Losing All Their Money
Do I feel sorry for the folks who lost all their money with Bernie Madoff?
Of course. It's an awful feeling to spend your time being responsible and successful, earn a lot of money, and have it swindled out from under you. Will these people starve? No. They are rich people. They will need to work again, perhaps, start taking the subway again, etc. Not the end of the world.
What I find fascinating (in an awful way) are the mixed responses to the Madoff folks losing money and say, the Enron people losing their money. There is a tendency to feel sorry and pity the Enron people and feel smug about the the Madoff folks losing all their retirement dough. I suppose this is a natural - even rational - feeling, those hardworking middle class folks don't have a second or third home they can sell for cash. But both sets of people were duped in a similar way (although I think both sets bear some responsibility for their own losses since entrusting all your dough in either Enron or one single investment manager can be viewed as unwise).
Nevertheless, resentment towards high performing and earning individuals is a serious danger. The day we let this get the better of us, is the day we won't see great sports performances, great movies, new technological gadgets, great writing, etc. Undoubtedly much American wealth is bullshit - handed down from inheritance, lucky real estate or stock purchases, etc - not earned wealth, but found. But resentment towards this wealth is insane and should the day come when I find myself the beneficiary of good luck or good fortune, I don't want to be hated for it.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Exactly!
VDH on the real meaning of stimulus.
VDH on the real meaning of stimulus.
For just one week we should ban the verb "stimulate" and the noun "stimulus" — and substitute instead the more honest "borrow," or "print," or "debt"
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Making A Move
The A's resign Giambi. It looks like they're making their move on the Angels this year...especially as the Angels weren't able to resign Teixeira or Krod.
The A's resign Giambi. It looks like they're making their move on the Angels this year...especially as the Angels weren't able to resign Teixeira or Krod.
Too Funny
The Onion:
Amsterdam To Shutter Some Coffee Shops, Brothels
In an effort to stem organized crime, Amsterdam announced that it would be closing many of its brothels and marijuana-friendly cafes. What do you think?
Curtis Dunford,
Pilot
"I hope the government provides assistance to those who will be unemployed. Otherwise, some of them might be forced into a life of prostitution or drug-dealing."
The Onion:
Amsterdam To Shutter Some Coffee Shops, Brothels
In an effort to stem organized crime, Amsterdam announced that it would be closing many of its brothels and marijuana-friendly cafes. What do you think?
Curtis Dunford,
Pilot
"I hope the government provides assistance to those who will be unemployed. Otherwise, some of them might be forced into a life of prostitution or drug-dealing."
So Obvious It Bears Repeating
Why is there one standard for Israel and a different for every other country in the world.
Why is there one standard for Israel and a different for every other country in the world.
At the U.N., no surprise, this double-standard is in full force. In response to Israel's attack on Hamas, the Security Council immediately pulled an all-night emergency meeting to consider yet another resolution condemning Israel. Have there been any all-night Security Council sessions held during the seven months when Hamas fired 3,000 rockets at half a million innocent civilians in southern Israel? You can be certain that during those seven months, no midnight oil was burning at the U.N. headquarters over resolutions condemning terrorist organizations like Hamas. But put condemnation of Israel on the agenda and, rain or shine, it's sure to be a full house.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Mike Scifres
A quick note - I always thought the punter was pretty much the least important player on a football team. In general, even if they do good by punting a long way, the other team has a chance at a runback. My opinion was solidified when one year the Eagles punter got injured and their quarterback at the time Randell Cunningham stepped in to punt. He launched a 70 yard punt and at the time, it was one of the longest in NFL history. So yeah, all the NFL punters in history got showed up by a quarterback.
My ideas on punting changed after watching Scifres punt last week. The guy made it into an art and is a big reason the Chargers held the Colts to only 17 points.
A quick note - I always thought the punter was pretty much the least important player on a football team. In general, even if they do good by punting a long way, the other team has a chance at a runback. My opinion was solidified when one year the Eagles punter got injured and their quarterback at the time Randell Cunningham stepped in to punt. He launched a 70 yard punt and at the time, it was one of the longest in NFL history. So yeah, all the NFL punters in history got showed up by a quarterback.
My ideas on punting changed after watching Scifres punt last week. The guy made it into an art and is a big reason the Chargers held the Colts to only 17 points.
The Recipe Can't Always Be Right
Like my middle school friend who claimed his father always won when gambling, Republicans and Democrats can't be right when they say:
Tax cuts stimulate the economy.
Government spending stimulates the economy.
Because if this were true, there would never be any reason not to cut taxes or spend government money. Anyone else wonder why we owe $450,000 per American household in deficit? An article about it.
Like my middle school friend who claimed his father always won when gambling, Republicans and Democrats can't be right when they say:
Tax cuts stimulate the economy.
Government spending stimulates the economy.
Because if this were true, there would never be any reason not to cut taxes or spend government money. Anyone else wonder why we owe $450,000 per American household in deficit? An article about it.
Blagojevich
Not an interesting story to me...but I like Willie Brown's reaction to the situation which amounts to "Yeah. So what? Of course he tried to sell the seat. That's politics, man. Tit for tat. Grow up, people, it's how the game works."
Not an interesting story to me...but I like Willie Brown's reaction to the situation which amounts to "Yeah. So what? Of course he tried to sell the seat. That's politics, man. Tit for tat. Grow up, people, it's how the game works."
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Wrong Question
"Does Israel have a right to exist?" Why is it the only country on the planet this question gets asked about is Israel? Is it simply because their enemies hate them so much?
Seriously. This is the wrong question to ask. Israel exists. Does it have a right to exist? Who cares? Does America have a "right" to exist? Shall we add up the crimes of prior generations and add up to see what countries have a "right" to exist. Surely, if one were to perform such an exercise, North Korea would be first to go. After all, it is a slave state - the individuals by definition are slaves to the state itself and it's fearless leader. In any conception of rights, this constitutes a violation. But so what? North Korea exists and we must deal with it as a nation and a people. Let's not hear anymore of this kind of question.
"Does Israel have a right to exist?" Why is it the only country on the planet this question gets asked about is Israel? Is it simply because their enemies hate them so much?
Seriously. This is the wrong question to ask. Israel exists. Does it have a right to exist? Who cares? Does America have a "right" to exist? Shall we add up the crimes of prior generations and add up to see what countries have a "right" to exist. Surely, if one were to perform such an exercise, North Korea would be first to go. After all, it is a slave state - the individuals by definition are slaves to the state itself and it's fearless leader. In any conception of rights, this constitutes a violation. But so what? North Korea exists and we must deal with it as a nation and a people. Let's not hear anymore of this kind of question.
Liberal Snark
I want royalties on this term because I think it's a winner. One of the byproducts of the Bush administration is a political pose I first witnessed at cocktail parties and now notice has found it's into liberal news coverage. It borrows attitude from the Daily Show and infuses it with a self righteousness, which I presume comes from the numerous failures of the Bush administration. Olberman was the first, but Rachel Maddow is the smoother, more polished version. I call this phenomenon: Liberal Snark.
The first clue you are listening to a Liberal Snark is that you can't shake the feeling they think you're a total idiot. A cocked head, pitying eyes, and a slight frown suggesting "oh, I feel so sorry for you, you actually had a thought, but you're such a stupid, unsophisticated ogre, I can't believe we actually live in the same time period, where were you raised, the Jim Crow South? Did you attend underfunded public schools? No wonder you thought that. You probably don't even know who David Foster Wallace is."
You receive this look should you bother to question not only the basic liberal assumptions - Iraq war was wrong, gay marriage is good, more progressive taxation, no oil drilling, end global warning at all costs, etc, etc - but even if you try to frame the question a bit differently than the way they were taught to answer.
See the Liberal Snark is a different breed than the crazy, Michael Moore unhinged left and definitely different than the no-scruples political insiders like the Clintons. The Liberal Snark went to a great college, most likely private, either Ivy, Liberal Arts, or Stanford and did amazing in class. They detest the idea of fighting and love the idea, but not the practice of "multiculturalism." I imagine a Liberal Snark writes essays that deserve and get an A and are utterly without risk. I imagine they would never cheat on the SAT, but would take the most expensive prep classes to teach them how master the test.
They have tons of answers pre-prepared and toss out the one closest to the question. They make it sound like the powers-that-be are dumb beyond description and scold them as if they were second graders.
I'm wise to snark, people. And I don't buy in. The snark avoids the hard questions because the worst thing for the snark is to sound ill-informed. The Snark is hiding. The Snark mistakes platitudes for wisdom. The Snark is a critic and a person who "after the battle goes to field and shoots the wounded."
I want royalties on this term because I think it's a winner. One of the byproducts of the Bush administration is a political pose I first witnessed at cocktail parties and now notice has found it's into liberal news coverage. It borrows attitude from the Daily Show and infuses it with a self righteousness, which I presume comes from the numerous failures of the Bush administration. Olberman was the first, but Rachel Maddow is the smoother, more polished version. I call this phenomenon: Liberal Snark.
The first clue you are listening to a Liberal Snark is that you can't shake the feeling they think you're a total idiot. A cocked head, pitying eyes, and a slight frown suggesting "oh, I feel so sorry for you, you actually had a thought, but you're such a stupid, unsophisticated ogre, I can't believe we actually live in the same time period, where were you raised, the Jim Crow South? Did you attend underfunded public schools? No wonder you thought that. You probably don't even know who David Foster Wallace is."
You receive this look should you bother to question not only the basic liberal assumptions - Iraq war was wrong, gay marriage is good, more progressive taxation, no oil drilling, end global warning at all costs, etc, etc - but even if you try to frame the question a bit differently than the way they were taught to answer.
See the Liberal Snark is a different breed than the crazy, Michael Moore unhinged left and definitely different than the no-scruples political insiders like the Clintons. The Liberal Snark went to a great college, most likely private, either Ivy, Liberal Arts, or Stanford and did amazing in class. They detest the idea of fighting and love the idea, but not the practice of "multiculturalism." I imagine a Liberal Snark writes essays that deserve and get an A and are utterly without risk. I imagine they would never cheat on the SAT, but would take the most expensive prep classes to teach them how master the test.
They have tons of answers pre-prepared and toss out the one closest to the question. They make it sound like the powers-that-be are dumb beyond description and scold them as if they were second graders.
I'm wise to snark, people. And I don't buy in. The snark avoids the hard questions because the worst thing for the snark is to sound ill-informed. The Snark is hiding. The Snark mistakes platitudes for wisdom. The Snark is a critic and a person who "after the battle goes to field and shoots the wounded."
Revolutionary Road
Hitchens on the novel. It sounds incredibly awful to me. Why do I want to watch miserable people with miserable lives of their own making for 2 plus hours? I can read and watch the Palestinian-Israel conflict or become a divorce attorney or a psycho-therapist if I cared about this shit. In fact, my anti-Revolutionary Road feelings are so heated, I might need to see the movie to get the bitterness out of my system. Who knows, maybe I'll find it brilliant.
Hitchens on the novel. It sounds incredibly awful to me. Why do I want to watch miserable people with miserable lives of their own making for 2 plus hours? I can read and watch the Palestinian-Israel conflict or become a divorce attorney or a psycho-therapist if I cared about this shit. In fact, my anti-Revolutionary Road feelings are so heated, I might need to see the movie to get the bitterness out of my system. Who knows, maybe I'll find it brilliant.
A War on Traffic
I despise traffic and often wondered how with all of our advanced technology, we can't cure this ugly beast.
A simple proposal - charge drivers money based upon the amount of traffic. Very smart idea.
UPDATE: An even smarter idea to alleviate the regressive tax concerns is to credit the money toward car registration in the area, so registration costs less per year.
The biggest problem I see is charging people for traffic accidents, which cause unexpected traffic every day.
I despise traffic and often wondered how with all of our advanced technology, we can't cure this ugly beast.
A simple proposal - charge drivers money based upon the amount of traffic. Very smart idea.
UPDATE: An even smarter idea to alleviate the regressive tax concerns is to credit the money toward car registration in the area, so registration costs less per year.
The biggest problem I see is charging people for traffic accidents, which cause unexpected traffic every day.
Iraq
Anyone actually emboldened by the current state of "victory" in Iraq has got to be a goddamn fool. Iraq should be understood as a lesson about the limits of America's power, the intractable nature of Arab politics, the fickle nature of our allies, the incompetence of our intelligence services, and how highly divided partisan politics make waging war a terribly difficult prospect. There are some good things to come out of Iraq - a model for counterinsurgency, the empowerment of more amenable and reasonable Arab allies than Saddam Hussein (not saying a lot), confirmation Iraq is not a WMD threat, a battle field defeat to Al Queda (needed), training our troops for future fights in asymetric war.
Like almost everything in his life, Bush barely passed his biggest test, and only at the last minute. He made one good call at the end (the surge), fell into a little luck (Anbar Awakening), and through trial and error found the right men for the job - Gates, Crocker, and Patraeus. He was failing for most of the semester, got a B on the final exam and got a gentleman's C. I imagine his academic career was similar and his business career certainly was. The day the man gets out of office, he owes himself a drink.
Anyone actually emboldened by the current state of "victory" in Iraq has got to be a goddamn fool. Iraq should be understood as a lesson about the limits of America's power, the intractable nature of Arab politics, the fickle nature of our allies, the incompetence of our intelligence services, and how highly divided partisan politics make waging war a terribly difficult prospect. There are some good things to come out of Iraq - a model for counterinsurgency, the empowerment of more amenable and reasonable Arab allies than Saddam Hussein (not saying a lot), confirmation Iraq is not a WMD threat, a battle field defeat to Al Queda (needed), training our troops for future fights in asymetric war.
Like almost everything in his life, Bush barely passed his biggest test, and only at the last minute. He made one good call at the end (the surge), fell into a little luck (Anbar Awakening), and through trial and error found the right men for the job - Gates, Crocker, and Patraeus. He was failing for most of the semester, got a B on the final exam and got a gentleman's C. I imagine his academic career was similar and his business career certainly was. The day the man gets out of office, he owes himself a drink.
Hamas
It's rather unuseful to write them off as "crazy," even though they are. The quandary of the 21st century, I believe, will be how to deal with the "crazies" as technology allows them a disproportionate amount of power and access whether it be to WMD or Facebook.
The first step is to figure out why they are shelling Israel.
Possible Reason #1 - They are reacting to some specific Israeli aggression not accurately reported.
Possible Reason #2 - They are acting at the behest of Iran (or the Muslim Brotherhood or Syria or some other client) to test the limit of Israeli patience and military capabilities as a follow up to the Lebanon battle last year.
Possible Reason #3 - They are trying to provoke an Israeli response to distract from their own domestic political problems.
Possible Reason #4 - It is their "reason d entre" or reason to exist, they will shell or otherwise attack Israel for the same reason individuals eat and breathe and procreate.
Possible Reason #5 - They are testing the resolve of Western countries to continue to support the Israeli state by provoking Israel into "disproportionate" response.
I suspect the closest answer is a combination of #3 and #4.
It's rather unuseful to write them off as "crazy," even though they are. The quandary of the 21st century, I believe, will be how to deal with the "crazies" as technology allows them a disproportionate amount of power and access whether it be to WMD or Facebook.
The first step is to figure out why they are shelling Israel.
Possible Reason #1 - They are reacting to some specific Israeli aggression not accurately reported.
Possible Reason #2 - They are acting at the behest of Iran (or the Muslim Brotherhood or Syria or some other client) to test the limit of Israeli patience and military capabilities as a follow up to the Lebanon battle last year.
Possible Reason #3 - They are trying to provoke an Israeli response to distract from their own domestic political problems.
Possible Reason #4 - It is their "reason d entre" or reason to exist, they will shell or otherwise attack Israel for the same reason individuals eat and breathe and procreate.
Possible Reason #5 - They are testing the resolve of Western countries to continue to support the Israeli state by provoking Israel into "disproportionate" response.
I suspect the closest answer is a combination of #3 and #4.
Le Carre
I rather like this self description.
I rather like this self description.
Let me tell you a few things about myself. Not much, but enough. In the old days it was convenient to bill me as a spy turned writer. I was nothing of the kind. I am a writer who, when I was very young, spent a few ineffectual but extremely formative years in British Intelligence.
I never knew my mother till I was 21. I act like a gent but I am wonderfully badly born. My father was a confidence trickster and a gaol bird. Read A Perfect Spy.
I hate the telephone. I can't type. I ply my trade by hand. I live on a Cornish cliff and hate cities. Three days and nights in a city are about my maximum. I don't see many people. I write and walk and swim and drink.
Apart from spying, I have in my time sold bathtowels, got divorced, washed elephants, run away from school, decimated a flock of Welsh sheep with a twenty-five pound shell because I was too stupid to understand the gunnery officer's instructions, taught children in a special school.
I have four sons and twelve grandchildren. It is forty years since I hung up my cloak and dagger. I wrote my first three books while I was a spook; I wrote the next eighteen after I was at large.
A good writer is an expert on nothing except himself. And on that subject, if he is wise, he holds his tongue. Some of you may wonder why I am reluctant to submit to interviews on television and radio and in the press. The answer is that nothing that I write is authentic. It is the stuff of dreams, not reality. Yet I am treated by the media as though I wrote espionage handbooks.
And to a point I am flattered that my fabulations are taken so seriously. Yet I also despise myself in the fake role of guru, since it bears no relation to who I am or what I do. Artists, in my experience, have very little centre. They fake. They are not the real thing. They are spies. I am no exception.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Football Bias Against the Best (West) Coast
At dinner over the break I had to suffer listening to an Italian talk about how the 49ers were one of the worst NFL organizations. Que? If my memory serves, the 49ers share with the Pittsburgh Steelers the crown for most NFL championships with five. The Cowboys are next with four. These are the three best NFL organizations historically. The Giants, Patriots, and Dolphins are very respectable and could arguably be put in the first tier. Below that, the Colts, the Packers, the Bears, the Broncos, and a host of other teams are also good, but not in the first tier. (ps - I'm talking NFL post AFC and the Super Bowl, no ancient history).
Coupled with the bowl and playoff results, there is a phenomenon to explain this lazy thinking - a bias against West Coast Football. Because football is revered in the Midwest and South, it does not follow they are better at it.
Example #1 - The Pac 10. The whole year we had to listen to ESPN and the college football experts berate the Pac 10 as weak. The reason USC wasn't even close to the national championship game was because of their Pac 10 schedule (despite being the best college football organization in ages) and their one loss to a surprisingly good Oregan State team. What happens? The Pac 10 goes 5-0 in bowl games. USC crushes the best Big 10 school, Penn St. To put it in perspective, USC barely played in the 2nd half and still won without breaking a sweat. Oregon beats a top Big 12 school (supposedly a top conference), and Cal takes down a Florida school. Some weakness.
Example #2 - The Chargers. If the Colts won the coin flip and went down to win in OT, the press would saying "I told you so!" Norv Turner sucks! LT is weak and old! San Diego can't win a big game. Instead, they beat the best quarterback in football, the good 'ole boy Peyton Manning two years in a row.
Example #3 - Arizona Cardinals. Prior to the playoffs, the rumor was they were the worst team in playoff history. Now we know they are at least second worst.
Example #4 - Do the math...Ohio State had Texas beat tonight if they knew how to manage the clock. Easy runs over tackles. Go down and run off time and win with a field goal if necessary. But they left too much time on the clock and Texas (barely) came back and won. Texas is a team many though should be playing for the National Championship can barely beat Ohio State. USC beat Ohio State this year, 35-3. Are you kidding me?
Example #5 - The rigged South. Big 12 was the "best" conference this year. Why? Because a whole bunch of their teams were in the top 10 - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, ranked in the top 10 at different times. All these teams loss to one another and it was assumed they were ALL good and beating up on each other. Guess what? Turns out another theory is possible: they were all weak. A systemic bias in the BCS emerged - the whole notion of strength of schedule. What if the teams are tagged incorrectly? What system is there for correction once a bias is put in place? The system got all turned around. The Pac 10 beat up on each other, causing the system to reason the conference was weak and the system reinforced it's own bias as the Big 12 all lost to each other.
Example #6 - Utah. The whole reason we got a BCS system was to allow a team like Utah to compete for the National Championship. They were the only undefeated division 1 team. The logic of the BCS was to get an undisputed national champion. But the way the chips fell this year, with all the big teams suffering a loss, the so many teams were eligible for the #1 slot, it became a toss up. Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Penn St, Texas, Alabama all had as a good a reason as the others to think they could be playing for the championship. Only Utah has an indisputable claim. So what happens? The system uses "strength of schedule," aka bias, to conclude Florida-Oklahoma deserve the game. The consolation - Alabama can whip up on Utah just to prove the system was smart and the two best teams get to play. Only problem was that Utah didn't just beat Alabama in fluke, Boise St, style miracle. They ass-raped Alabama from minute one.
I gotta give props to Florida because those guys show up in bowl games. But do you see how USC wins games? They win while playing shitty and not even using half their talent. Sanchez can't develop into a QB because he doesn't get challenged. I remember in college often times in scrimmage the first team would lose to the backups in practice. The first team had trouble getting pumped up and the back ups would play their hearts out. This is USC every year in every game. It makes them soft, I know. They aren't gutty. But if USC played Florida and I had to bet...I mean, USC's defense allowed 7 points per game this year, it'd be USC for sure, dude. For sure.
And I'd take the 1985 or 1989 Niners over anyone. Period.
At dinner over the break I had to suffer listening to an Italian talk about how the 49ers were one of the worst NFL organizations. Que? If my memory serves, the 49ers share with the Pittsburgh Steelers the crown for most NFL championships with five. The Cowboys are next with four. These are the three best NFL organizations historically. The Giants, Patriots, and Dolphins are very respectable and could arguably be put in the first tier. Below that, the Colts, the Packers, the Bears, the Broncos, and a host of other teams are also good, but not in the first tier. (ps - I'm talking NFL post AFC and the Super Bowl, no ancient history).
Coupled with the bowl and playoff results, there is a phenomenon to explain this lazy thinking - a bias against West Coast Football. Because football is revered in the Midwest and South, it does not follow they are better at it.
Example #1 - The Pac 10. The whole year we had to listen to ESPN and the college football experts berate the Pac 10 as weak. The reason USC wasn't even close to the national championship game was because of their Pac 10 schedule (despite being the best college football organization in ages) and their one loss to a surprisingly good Oregan State team. What happens? The Pac 10 goes 5-0 in bowl games. USC crushes the best Big 10 school, Penn St. To put it in perspective, USC barely played in the 2nd half and still won without breaking a sweat. Oregon beats a top Big 12 school (supposedly a top conference), and Cal takes down a Florida school. Some weakness.
Example #2 - The Chargers. If the Colts won the coin flip and went down to win in OT, the press would saying "I told you so!" Norv Turner sucks! LT is weak and old! San Diego can't win a big game. Instead, they beat the best quarterback in football, the good 'ole boy Peyton Manning two years in a row.
Example #3 - Arizona Cardinals. Prior to the playoffs, the rumor was they were the worst team in playoff history. Now we know they are at least second worst.
Example #4 - Do the math...Ohio State had Texas beat tonight if they knew how to manage the clock. Easy runs over tackles. Go down and run off time and win with a field goal if necessary. But they left too much time on the clock and Texas (barely) came back and won. Texas is a team many though should be playing for the National Championship can barely beat Ohio State. USC beat Ohio State this year, 35-3. Are you kidding me?
Example #5 - The rigged South. Big 12 was the "best" conference this year. Why? Because a whole bunch of their teams were in the top 10 - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, ranked in the top 10 at different times. All these teams loss to one another and it was assumed they were ALL good and beating up on each other. Guess what? Turns out another theory is possible: they were all weak. A systemic bias in the BCS emerged - the whole notion of strength of schedule. What if the teams are tagged incorrectly? What system is there for correction once a bias is put in place? The system got all turned around. The Pac 10 beat up on each other, causing the system to reason the conference was weak and the system reinforced it's own bias as the Big 12 all lost to each other.
Example #6 - Utah. The whole reason we got a BCS system was to allow a team like Utah to compete for the National Championship. They were the only undefeated division 1 team. The logic of the BCS was to get an undisputed national champion. But the way the chips fell this year, with all the big teams suffering a loss, the so many teams were eligible for the #1 slot, it became a toss up. Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Penn St, Texas, Alabama all had as a good a reason as the others to think they could be playing for the championship. Only Utah has an indisputable claim. So what happens? The system uses "strength of schedule," aka bias, to conclude Florida-Oklahoma deserve the game. The consolation - Alabama can whip up on Utah just to prove the system was smart and the two best teams get to play. Only problem was that Utah didn't just beat Alabama in fluke, Boise St, style miracle. They ass-raped Alabama from minute one.
I gotta give props to Florida because those guys show up in bowl games. But do you see how USC wins games? They win while playing shitty and not even using half their talent. Sanchez can't develop into a QB because he doesn't get challenged. I remember in college often times in scrimmage the first team would lose to the backups in practice. The first team had trouble getting pumped up and the back ups would play their hearts out. This is USC every year in every game. It makes them soft, I know. They aren't gutty. But if USC played Florida and I had to bet...I mean, USC's defense allowed 7 points per game this year, it'd be USC for sure, dude. For sure.
And I'd take the 1985 or 1989 Niners over anyone. Period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)