The Tebow Ad: A Matter of Choice

Editor's Note: Starting today, we'll be ending each week with links to topics that didn't make our cut. It's a crazy world out there. Check 'em out.

JW,

I suggested two posts ago that I'm not particularly excited about this year's Super Bowl. The game, that is. About the commercials, I'm thrilled and bordering on ecstatic. After all, this is a year in which CBS has "eased restrictions on advocacy ads and [will] consider 'responsibly produced' ones for open spots in its Feb. 7 broadcast," according to Fox Sports. Just as a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, nothing makes bad football watchable like political propaganda. I can't wait.

And neither, it seems, can the Woman's Media Center, the National Organization for Women, and the Feminist Majority Foundation, who recently made clear their opposition to an advertisement produced by pro-life bastion Focus on the Family and starring Tim Tebow. The ad, Fox reports, "is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow . . . [who] ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child [and] later gave birth to Tim." Paradoxically, women concerned with "choice" resent the hell out of this one.

Rather than indulge in a drawn-out diatribe against abortion (some of our thoughts are here if you can't resist), let's consider the statements of the womyn who've come out against the ad, typified by those of Jehmu Greene (it's true), president of the aforementioned Woman's Media Center:

-"[The ad threatens to] throw women under the bus."

-"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year."

Not to get too picky, but how does Greene manage to break out one of Sportscenter's most obnoxious cliches (the bus thing) while completely misunderstanding the nature of sports (the bit about sports' potential to "unite")? I'm not going to the Super Bowl, but sitting at home I'll be cheering for Peyton Manning to die. Not to lose. Not to suffer an injury. To die. I'm pretty sure the game's got us divided already.

Which is exactly why Greene and her friends should run their own ad instead of complaining about Focus on the Family's.

(Narrator: We've all heard the Tim Tebow story, but what you haven't heard is the unlikelihood of his success in the NFL. Abortion? Maybe Pam Tebow made the wrong decision.)

I don't know about you, but my mind's changing already!

-GM

GM,

Why is "free speech" such a difficult concept for people to understand? I know, I know... there's a certain irony to my claim that others don't understand free speech when all they did was say something to invoke my claim. Unlike them, however, I'm not trying to employ prior restraint against the "womyn," whereby I insist that they "shouldn't be allowed" to voice their opinions.

". . . pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue. . . ."

Do not all commercials advocate? And aren't most of them offensive to somebody? Take, for instance, the endless beer commercials in which the three major domestic brands (that all taste like bath water anyway) try to increase market share with awful creativity (see Bud Light's current "Not too light, not too heavy" campaign) and pseudo-innovation (see Coors Light's "Mountains turn blue!" technology and Miller Lite's "Taste Protector" caps). We used to have prohibition in this country. Surely someone thinks we still should, rendering the issue "divisive." Devout Catholics probably don't appreciate Trojan or Viagra ads, yet we don't hear the Pope screaming from Vatican City every Monday morning.

Greene said she simply wants CBS to "follow its own example and ban advocacy ads from the airwaves." What country is this?! Shouldn't CBS get to decide what its own policy is? "No, no... you didn't run PETA's ad with women trying to sexually stimulate fruit; you can't run Focus on the Family's either." Quite frankly, as long as CBS is willing to put up with endless boycotts and perhaps FCC scrutiny, I think the network should give airtime to anyone who can cough up the $3 million. Imagine a SuperBowl sponsored by the KKK, the Nazi party, NAMBLA, The Church of Satan, and Hustler. It wouldn't be good business for CBS, but it certainly would show off our First Ammendment.

This reminds me of a recent Facebook controversy. First there was the group "Soldiers Are Not Heroes"--a statement about as provable and unprovable as "Puppies aren't cute." Then came the group "Petition To Remove Group 'Soldiers Are Not Heroes'" and some similar petitions, at least one of which actually wanted Facebook to step in and shut it down. Fortunately, it's gaining very little steam. Regretfully, I admit that most of these petitioners fall to the Right of center. Obviously, those offended by the Tebow ad are mostly of the Left. So once and for all, can everyone on both sides of the political spectrum just realize that our freedom of speech is what separates us from places like Afghanistan, North Korea, and Canada?

If the feminazis don't like what CBS is doing, they're welcome to stop watching its free product. They can use the extra time to make me a sandwich.

-JW


Quick Hits for the Week

Bin Laden blasts U.S. for climate change. Seriously.

South Carolina's Lt. Governor compares welfare to "feeding stray animals." Now that's racist.

Liberals cannot give good advice where pot is concerned.

Holding Our Applause for the State of the Union

GM,

President Obama gave his second (though first "official") State of the Union address last night, and it reminded me how we managed to elect the guy. Forget content or feasibility for a moment. The speech sounded great. He didn't at all look like a president whose popularity had plummeted. In fact, the number of times he went through his "Smirk, Wait, and Smile" routine was staggering. The SWS occurs when the president is most proud of himself. He reels off a clever remark, smirks as the audience processes the level of sarcasm or folksiness on display, waits for applause or laughter, and smiles as if he's as tickled as everyone else is. Hey, it's better than the George W. Bush "Act like you're completely clueless" expression.

In other observations, Harry Reid yawned during his cut-away, Ruth Bader Ginsburg somehow looked decrepit and sharp, and Nancy Pelosi acted like it was all she could do not to jump the desk and begin humping the president!

But the speech included several points worth mentioning, and the world needs your take.

1. "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit--one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. . . . Let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment."

A typical American might say: That sounds pretty good. If big business gets bailed out, then small business should too.

2. "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will."

Typical American: It's about time the government stopped spending so much. Like the president said, I'm on a tight budget. Why shouldn't the federal government be?!

3. After bragging about all the tax cuts, Democrats applauded vigorously while Republicans remained quiet and seated. Obama's (seemingly) impromptu response was: "I thought I'd get some applause on that one."

Typical American: Why wouldn't they applaud? I thought Republicans were all about tax cuts. Is it because they wanted more tax cuts for the wealthy and none for everyone else?! Those bastards!

4. "I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change."

Typical American: Touche, Mr. President! You're too witty.

5. "Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. . . . Let's tell another one million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10% of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years, and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service."

Typical American: Perfect! If everyone has a college degree, there can be no more poverty.

-JW

JW,

Unlike you, I spent Wednesday evening ignoring the President's speech. Why watch when the transcript is available online even before the speech is over? Who's got time to sit through all that applause? Fully rested and refreshed, I'm ready to attack this monstrosity. Let's take it point by point.

The TARP Repayment

Not only the national debt but the yearly budget deficit is a multi-trillion dollar entity these days. I mention this because we needn't have any confusion over the source of the bailout money Obama now promises to funnel into even more government projects. Either we printed the money or we borrowed it from China. In either case, it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense of the word, and the only proper destination for the repaid funds is a steamer bound for Beijing or an armored car bound for the incinerators. To spend the money--my hands are shaking, this pisses me off so badly--is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Obama knows this. That's why he's proposing a cut in some capital gains taxes. He would never propose an idea that "regressive" if he weren't trying to get away with something.

The Spending Freeze

George Will calls it a "flagrant falsehood." The Associated Press reports, "The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the [annual budget] deficit--and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along." Politicians and commentators like to throw around the word "cynical," but Obama's strategy--say what you know to be untrue and count on your personality and the credulity of voters to protect you--is practically its dictionary definition.

Take four minutes and listen to Bill Adair of the Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-partisan, fact-checking website Politifact.com. In his NPR interview, he states that Politifact's exploration of seven Obama claims produced only one "true" rating. Good times.

The Tax Cuts

This was the one "true" claim that Obama made, according to Politifact.com. Yes, he did use the 2nd Stimulus Package (Bush's was the first; the upcoming "jobs bill" will be the third) to give some tax break to a large majority of Americans. For political reasons, Republicans probably should have applauded. They're probably thinking about the future, though, when the bill will come due. It's not far off.

Climate Change

Don't you just love that smarty-pants line about "overwhelming scientific evidence"? If it's overwhelming, the cause is in large measure the censorship of competing data by a "scientific" community that joins Obama in his disdain for profit. F--k them. Whether or not man-made climate change is happening, the steps required to combat it cannot be achieved by the nations of this world as they are currently constituted. (Here's George Will again--sue me; I love the guy.)

Loan Forgiveness

The high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. Great. Let's do the same thing to the college diploma by educating every deadbeat in America.

The primary economic fact is scarcity. The secondary economic fact is that when you start screwing with lenders' ability--even government lenders--to recoup loans, you change who they loan to. I look forward to a world in which poor people can't go to school because of the government's attempts to make lending "fair."

-GM

Bad Rules, Ignoble Endings

GM,

Similar to your prediction that the Steelers would win or lose each game by three points this year (it actually happened six times!), your Brett Favre prediction was nothing short of prophecy:

...Favre will end this season with a crucial interception--we're all waiting for it.... -Dec. 21, 2009

And it killed me. This was one of the best games any of us have ever seen, and it was ruined by horrible league policy. In this case, the NFL's failure to fix what is obviously the worst OT system in all of sports--just edging soccer's "To hell with trying to actually score; we'll just kick several times from 10 feet away" arrangement--undermined the game's legitimacy and tainted what will surely be another Colts championship. Like the conference semi-finals between the Spurs and Suns in 2007, which involved two suspensions that simply mocked logic, the fans deserved better in this one.

Forget sudden death. I'm acknowledging Sunday's first 60 minutes and no more. For the purposes of this entry, Minnesota and New Orleans tied yesterday. And what a tie it was....

Favre's second INT ruined the Vikings' chance of victory, but what made the moment so historically significant was that it was the culmination of years of abuse that somehow never sidelined football's iron man. The "Gunslinger" rolled out to an empty flat, and with his football awareness, the amount of time he had to decide on running or passing was an eternity.

Fortunately, whether you like Brett or not, you've seen into his career quite clearly. You've seen it in chapters. He was the highly-touted rookie who became the ultimate bust due to personal problems and poor work ethic. Then he became the perfect story of redemption, winning three straight MVP awards and a SuperBowl. Interceptions had always plagued his career, though, and we began questioning whether he could still play in 2005 when he threw a record-worst 29 picks. But he stuck around to break almost every career QB record. Finally, after several offseasons of indecisiveness, he shut all his doubters up with his best statistical season--only seven INTs. It appeared that the right system, an elite running back, and years of accumulated wisdom had made for the perfect fit--maybe even for one more season.

Favre entered Sunday's game looking nimble, even youthful. A few punishing hits later, he looked too feeble for the NFL. Not surprisingly, he stayed in to make a few decent tosses and get away with some bad ones. And when he rolled to the right and saw the open turf before him, he probably knew he could get enough yardage for field-goal range. He probably knew he could slide or get out of bounds to avoid contact entirely. But with his legs weakened and fatigued--his thoughts mired--all he could rely on was the old gun. Such impulsiveness had made him, and in perfect symmetry, it broke him.

I wanted a Manning-Favre SuperBowl as much as anyone. The game could have been billed as "Man vs. Machine." As much charisma as Peyton Manning has in commercials and interviews, his game is simply robotic. Favre, on the other hand, has a style of play so human that it mirrors what we assume to be his personality. That's why I want to see the man on football's biggest stage. He always gives us a heck of a show.

-JW

JW,

I got sleepy and tried to nap during the second half of the game you're calling one of the best ever, and I'll be damned if Joe Buck didn't wake me up every five minutes with another Vikings turnover!!!! My goodness, that team wanted to lose. As I joked on the telephone Sunday evening, if Buck had saved his pipes for clutch field goals, I could have slept through the entire playoffs.

Anyway, since you're refusing to acknowledge the last ten minutes or so of Vikes/Saints, allow me to fill in some blanks. If you're a Vikings fan, the NFL just screwed you. Forget about the coin toss--professional football's answer to Powerball, blackjack double-downs, and unsafe sex--and focus on the pass interference call against Ben Leber (6:29, here), made despite the fact that Brees' pass to Thomas was not a pass at all but a please-don't-sack-me throwaway. Focus on Meacham's twelve-yard "completion" (6:43, same clip) that ended the game for all intents and purposes (that's "intensive purposes" to you, Saints fans). If nothing else, this game proved for all time that NFL refs are afraid to cross a home crowd riding a generation-long crest of political sympathy--that not even Brett Favre can combat the magical formula of Disaster + Black People = Bandwagon Fans and Make-Up (For Acts of God) Calls. Once overtime hit, it would have taken Team Haiti to beat the Saints in New Orleans.

Now that the Super Bowl is upon us, I'm predicting a devestating Colts win. The Saints are inexplicably inconsistent offensively, and Peyton Manning is utterly shameless about seven-yard-slanting his way to victory, over and over again, ad nauseam. Too bad that the exact matchup I've been hoping for since week five promises to be as lopsided as the Manning family's distribution of genetic gifts. They should have played this one in September.

-GM

Gayness, Litigation

JW,

The case that promises to be to homosexuals what Roe v. Wade was to irresponsible women is happening in San Francisco right now. The plaintiffs, shockingly led by Bush-administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, are arguing in Federal District Court that Proposition 8--the recent California measure that outlawed gay marriage by popular decree--is unconstitutional. Regardless of which side wins, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. May I predict a 5-4 vote with [the clerks of] Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority? I'd bet my life on it.

Similarly, I'd wager very large stakes on the following, though the smart bookmaker has long since taken it off the board: Whether or not this case is the one that does it, gay marriage is going to happen in this country, sooner rather than later. Though in no way the moral equivalent of interracial marriage (more on this in a moment), gay marriage is already following the public-opinion trajectory that led to 1967's Loving v. Virginia, and while that case's 9-0 decision delivered a cultural exclamation point that today's divided court cannot and will not duplicate, a split decision will carry equal legal weight.

The problem for Conservatives is that the generational shifts, media blitzes, and snazzy spokespeople who have spearheaded the gay-rights movement have been met with a political and rhetorical strategy that is not just useless but morally suspect. Gay marriage, the Conservative argues, goes against how marriage has always been defined. It damages the institution of heterosexual marriage. It forces the values of a small minority upon an unwilling majority. Meaningless, absurd, and insensitive, respectively. The truth of the matter is that Conservatives--even those few who don't identify with a religious faith--are opposed to gay marriage because they believe that homosexuality is wrong. They're afraid to say so, for the most part--they've long had moral certitude beaten out of them by a culture that holds absolute truth in lower esteem than pedophiles--but that's the heart of their opposition. Appropriately articulated, such a case makes a distinction between homosexual identity--like blackness, a morally neutral fact--and the homosexual act, which has no equivalent in the civil rights narrative. Homosexuals and their allies will argue that asking gay men and women to be celibate is cruel and unreasonable, but society has no problem asking thieves not to steal, for example. Either the homosexual act is in that category or it isn't. If not, there is no basis upon which to deny homosexuals the right to marry. None.

Careful readers will understand, then, that a society unhinged from Religion's objective truths cannot long forbid any activity that one human commits unless it measurably harms another. All laws--all moral standards--will be based not on principles exterior to (and thus independent of) society's current beliefs but on shifting cultural ideals. Just as homosexuality has come to be accepted, so too will bestiality, incest, and polygamy--provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things. What is inconceivable today is tomorrow's norm. Everything in post-Christian history tells us as much.

A final note: Despite Obama's stated opposition to gay marriage--the biggest and most obnoxious political whopper since Jimmy Carter claimed Christianity--the Sophisticate-in-Chief will be leading the parade when it finally happens. Can we please get a news story calling him out on it?

-GM

GM,

"...provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things."

This dependent clause was perhaps the most important excerpt from your entry. Though it may not have been the most compelling or provocative, it provoked me to begin with this question: Do we live in the land of the free or the land of the majority?

First, so I can't be accused of not taking a stance, let me quickly express my opinion on gay marriage. We live in a society where pimps and prostitutes profit in Nevada, where pornographers who demean women as a gender make a better living than teachers, where bartenders can drop a few grand on breast implants and get a 100-percent return on investment in one fiscal quarter, and where infidelity is glorified in entertainment more often than it is rebuked. By no means whatsoever can this society make a moral judgment on whose genitals belong where. We can, however, decide what we want, and, more specifically, what we want to acknowledge.

So to the liberal, I say, "Stop trying to raise awareness; everyone knows." For now, the people of most states have thought about it and decided they'd rather not live in a place where marriage is defined as the union of any two consenting people. And really, that's the issue--or at least it should be. It's not about what we're letting homosexuals do; it's about what we're willing to call it. The last time I checked, that's our choice. By popular demand (sorry, LGBT), we're electing to hold off on calling it marriage. And if this social issue can't be left up to the states, we might as well not even have states, as their sovereignty has completely vanished.

I don't believe straight married couples should receive any benefits from the government, as this is a decision to respect one lifestyle over another. So as long as a straight couple can get a tax write-off, there should theoretically be a way for a gay couple to get the same write-off. But do we as a society want to call it marriage? For now, no. The majority is free to make that decision.

Knowing this, Obama told a lie so transparent that even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese gave him the benefit of the doubt by not believing him!!! Now there's a politician who can do no wrong!

-JW

Shanking the Weekend: A Retrospective

GM,

Let's focus on the losers today. Let's talk about the disappointment that we have and that four other fan bases should be feeling. Let's ignore the fact that each of us went 1-3 in our predictions.

How bad has kicking been in the NFL this year?! The league percentage, 81.7, isn't much lower than the usual of 83 percent, but clutch kicking has been nearly non-existent. If kicking really is almost entirely mental, then Nate Kaeding's performance yesterday reminded me of Paula Abdul's clapping. I've already heard the "Jets win it or Chargers lose it?" nonsense on ESPN three times today, and it's not even close. The Chargers, specifically Kaeding, lost that game. He was one of the most reliable kickers in the league all season, connecting on 91.4 percent of his attempts. He was at home. The weather was fine. Still, he missed all three of his tries against the Jets, setting up what will surely be a forgettable AFC Championship Game. Thanks, Nate. Take some Valium and hit the beach.

Kurt Warner looked as old as he's ever looked. I think he intentionally grew that gray goatee just so our last thought of him would be, "Yes, despite his strong numbers, he's definitely ready to retire." NOTE: Neil Rackers missed his only field goal attempt.

More kicking woes in Minnesota, not that it mattered this time. Shaun Suisham was 1-for-3, including a 48-yarder on 4th-and-2 that Wade Phillips shouldn't have let him try. More important, though, was that Tony Romo couldn't hold on to the football. Two of his three fumbles were lost, and Dallas never had a chance. For some reason, people like to blame QB fumbles on bad protection and, in this case, Flozell Adams's injury. But the great quarterbacks, much like Favre taking his first sack in that game, know how to hit the deck quickly and maintain possession.

Baltimore's offense just didn't show up, and the Colts' touchdown in the final seconds of the first half was completely deflating. When there are 7 seconds left on 3rd-and-goal and the other team has no timeouts (thus has to throw quickly), how do you not jam Reggie Wayne at the line?! That was the game.

-JW

JW,

Forget kicking! The Cowboys are retaining Wade Phillips, and Chan Gailey is the front-runner for the Bills job. I don't know what's worse--the Bills settling for a guy who couldn't keep his coordinator job through Kansas City's entire preseason or the Cowboys sticking with a coach whose central accomplishment, according to Tony Romo, was "keeping together" a team that badly needs to be blown up. Either way, the only coaching-related move that would shock me more than these two did would be the Chargers allowing Norv Turner to stick around for another wasted season. He's more likely to be the president of the United States next year than to work in San Diego.

As for the games themselves, they left the prognosticator in me confused and unsatisfied. Arizona managed to lose without giving us a bit of insight into how good the Saints really are (do they hang forty-five on anybody with that effort, or just the Cardinals?), and Baltimore failed to capitalize on a first-half Colts team that was every bit as baffled and uninspiring as I anticipated--you know, since they had to interrupt their vacations for that game and all. Dallas forgot to show up for what should have been the best matchup of the playoffs, and the contest that should have sucked--Jets/Chargers--turned out to be the only one worth watching to its conclusion.

This would be a good time, then, to make a promise or two about not underestimating the Jets going forward--about acknowledging that the pass in all its glamour still can't compete with a solid defense, a solid run. Screw that. The Jets will lose by fifty this Sunday, and I'll laugh all the way to the bank. I hear Nate Kaeding's a teller.

-GM

Four Games, Two Disagreements

JW,

After a wild-card round about as exciting as an afternoon with C-SPAN, I'd like to tell you that this weekend is going to be playoff gold. Sadly, the AFC doesn't look like it's going to oblige. Over the course of the past week, we've heard lots of "experts" claim that the Jets and Ravens have a chance to make things interesting, but it just isn't so. People, it seems, will say anything to get on TV.

With that in mind, let's take a Smarter look at a divisional round that promises to be a study in contrasts. We'll start with the good stuff.

Arizona at New Orleans

I'll be damned if the Cardinals didn't steal my bitching-about-the-overtime-rules thunder last weekend by making their one defensive play of the game when it counted most. Watching that play unfold, I found myself wondering if Aaron Rodgers had suddenly lost his peripheral vision. Michael Adams was maneuvering about as quickly as a Wal-Mart greeter, and he still got there with time to spare. Is it possible that Rodgers' small-town values had him rooting for one more week of Kurt Warner?

Pagan New Orleans, it's safe to say, will have no such qualms about ending the Holy One's career, at least until his August comeback. Like the Green Bay game, however, this one simply can't be called. Both teams score big; both trot out defenses that couldn't stop a Big-10 quarterback; both depend on timing, momentum, and finesse. The game will come down to one or two huge stops or giveaways, and we'll all go home convinced that running the football couldn't be less important. I give Arizona the slight edge, but only because I know their offense is clicking. I'm not positive about the Saints'.

Dallas at Minnesota

Dallas could go one of two ways now that their playoff curse has been lifted. In scenario one, they fall to a Vikings team that, unlike them, isn't just happy to be here. In scenario two, they destroy everyone and win the Super Bowl without much of an effort. I like scenario two.

Minnesota, after all, has proven time and again that Brett Favre alone is going to win or lose big games, and I love him to lose this one. Adrian Peterson--24th in the league in yards per carry and entering famous-for-being-famous territory--lacks the will and charisma to demand the ball, and Dallas has slammed the door shut on runners all season. Look for Favre to panic and overreact to an early deficit. I say his interception total beats Peterson's number of goal-line carries.

Baltimore at Indianapolis

I hate the Colts very much, but even I have to admit that this is a great team. Yeah, they stubbornly lose their rhythm and momentum every December to protect their starters, but it takes a better team than the overachieving Ravens to exploit that fact. I'm predicting an early Ravens lead followed by thirty-five unanswered points by Manning and his joyles, workaday Colts. The Ravens beat a New England team that verifiably stinks. No one cares.

New York at San Diego

If New York seriously challenges in this game, I will s--t myself.

-GM

GM,

Allow me to respond.

Cards at Saints

The Saints are strangers to me, while the Cardinals remind me of a girl I once dated. Entirely unpredictable. Hot one minute; cold the next. Unbearable when at their worst; a thing of beauty when at their best. The problem with this type of girl (errr, team) is she absolutely cannot be counted on when the stakes are high. Are these stakes high enough? Probably, but...

New Orleans has managed to turn everyone into doubters based on its performance in December and beyond. Since a November 30 thrashing of New England, which the Saints would like to be the season's defining moment, they've sneaked by Washington in OT, held on to a three-point victory over a beat-up Atlanta team, allowed a soul-searching Dallas to revive itself while ending their perfect season, lost to three-win Tampa Bay, and failed to try against Carolina. What the Saints may still have is an ability to strike quickly, especially in the fourth quarter, but Arizona can respond. The over-under for this game is 57.5! I know that defenses tend to rise to the occasion when people predict shootouts, but it just seems impossible to me that the winner of this doesn't score 45 by itself! I can't believe I'm saying this, especially since I didn't think Arizona could beat Green Bay, but the Cardinals are pulling this upset even without Boldin.

Cowboys and Vikings

Vike me. (ESPN may have sold out to affirmative action and "jockocracy"--Howard Cosell's version, not what Urban Dictionary has--but it still makes great SportsCenter commercials.) GM, Favre's twilight years, depending on when you assume they began, have consisted of his throwing single, crucial late-game picks rather than littering the field with floaters into triple coverage. But he's not ready for that, anyway. The Vikings are the only team in the league with more momentum right now than Dallas, and it's all because of Week 17. After losing a heart-breaker in Chicago in which Favre and Childress again butted heads and Minnesota looked like it had lost its first-round bye, they were completely in the dumps. But in the season's final week, Philly gift-wrapped the bye in purple and gold and mailed it first-class to Minneapolis. That team is rejuvenated like no other. Of all the key playoff figures who needed a week of rest, Brett Favre was at the top of the list. They're still the most balanced team in football, and if Brad Childress simply overcomes his stubbornness and uses Adrian Peterson more like a 2002 Charlie Garner and less like a 2007 Larry Johnson, Minnesota wins. Oh, and I'm not making this up: I dreamed last night that Flozell Adams false started.

Ravens at Colts

I'll never forgive this Colts team for forfeiting the perfect season. In 2007, Bill Belichick wanted to piss off division rival Miami by going undefeated, and he wanted to piss off Peyton Manning by having Tom Brady take his touchdown record. I hate the Hoody with a passion, but if I could put that hatred aside, I'd want him coaching my team in a heartbeat. Jim Caldwell had the chance to have a season in which he made history by going 19-0 (as a first-year head coach!), to solidify the Colts' reputation as the most clutch franchise in the league, and to make Belichick look stupid for that fourth-down decision. And if he really believes that a Super Bowl victory is the only relevant part of that equation, he doesn't understand greatness. Who will people remember more, the 2007 Patriots or the 2008 Steelers? It's obvious, isn't it? Just as obvious is that this year's Colts team won't be remembered at all. After all, they're following their proven formula to lose a playoff game at home.

Jets at Chargers

I love Rex Ryan. There, I said it. I also think Norv Turner is a waste of space. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe the Jets will win today. None. Convincing someone otherwise would be a more daunting task than convincing him to switch to AT&T using Luke Wilson commercials.
-JW

Swing and Remiss: Big Mac's Whopper

GM,

Mark McGwire put on his ninth-best suit, looked Bob Costas straight in the eye, and called on his shrunken sack to muster the strength to say the following, paraphrased:

"Sure, I could have hit all those home runs without steroids. God gave me the ability to hit homers. You should see some of the balls I hit in little league! No pill or injection will improve your hand-eye coordination or swing mechanics, and mine started getting really good in the mid-90s because I started studying pitchers. I just used steroids to stay healthy, but I still could have hit nearly 600 bombs without them. As it turns out, Jose Canseco was telling the truth about the mere fact that I used steroids, but everything else he says is a lie. Obviously he can't be trusted; he had a book to sell. Oh, and I really wish I had never touched the stuff."

The fact that he actually said all this poses two questions:

1. How stupid is Mark McGwire?

2.How stupid does Mark McGwire think we are?

Big Mac has admitted to doing a four-week cycle after the 1998 All-Star break. He played in 155 games that year and set the single-season home-run record with 70. I, along with millions of others, watched many more regular-season baseball games than I would have otherwise watched that year. I really don't care that McGwire and many others tricked me into being interested, but having my intelligence insulted more than a decade later is difficult to ignore.

Let's go over some facts:

One, steroids do improve bat speed. Greater bat speed doesn't just increase the force exerted on a baseball; it gives the batter extra time to see a pitch before committing to a swing. Steroid use will increase bat speed, thus essentially giving the hitter a better eye. This means that steroids can help a batter get more home runs, triples, doubles, singles, and even walks.

Two, mass alone is also a factor in the force exerted in a swing--not just the mass of the bat either. Because a player is gripping the bat throughout the swing, his grip and weight are actually factored in. As we all know, steroids increase muscle mass. If Prince Fielder and David Eckstein swing a bat at the same speed, Fielder's ball will go farther.

Three, steroids are designed to expedite the body's natural recovery time. Muscles are not built through lifting weights; they are built through recovery in-between workouts. The faster an athlete recovers, the more he can work out beneficially. So McGwire's "work ethic" should not be commended by Tony LaRussa or anyone else.

Four, even if steroids did nothing but keep McGwire on the field, then we know they allowed him to hit more home runs. That's the most obvious part of all of this. More games = more at-bats = Big Mac is a fraud. To insist that his individual swings were unaffected, while wrong, is one thing. To insist his overall numbers would have been the same is pure madness.

So there it is. Mark McGwire took steroids to be a better hitter, they worked, and he cashed in. If he really regrets it, he should also regret the money and the public love affair. But he doesn't, so he doesn't. The man did steroids. His life was better for it, and it is better for it. Sorry, kids... no moral here. Cheaters can win.

The only believable thing Mac said was that Monday was the hardest day of his life. Baseball players have cushy lives in general. This guy had his ego stroked at all levels for 38 years and retired with tens of millions in the bank. Those tears were real.

Of all the major players in the steroid era, Jose Canseco is the only one who hasn't been proven a liar. And of all the lame excuses that follow apologies, the hand-eye coordination shtick is the lamest.

-JW

JW,

You know you've made something of your life when your apologies require a script. Mark McGwire followed his on Monday and is free as a result to move on to his new role as the St. Louis Cardinals' hitting coach and team pharmacist. As you might expect, I've got some questions. You hit the moral and technical points; I'll tackle the practical and philosophical ones:

1) Why, oh why, would the MLB and the Cardinals allow Mark McGwire anywhere near star slugger and baseball-savior-in-waiting Albert Pujols? Furthermore, if you're Pujols, are you moving to the other side of the clubhouse whenever you see this guy? Are you having somebody test your food? To the extent that Baseball needs to cleanse itself of McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds, they really, really need a squeaky-clean, beyond-reproach A-Poo. In that respect, this is a terrible hire.

2) What are the Cardinals doing making a celebrity hire, anyway? After all, their 2009 total attendance was more than 750,000 above the NL average, according to Baseball Almanac. They've got the best player in baseball and won last year's NL Central by 7.5 games. What's Mark McGwire bringing to the table that they don't already have?

3) Why did McGwire's "new" career require a fresh slate? The thinking, it seems, is that the public wouldn't have accepted an obviously-lying hitting coach, but who cares about hitting coaches? I'm a slightly-more-than-casual fan of Major League Baseball, and I couldn't name a single hitting coach in the history of the sport. Should I care that McGwire admitted what I already knew?

4) Finally, what's Sosa going to do now that McGwire's come clean? Last I heard, Sosa's admitted nothing. If Baseball's hosting a coming out party for former cheaters, let's brace ourselves for the greatest piece of mumbling and nonsense we've ever heard!

-GM

Harry Reid, "Racist"

JW,

I love talking (anonymously) about race, particularly when it's a Democrat who's put the issue back on the front page. This time the culprit is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, according to a just-released account of the 2008 election, predicted early in Barack Obama's candidacy that Obama could win because he is "light-skinned," has "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," and "isn't afraid of dogs and swimming pools." Okay, I made that last one up, but the rest is real. Reid, already the target of a serious re-election challenge, now finds himself in that most precarious of political positions: convincing Americans that he didn't mean the truth he uttered.

Happily, Reid faces a cooperative press and a "Negro" political establishment that can't wait to let bygones be bygones. Leading the charge, as always, is Al Sharpton, who told the New York Times on Saturday that "while Mr. Reid 'did not select the best word choice in this instance,' the comments should not distract Congress or the White House." Also forgiving is Obama himself, who "accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years. I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice, and I know what’s in his heart." Because Reid is a Democrat, Sharpton and Obama tell us, he literally cannot commit a racist act or think a racist thought--his liberalism has rendered it an impossibility. Conversely, Republicans cannot help but be racist--George Allen, remember, was forced out of politics because he might have meant "macaca" as a racial slur.

What makes Sharpton's and Obama's comments so odious is their underlining of the absolute fact that race and its accompanying hysteria are weapons used by Democrats against Republicans. Period. While the black man or woman on the street may experience racism as a scourge, elite Democrats of color see only an opportunity--for their own advancement as well as that of their party. Similarly ridiculous has been the Times' focus-shifting, a masterpiece of partisanship that spent the weekend transforming the story from Reid's gaffe to GOP Chairman Michael Steele's insistence that he resign. (What's next? "Michael Steele: Another Black Guy Who Can't Take a Joke"?) As the story develops, look for Sharpton, Obama, and other black "leaders" to stick by Reid. . . as long as doing so doesn't jeopardize the health care bill. The minute it does, they'll denounce him from the very rooftops of Washington.

The only question is whether or not they'll have their Negro dialects in the "on" position.

-GM

GM,

How many racially inspired posts does this make for us? Four? Five?

My biggest curiosity is whether or not Reid would have been under any fire if he hadn't used the word "Negro." I suspect so. I assume there still would have been outrage if he had said, "Obama can win because his skin is light for a black man and because he doesn't speak like some uneducated black people tend to speak." Other than his use of the diet N-word, there is practically no difference between that comment and the one he actually made. And that comment is unadulterated truth. In most elections--2000 and 2004 excluded--we like our presidential candidates to sound like they went to college. Yet it's hard to imagine that, in a society where being "progressive" means accepting racial differences without daring to acknowledge them, such a remark would go over well...

...which leads us to your complaint. Reid somehow managed to escape most of the wrath that would have been coming to him if he hadn't been a Democrat. Secretly, though, the Donkeys must be fuming! "Look, Harry, we can't claim the social moral high ground if you don't abide by our ever-evolving rules of racism. Thank God we have the media!"

Of course you're right that the race card is a political weapon, and Republicans have no answer for it so far. This is why I fear for the future of the GOP. While immigration continues to bring us closer to the point that whites are just another minority, the Left has redefined racism to include any political disagreement with a non-white. And considering that most non-whites in America vote Democrat, we'll either continue to see a shift in what constitutes conservatism, or we won't see a Republican in the White House for a while. We may have an occasional laugh at Mormons and Catholics for having so many children, but they're certainly doing their part to keep the red states red.

-JW

Beating the Clock to a Playoff Countdown

Editor's Note: This piece went up at 7:55 ET. If you're reading it after the games inevitably went against us, try to understand . . . and be generous.

JW,

Perhaps anticipating a playoff weekend composed largely of Week 17 rematches, I stayed away from the NFL last Sunday. (Yeah, I watched Chris Johnson's run at 2,000 yards, but is it really the NFL if neither team cares about the final score?) As a result, I'm fresh as a daisy--completely ignorant of how things went down and unaffected by Week 17's weirdness. Is Dallas twenty-four points better than Philadelphia? Is Green Bay twenty-six points better than Arizona? Is New York thirty-seven points better than Cincinnati? I have no f-----g idea!

In that spirit, how about a playoff preview based entirely on happenstance and gossip? It's not a better look at this weekend's action, but it's certainly a Smarter one.

New York at Cincinnati

As I mentioned on Tuesday, I learned nothing about the New York Jets this season. Nevertheless, they led the league with 2,756 rushing yards in my absence, carrying the ball more than six hundred times (compared to fewer than four hundred passes--the fewest in the league) and relying heavily on the ageless (but AARP-eligible) Thomas Jones. On the other side of the ball, the Jets gave up fewer than one hundred yards per game on the ground (8th place league-wide) and almost five hundred fewer yards through the air than second-best Buffalo. If this game were being played in 1970, when running the ball and stopping the run actually did win championships, the Jets would absolutely demolish the Bengals. As it stands, I like them winning closely when Cincinnati's two-minute drill fails. And forget the curse of the rookie quarterback on the road. Everything about the Jets' play this season suggests that they will not allow Mark Sanchez to lose this game for them.

Eagles at Cowboys

Both of these teams want badly to choke--Dallas for historical reasons and Philadelphia to satisfy Donovan McNabb's yearnings to leave behind the least satisfied fan base in the history of Hall of Fame careers. Can this game end with both quarterbacks and coaches being burned in effigy? Does the NFL postseason have ties? If not, look for Dallas to win the battle of the trenches and upset Andy Reid's perfect record (!) in the first round of the playoffs. I like the fact that Philadelphia scores on big plays. I dislike the fact that they can only score on big plays. Dallas, your choke will probably have to wait until round two.

Baltimore at New England

After last year's travesty of a win in Tennessee, Baltimore deserves to be screwed out of this win. Who better to take it from them than a coach who cheats! New England has had one of the strangest season's in recent NFL history--absolutely destroying Atlanta, Tennessee, and Jacksonville, but losing to Denver, Miami, and Houston in games where a little more heart would have gotten it done. I have no idea what to make of this Patriots team. Why couldn't they get hot and win the Super Bowl? Why couldn't they lose this game by thirty? The only thing I know for sure is that if Julian Edelman fills Welker's shoes without missing a beat, the Pats' locker room needs to be examined for witchcraft. Will no injury derail this franchise? Is their system really that perfect? I say no. In fact, I'm picking the upset. Baltimore blitzes its way to a win, followed by Roger Goodell and Tom Brady filing civil suit and winning rights to Ray Lewis' dance. It was only a matter of time.

Green Bay at Arizona

The ultimate finesse game is also the hardest game to call. Every sign points to a big Green Bay win, but Arizona's level of play can absolutely not be predicted. My feeling is that the Cardinals' best game beats the Packers' best, but who knows whether or not they'll bring it. What I am sure of is that running backs and punters need not suit up for this one. Sounds like a can't-miss to me.

-GM

GM,

Since I can't argue with or add to anything you're saying, I'll just spout out some thoughts that come to my mind in order of their arrival. Then I'll direct my attention to last night's national title game, which you, perhaps rightfully if we're just speaking of the game itself, failed to mention.

- As you alluded to, Andy Reid is 7-0 in opening playoff games! Quite an amazing stat, but he's also 1-4 in conference championship games. Then again, so was Bill Cowher before winning it all. This proves that owners should tolerate coaches who consistently win, even if they don't win the big one.

- Not being reported at all is that Bill Belichick is 6-0 in playoff openers.

- The Jets/Bengals game may be the hardest to predict, but the winner will definitely lose to the Colts or Chargers in the second round--magnificently.

- Tony Romo has never won a playoff game. Wade Phillips has never won a playoff game. Today is the 10th anniversary of the Music City Miracle. The Bills' coach: Wade himself.

- The Packers aren't 26 points better than the Cardinals, but they are better. I disagree with your assumption that Arizona at its best beats Green Bay at its, mainly because a completely-clicking Packers team looks better to me than every team but a completely-clicking New Orleans, which, by the way, is long dead.

- ESPN's Chris Mortensen just said he expects Pete Carroll to be the Seahawks' coach by early next week! Whoah.

College football managed to deny us its only totally meaningful game of the year last night. We all assumed Alabama was better than Texas, so the game was billed as Colt McCoy vs. Alabama. Could the face of the Longhorns since Vince Young's departure manage to pull an upset over the team that clearly had the best season up to that point? Thanks to a fluky, seemingly mild injury, we didn't get to see it. And it's not fair to anyone. Not to Alabama, which, despite probably being the better team anyway, will now have a huge shadow cast over its 13th national championship. Not to Texas, which was denied a fair shake. Not to the fans, who had to make themselves believe that it was fair--or at least most fair--that Texas played in the game over Cincinnati, TCU, or Boise State.

Most of all, it wasn't fair to Nick Saban. He didn't deserve that kind of cushy treatment. The same joyless bastard who screwed my Dolphins managed to have the worst coaching performance in big-game history and still win. He tried a shamefully bad fake punt that his defense bailed him out of, and he turned around and asked the same defense to protect an 18-point halftime lead while shutting down the offense. Then, despite enjoying better weather than 98 percent of the country, he acted like his Gatorade bath would kill him right there on the sideline. The post-game press conference reeked of more austerity, as we watched Saban impersonate his mentor, Bill Belichick, as if acting like an ass at season's end would still provide some sort of psychological advantage. His straw hat is Belichick's scissored hoody. "You think this looks stupid? F--k you, world. I'm a champion."

-JW

Coaching Vacancies, Vacant Heads

GM,

The Redskins have made Mike Shanahan the highest-paid coach in all of football, and the misery will continue in Washington, at least for one more year. In most professions, the elite don't get fired unless they sleep with the wrong guy's wife. In football, though, the numbers don't always add up. You can be fired for a memorable collapse in 2009 and hired in early 2010 for what you did early in 1998 and 1999!

Shanahan entered the scene for the Broncos in 1995--a time in which John Elway's talent was being underutilized and it looked like he'd never win a SuperBowl. Of course, we know the rest of the story, but few people realize the rarity of Shanahan's grace period. Denver won one playoff game--a sweet, sweet defeat that ended the Patriots' championship dynasty (oh yes, it's over)--in the decade after Elway retired. Extending his leash even further was his close friendship with Broncos owner Pat Bowlen.

Obviously, the man was going to get another job as soon as he wanted one, but Dan Snyder's typical approach--throwing money at personnel with high quotes regardless of fit or actual abilities--may not even work on head coaches. Surely he knows Mike Shanahan is far from a sure bet to turn the team around, but he also knows that he's incapable of picking the right guy for anything! He's hired five head coaches this decade, including Marty Schottenheimer, Steve Spurrier, and Gibbs--three guys who are bound for the Hall of Fame because of their abilities to coach. Somehow, all failed under Snyder. He's hired an offensive coordinator for every year Jason Campbell has been in the league!

This contract is nothing but an admission by Snyder that he has no idea what he's doing, but he's willing to pay his way out of any possible blame. After all, who could blame you for getting Mike Shanahan?! Too bad you still have an average quarterback, a post-prime running back, one of the shortest "big-play" split ends in the league, and a culture of losing. At least we won't see this anymore.

-JW

JW,

Once a fairly low bar of competence is cleared, coaches don't particularly matter in the NFL. Yes, I said it. If the Redskins compete next season, it will be because the Collective Bargaining Agreement didn't get renewed and we're playing without a salary cap. Give Mike Shanahan every significant free agent and the financial upper hand in trade negotiations and he'll be just fine. Stick him with Jason Campbell and Clinton Portis--calling Clinton Portis post-prime is like calling Barack Obama post-partisan: both descriptors are the best their marketing people can hope for--and he'll lose as often and as badly as Jim Zorn. Not only has Shanahan never won a ring with mediocre talent, he's never won one without a Hall of Fame quarterback and a 1,700-yard rusher. What he has done is choked in the playoffs, held decades-long grudges, and followed the money to what has got to be the worst coaching vacancy in football. If you want to win, that is.

Elsewhere in the league, the coaching carousel appears to be operating with similar illogic. In Cleveland, team president Mike Holmgren's first order of business was keeping the universally loathed Eric Mangini--a move that ESPN has rightly called Mangini's "biggest win yet." In Dallas, certified buffoon Wade Phillips continues to function beneath the previously mentioned competence bar solely because Jerry Jones likes weak personalities. In Kansas City, a hideous defense and a $63 million career backup at quarterback will apparently be bailed out by yet another New England Patriots transplant whose name isn't Bill Bellichick.

Only Carolina seems to be behaving reasonably, refusing to fire the perfectly tolerable John Fox just because Bill Cowher has a house nearby. Why should they? The same squad will lose for both of them.

-GM

Owning Up . . . Maybe a Little Covering Up

JW,

Looking over old NFL predictions is a bit like watching drunken videos of yourself. You barely remember any of it, and you just want it to be over. In that spirit, how about an abridged retrospective of what we got right and wrong this season? Here's my top three in both categories, presented in the order in which they occurred to me:

Things I Nailed

1) The New York Jets did not make an appearance in my home this season. I wrote in August that I'd watch the Russian ballet first, and even though the Jets slipped into the playoffs (How?! Why?!), I don't see that changing. Seriously, was a single word spoken or written about this team all year? They're strangers to me!

2) The Dallas Cowboys will indeed scare the hell out of everyone in the playoffs after enduring some rocky times mid-season. Of course, I also predicted that Shanahan would be coaching them by now, but I'm still putting this in the win column.

3) The Bears stunk! I couldn't be happier about this one if I had caught Cutler's interceptions myself. I wrote in August that the Bears are "a team that's seemingly perfect for underachieving," and they went right out and did so. The good news: It won't be possible to underachieve next year. Everyone knows you suck.

Things I Badly F----d Up

1) The Bucs will win their division? Holy s--t! In retrospect, it was our last day of predictions, and I was bored. So what if they lost it by a league-leading ten games? That's nothing compared to how bad they'll be when they start this guy at quarterback.

2) Like you, I doubted the Arizona Cardinals. When will we learn that the NFC West doesn't require youth, agility, or stamina from its quarterbacks. Warner won it the minute he decided to return for another year, and you and I should have known better.

3) I slept, slightly, on the Denver Broncos. How they missed the playoffs after that start is beyond me, as is how they gave up 259 rushing yards to Jamaal Charles . . . in week 17 . . . at home . . . a mile above sea level . . . with the playoffs still a possibility. 2-14 was a bad guess for these guys, but an utter lack of clutchness apparently wasn't.

-GM

GM,

No need to come up with polar-opposite categories the way I see it. After all, the only prediction I completely botched was that Cincinnati would have a Hard Knox season, and we should all agree that was understandable. So here are my categories:

Things I Was Close Enough to Being Right Enough About to Still Brag

1) The Packers and Ravens were my favorites to win their respective divisions. They didn’t do that, but as wildcard teams, they’re clearly the best teams in their divisions right now. Baltimore lost five games in the last minute, and who really thought Brett Favre could take Minnesota to a 10-1 start?

2) Houston had wildcard talent. In fact, that team had division-winning talent. It had no heart, clutchness, late-game sharpness, or killer instinct. The Texans just missed a wildcard spot, but they could have just as easily been 12-4 and currently scaring the mess out of the Bengals this Sunday. As it stands, The Hoody is wondering if the refs will be on his side as they were the last two meetings (one, two) between these two teams.

3) I said Aaron Rodgers was the best quarterback in the NFC North. I still believe it, by the way. Favre is obviously the most popular among them, and he had an incredible year, but take a look here to see how good A-Rod was even though his line didn’t protect him for half of the season.

Things I Want to Be Remembered By

1) I said the NFC North would definitely lead the league in interceptions. Of course Favre disappointed me, but Stafford didn’t and Cutler achieved the exact type of misery I assumed he would. “He’s one of the few NFL quarterbacks who can make every throw,” analysts say of Cutler. Yes, every throw, including those to linebackers, safeties, and cornerbacks.

2) Mark Sanchez was indeed dreadful. He had 12 touchdowns and 20 picks—the worst ratio of anyone who started all year. Somehow, in a league in which the traditional way of winning, strong defense and running game, has become passé (three of the top four rushing teams failed to make the playoffs), the Jets used such a strategy and their schedule (beating two uninspired division winners in the final weeks) to overcome Sanchez’s failures and squeeze into the playoffs. Congrats to Rex Ryan, who will make me laugh for one or two more pressers.

3) Of the Saints, I wrote, “Do not trust this team.” The final games of the season showed that you indeed cannot, even if they did start 13-0. They will not win the Super Bowl, period.

-JW