. We already tell our kids to cheat. Whether its getting some extra moisture on that baseball, nicking the leather with your nails, or tossing an elbow into a defender during a pick, sports are about straining the limits of fair play. Sure we have ideals that we stick to, but it's a part of every game. Furthermore, the Patriots embody the spirit of team more than any other organization in any sport. Sure, they have their individual stars, but during the season every player accepts their roles and plays to win for the team. Not for individual glory. And that should be respected. Obviously, Easterbrook, in his anti semitic rage, forgets to point this out.

And if that wasn't enough retarded banter for one Easterbrook article, he goes on to say that Belichick has a soft spot for the Giants and won't blow them out like he does other teams. Are you fucking kidding me Easterbrook? If Belichick has the opportunity to put 70 points on the board, trust me he's going to. He's a automaton. He stands there in his hooded sweatshirt and keeps calling 5 receiver sets out of the shotgun, and Brady keeps throwing it into the endzone. That's how he played the entire season, and that's how he's gonna play in the game that will galvanize his status as one of the best coaches ever along with Bill Walsh and Vince Lombardi. There's absolutely no way he's going to let a little sentimentality get in his way of immortality. That may be one of the most idiotic things any writer has written about a sports figure in the past decade. Honestly.

If you can honestly get through that iteration of Easterbrook's article and not be pissed at some point, then you are either 1.) a human being completely devoid of rational though or 2.) a Giants fan or 3.) both (because 2 is basically a subset of 1).

Simple Math

Kosar + Cleveland = Gorgeous women. It's really that simple. B-rad and Average at Best will agree