NFL Week 8 Picks
M.D. Wright
10.24.08
Today's big story: I'm an idiot. The end.
I can't even seem to break .500 on any given week anymore. That's just how quirky this crazy league has become. I'm going to go the more "conventional" route and not take any dogs or road teams (unless they're in the Top 5 in the Power Rankings). Let's see how this works out. I need to finish with a few .800 weeks in order to just finish the season .600-.667!
And so, hence, the picks --
Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs. Dallas Cowboys
Texas Stadium
Irving, Texas
The Cowboys are hurting on both sides of the ball -- and consequently, special teams, as Adam Jones has been exiled from the team with his latest "issues". Tony Romo is going to miss another month of the season. The Washington Monument aka Brad Johnson is going to get eaten alive by the Bucs and Giants (and Redskins, should he play in that game) defenses in the coming week. The Cowboys' season is going down the drain VERY quickly right now.
Their defense is awful, also. But if you have been reading me all season, I have said all along they're pedestrian at BEST without DeMarcus Ware. Even with him, they're only average.
The Bucs do all things well. Not great, but well. And they don't make mistakes when Jeff Garcia is starting.
Call:
Tampa Bay 34
Dallas 13
---
Washington Redskins vs. Detroit Lions
Ford Field
Detroit, Michigan
The Redskins won't blink like they did against the Rams and nearly did against the Browns. The Lions couldn't even beat the University of Michigan right now, and that's REALLY sad, because the Wolverines haven't looked this bad in my entire lifetime.
Call:
Washington 41
Detroit 9
---
Buffalo Bills vs. Miami Dolphins
Dolphin Stadium
Miami, Florida
This is going to be a tough game to call. The Bills' defense has been shaky of late, but they haven't collapsed. The Bills' offense is SOLID with Edwards and Lynch, along with Evans, Reed and Parrish. The key will be stopping the Wildcat offense. I think they will. Although real NFL fans remember how badly the Bills were in the 80s and 90s in Miami... these aren't your father's Fins.
Call:
Buffalo 28
Miami 24
---
St. Louis Rams vs. New England Patriots
Gillette Stadium
Foxborough, Massachusetts
People say they are waiting for the other shoe to drop with the Cheatriots. Not making fun of injuries -- not at all -- but it is about to, starting with SS Rodney Harrison's season-ending injury on Monday night. Truth is, they still aren't that good defensively. They're slow, but when they are able to manhandle weak/undersized offensive lines like the Broncos and Rams possess, they're still able to get pressure on the QB. Add to that the fact that the Rams, despite their two wins lately, aren't that good offensively nor defensively (three's a trend in my mind) it's going to be tough for them to go into Foxboro and win.
Call:
St. Louis 17
New England 21
---
Kansas City Chiefs vs. New York Titans-Jets
Giants Stadium at the New Jersey Meadowlands
East Rutherford, New Jersey
The Chiefs are terrible. Without their starting QB and RB, they're worse than that. The Jets aren't good, either, but they should take care of the Chiefs easily... right? They just blew that game vs. OAK (no surprise to me, even though I hate the "Team A historically plays bad in Team B's house corollary -- it's foolish, since none of the players on the current team were there). The Jets SHOULD be better than they are, but when you have B. Favre throwing a couple of passes up for grabs per game and a shaky defense (which SHOULD be better than it has played), you aren't a team that can say "we win the games we're supposed to win". I'm nervous about this pick, honestly. But I will go with logic. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Call:
Kansas City 10
NY Jets 26
---
San Diego Chargers vs. New Orleans Saints.
Wembley Stadium
London, England
I am VERY nervous about this game a) because of the pick being the most iffy of them all this week and b) because my Chargers are on the verge of having to resort to one of their patented 7 or 8 game winning streaks in order to just make the playoffs if they lose this game.
Both teams are playing below expectation/potential, but who breaks out is hard to call. This is the "pick 'em" game of the week. I reserve the right to eliminate this game from my record if it goes completely opposite of the way I call it LOL. I STILL think the Chargers' defense is better than the Saints by a smidge; even though they have logged a ton of miles traveling to Buffalo and now London for road games in consecutive weeks.
Call:
San Diego 38
New Orleans 35
---
Atlanta Falcons vs. Philadelphia Eagles
Lincoln Financial Field
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
My natural, knee-jerk sentiment is to pick whoever is playing the Iggles. You know my hatred for all things Philly (except vintage cheesesteaks and some of the women), and I might be vindicated with picking against them, because the Falcons are pretty good. The Iggles aer rolling the dice putting a nicked-up Westbrook out there -- but if they expect to have any chance to win or make the playoffs, he must play and play WELL. Donovan McNabb isn't very good anymore. Period. Whoever says so is a blind fan or thought he had experienced a "resurgence" when he's put up his best numbers against pitiful defenses in St. Louis and San Francisco this year. The Eagles will certain attempt to blitz rookie Matt Ryan alot, as is their custom, but with RBs Jerrious Norwood and Michael "The Burner" Turner (I need huge fantasy stats this week from you and Roddy White, B!!!) that might not be wise...
Call:
Atlanta 34
Philadelphia 31
---
Arizona Cardinals vs. Carolina Panthers
Bank of America Stadium
Charlotte, North Carolina
The Panthers have been up and down the past three weeks. The common denominator being when they've had to play tough defenses of late, they've struggled -- when playing the Chiefs, they've shined. I still think they're the third or fourth best team in the NFC, but the Cardinals are right behind them. I'm going to go against the grain and say the Cards pull it off. They get Boldin back, and with him, Fitz and Breaston, the Panthers cannot cover them all, along with TE Leonard Pope and stop Tim Hightower (FROM?!?!?! Richmond).
Add to that, the Cards' defense is very underrated... and you have a tough game for Jake Delhomme in the making, my friends.
Call:
Arizona 42
Carolina 31
---
Oakland Raiders vs. Baltimore Ravens
M&T Bank Stadium
Baltimore, Maryland
Oakland does not travel well. Russell is playing poorly on offense. The Raiders' running game is stagnant. The Raiders' defense is sketchy at best (but stepped up to shut down the Jets last week). However, the Ravens can't take advantage of it on offense unless they run the ball more. Expect them to do so, and expect the Ravens' defense to confuse Russell all game long. He may throw 4 INT... (BTW, Ravens are birds that devour everything in sight. They're vultures. JaMarcus Russell will be able to lecture about it at length after this one. Poor guy.
Call:
Oakland 6
Baltimore 20
---
Cincinnati Bengals vs. Houston Texans
Reliant Stadium
Houston, Texas
Okay, so I relent. These ARE your father's Bengals. A terrible QB, WRs that are about to start sulking (1997 it was Carl Pickens, 2008 it is Chad Johnson) and play hard even though they could easily quit and sulk as well (1997 it was Darnay Scott, 2008 it is Touraj Houshmandzadeh) and a defense that looks OK in highlights and has great individual talent, but overall plays badly.
The Texans are playing their 26th straight home game. They feel confident again.
Call:
Cincinnati 17
Houston 30
---
Cleveland Browns vs. Jacksonville Jaguars
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium
Jacksonville, Florida
The Browns are turning into a bad joke very quickly. They mess up the Giants' flow (although it wasn't a bad thing, necessarily) and then lay an egg in the final minutes versus Washington and are about to get trounced in Jacksonville as they fine/suspend their starting TE Kellen Winslow for shining light on hazardous working conditions. Go figure. I hate the Browns even more than I already did, for that.
Jacksonville is steady on both sides of the ball. No big plays made, nor surrendered -- that seems to be their M.O. That means Braylon Edwards will drop 4 passes, but he won't beat anyone deep as he did against the Giants.
Call:
Cleveland 14
Jacksonville 23
---
New York Football Giants vs. Pittsburgh Steelers
Heinz Field
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
*GAME OF THE WEEK*
The Giants are about to find out what they are really made of in their first "true" test of the season. On the road, no less, in a very tough facility to play in. The Steelers seem to be getting it done with smoke and mirrors with a 3rd string RB, shaky offensive line (which will surrender a few sacks this week) and a nicked up secondary (but very good 3-4 defense with the front seven). They will look to confuse Eli Manning and the Giants' offensive line.
However, the Giants have the best offensive line for a reason -- and lead the NFL in rushing. Look for the Giants to employ the Steelers' old M.O. against them (70% rushing, 30% passing, as Roethlisberger did in their Super Bowl season). No one has yet to, nor will, stop the Giants' rushing game (even in the loss, they gained 181 on the ground on less than 30 carries) with a three-headed attack. As long as offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride doesn't lose his mind and have Eli Manning hoisting up 31 passes (his average, FOR SOME REASON, this season), the Giants should win.
But this will be no runaway, unless Roethlisberger gets lazy and fumbles the ball as he gets sacked a half dozen times -- which he most certainly will -- if not more. If the Eagles can do it, best believe the Giants will.
Call:
NY Giants 33
Pittsburgh 27
---
Seattle Seahawks vs. San Francisco 49ers
Candlestick Park
San Francisco, California
Maybe next year boys... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Call:
Seattle 10
San Francisco 6
---
NO SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL THIS WEEK
Indianapolis Colts vs. Tennessee Titans
LP Field
Nashville, Tennessee
The Colts are hard to figure out. They have not looked good all season except the Ravens game -- when Joseph Addai suffered an injury. They won't have him for this game, either. Manning's health is questionable, but the Titans are not a lock to win this game. Again, Kerry Collins is their QB. And I say this is the week that 1) The Titans lose and justify my move of the Giants back to #1 in the Power Rankings and 2) In the process, Collins throws two backbreaking INTs, like he used to do right when Giants fans used to gain confidence in him while he was with us.
Oh yeah, that games-without-surrendering-17-points streak is over, too.
Call:
Indianapolis 24
Tennessee 13
---
More on Tuesday...
As politically incorrect as I wanna be.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
NFL Week 8: Power Rankings
NFL Week 8: Power Rankings
M.D. Wright
10.22.08
Not much has changed in the Top 5, but there is some maneuvering taking place after a few "upsets" this past weekend. I WILL be putting the Giants back on top, because after all, Kerry Collins is the Titans' QB. I say he is going to do them in with at least 2 INT this weekend. Mark my words.
BTW, is there a such thing as an upset in the NFL anymore?
1. New York Football Giants. Granted, they have not looked great the past two weeks, but aside from a fluky blocked field goal, the Giants dominated the 49ers. BTW, I just saw an ad on ESPN2 for NFL Blitz II, and Lawrence Taylor (aka the best defensive player ever in the NFL) was in it. He looks like he can still play in the NFL and he's going to be 50 next year!
2. Tennessee Titans. If they cannot score 20 points even at will now, I cannot put them at #1 now -- nor at the end of the season. They had a great defense in 1999 and the team with the better offense won (albeit only by one yard). That's the difference between them and the Giants right now. Oh yeah, KERRY COLLINS IS THEIR QUARTERBACK.
3. Buffalo Bills. Their only loss came against a very good Cardinal team that people still think is the 1990 Phoenix Cardinals (ask Tony Romo).
4. Pittsburgh Steelers. I put them here because I am not convinced they will be able to 1) run the ball against the Giants this week or 2) stop the Giants' running game.
5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers. They are a complete team. Not great at all, but they get the job done.
6. Washington Redskins. Jason Campbell still has not thrown an INT, but he was not great against Cleveland. Will Portis continue this streak of running the ball for 100 yards and leading the NFL in rushing? LB Marcus Washington has MORE than lost a step -- causing LB London Fletcher to clean up his messes. This was exposed in both their losses and an unnecessarily close game vs. Cleveland on Sunday.
7. Carolina Panthers. I would put them higher, but Jake Delhomme is alot like Eli Manning; prone to lay a rotten egg in any game with no warning as he did against Tampa Bay in Week 6. With their two-headed running game and excellent WR/TE trio, there is no reason the Panthers should have trouble moving the ball. However, every other game or every third game Delhomme blows up inexplicably -- Tampa was not as dominant as the score indicated in their loss.
8. Arizona Cardinals. I have been telling people since LAST YEAR (and I have the emails and blog posts to prove it) to watch out for the Cardinals' defense. SS Adrian Wilson (FROM?!?!?! High Point, NC) is a stalwart, and now that he is 100%, their safety tandem is one of the best, if not THE best in the league. Their linebackers are all active and make plays all over the field. Their defensive line, anchored by nose tackle Darnell Dockett (FROM?!?!?! Florida State) made Tony Romo go crying to Jessica Simpson. Oh, and the offense is the second best in the NFC. They would be higher, but Warner is much like Delhomme and their two losses prove it. Are they due for another this week? They play in Charlotte and these two teams couldn't be more evenly matched.
9. Atlanta Falcons. I have to put them here. They haven't lost to any bad teams and they're suprisingly good.
10. Jacksonville Jaguars. Their record doesn't reflect it, but they are solid. Aside from a sloppy loss to Pittsburgh, they have played reasonably well.
11. Green Bay Packers. More smoke and mirrors, although Rodgers IS playing very well.
12. Chicago Bears. The Bears looked great on Sunday, but they have to put two or three great games together to get back in the top 10.
13. Baltimore Ravens. Throw the record out again. They are very good when they do not ask Flacco to do too much. They are more than capable of winning games strictly with defense and McGahee and Rice in the backfield. It is when McClain gets too many touches and Flacco is imitating Tom Brady that the Ravens get in trouble.
14. Philadelphia Eagles. I hate this team so much. It pains me to even put them this high. However, they are winning; somehow. We will see how they measure up in two weeks.
15. New Orleans Saints. Aside from a very bad loss on Sunday, they aren't as bad as 3-4. I am one of the minority who believes they will play more sound football WITHOUT Reggie Bush. Running the ball is the best way to eliminate some of the eye-popping/game-changing turnovers that have killed the Saints in all their losses.
16. Houston Texans. I believe after their homestand is over, they'll be back in the thick of it.
17. New England Patriots. The old guys are falling by the wayside due to injury. They are about to get exposed in the coming weeks. The fall that many predicted was coming immediately after Brady was injured is on the horizon.
18. Denver Broncos. That already porous defense just got alot worse with their best player on that side of the ball, Champ Bailey and his brother Boss, out for six weeks and the rest of the season, respectively. Offensively, they are going to be in every game, but they cannot stop anyone. They may not be ranked higher than this again this season.
19. Dallas Cowboys. They are falling fast, but they will be alright once Romo comes back. The problem is, they could be 4-5 and no easy games in sight with Tampa, New York Giants and Redskins on deck.
20. San Diego No-So-Super Chargers. Inexplicable loss on Sunday. Tomlinson is injured. He might not be healthy all season, and if that is the case, they are not going to make the playoffs.
21. New York Jets. The Jets are what their record says they are. AVERAGE.
22. Indianapolis Colts. They can't run the ball (Addai) nor stop the run. They'll stay here until they figure it out.
23. Minnesota Vikings. Confusing how Gus Frerotte KILLS their chances to win with FIVE turnovers on Sunday (4 INT) when they only lost 48-41 -- yet the fans boo Tavaris Jackson lustily for the slightest mistake. Frerotte SINGLEHANDEDLY killed their chances to win Sunday. Brad Childress, should he lose his job, better go down with the guy who he chose the man the ship in the first place, if he's going to go down at all -- not with a washed-up has-been!
24. Oakland Raiders. I really believe the Raiders are going to be better... next year. But they are turning the corner offensively. JaMarcus Russell still looks raw (bad).
25. Cleveland Browns. Braylon Edwards should play for the Seattle Seahawks, he'd fit right in with them with all those dropped passes. Along with Derek Anderson's awful play, it's amazing they were able to 1) beat the Giants and 2) even have a chance at beating a Redskins team that DID NOT overlook them. They are insane... in a bad way -- as exemplified by their foolish suspension and fine of TE Kellen Winslow for TELLING THE TRUTH when asked. I don't get it. The Browns will never win anything else again.
26. Miami Dolphins. No more Wildcat! No more Wildcat!
27. Cincinnati Bengals. I keep saying the Bengals aren't that bad (0-7). But that was when Carson Palmer played. Ryan Fitzpatrick looks overwhelmed to even play club football at UNCG.
28. San Francisco 49ers. I said last week that Mike Nolan might lose his job if they lost Sunday. They did. And he lost his job. Singletary gets a pass for the rest of the season. Anything above 5 wins total this year is a bonus for SF.
29. St. Louis Rams. These past two weeks are aberrations: they won basically due to the bounce of the ball against Washington and due to the circus that is known as the Dallas Cowboys -- where their trapeze artist fell off the rope with no net. They were supposed to win that game. I said they would. Let's not get carried away and lift them TOO FAR out of the cellar.
BTW, I finally gave up on Steven Jackson in Fantasy two weeks ago, the trade goes through, effective Week 7 -- what does he do? 160 yds and scores at will? Go figure fantasy football.
30. Seattle Seahawks. They are historically bad. Injuries or not. I couldn't even sit through the first half of their game on Sunday night after witnessing Seneca Wallace miss WIDE OPEN WRs with jump passes that skipped in front of the receivers as if Donovan McNabb threw the passes...
31. Kansas City Chiefs. Herm Edwards and Larry Johnson will be gone by season's end. Their starting QB Brodie Croyle is out for the year. They are going to go 1-15.
32. Detroit Lions. People say there are no winless teams in the NFL. We are witnessing the first team to do it in 32 years. They are NOT going to win a game this year... unless the refs cheat.
M.D. Wright
10.22.08
Not much has changed in the Top 5, but there is some maneuvering taking place after a few "upsets" this past weekend. I WILL be putting the Giants back on top, because after all, Kerry Collins is the Titans' QB. I say he is going to do them in with at least 2 INT this weekend. Mark my words.
BTW, is there a such thing as an upset in the NFL anymore?
1. New York Football Giants. Granted, they have not looked great the past two weeks, but aside from a fluky blocked field goal, the Giants dominated the 49ers. BTW, I just saw an ad on ESPN2 for NFL Blitz II, and Lawrence Taylor (aka the best defensive player ever in the NFL) was in it. He looks like he can still play in the NFL and he's going to be 50 next year!
2. Tennessee Titans. If they cannot score 20 points even at will now, I cannot put them at #1 now -- nor at the end of the season. They had a great defense in 1999 and the team with the better offense won (albeit only by one yard). That's the difference between them and the Giants right now. Oh yeah, KERRY COLLINS IS THEIR QUARTERBACK.
3. Buffalo Bills. Their only loss came against a very good Cardinal team that people still think is the 1990 Phoenix Cardinals (ask Tony Romo).
4. Pittsburgh Steelers. I put them here because I am not convinced they will be able to 1) run the ball against the Giants this week or 2) stop the Giants' running game.
5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers. They are a complete team. Not great at all, but they get the job done.
6. Washington Redskins. Jason Campbell still has not thrown an INT, but he was not great against Cleveland. Will Portis continue this streak of running the ball for 100 yards and leading the NFL in rushing? LB Marcus Washington has MORE than lost a step -- causing LB London Fletcher to clean up his messes. This was exposed in both their losses and an unnecessarily close game vs. Cleveland on Sunday.
7. Carolina Panthers. I would put them higher, but Jake Delhomme is alot like Eli Manning; prone to lay a rotten egg in any game with no warning as he did against Tampa Bay in Week 6. With their two-headed running game and excellent WR/TE trio, there is no reason the Panthers should have trouble moving the ball. However, every other game or every third game Delhomme blows up inexplicably -- Tampa was not as dominant as the score indicated in their loss.
8. Arizona Cardinals. I have been telling people since LAST YEAR (and I have the emails and blog posts to prove it) to watch out for the Cardinals' defense. SS Adrian Wilson (FROM?!?!?! High Point, NC) is a stalwart, and now that he is 100%, their safety tandem is one of the best, if not THE best in the league. Their linebackers are all active and make plays all over the field. Their defensive line, anchored by nose tackle Darnell Dockett (FROM?!?!?! Florida State) made Tony Romo go crying to Jessica Simpson. Oh, and the offense is the second best in the NFC. They would be higher, but Warner is much like Delhomme and their two losses prove it. Are they due for another this week? They play in Charlotte and these two teams couldn't be more evenly matched.
9. Atlanta Falcons. I have to put them here. They haven't lost to any bad teams and they're suprisingly good.
10. Jacksonville Jaguars. Their record doesn't reflect it, but they are solid. Aside from a sloppy loss to Pittsburgh, they have played reasonably well.
11. Green Bay Packers. More smoke and mirrors, although Rodgers IS playing very well.
12. Chicago Bears. The Bears looked great on Sunday, but they have to put two or three great games together to get back in the top 10.
13. Baltimore Ravens. Throw the record out again. They are very good when they do not ask Flacco to do too much. They are more than capable of winning games strictly with defense and McGahee and Rice in the backfield. It is when McClain gets too many touches and Flacco is imitating Tom Brady that the Ravens get in trouble.
14. Philadelphia Eagles. I hate this team so much. It pains me to even put them this high. However, they are winning; somehow. We will see how they measure up in two weeks.
15. New Orleans Saints. Aside from a very bad loss on Sunday, they aren't as bad as 3-4. I am one of the minority who believes they will play more sound football WITHOUT Reggie Bush. Running the ball is the best way to eliminate some of the eye-popping/game-changing turnovers that have killed the Saints in all their losses.
16. Houston Texans. I believe after their homestand is over, they'll be back in the thick of it.
17. New England Patriots. The old guys are falling by the wayside due to injury. They are about to get exposed in the coming weeks. The fall that many predicted was coming immediately after Brady was injured is on the horizon.
18. Denver Broncos. That already porous defense just got alot worse with their best player on that side of the ball, Champ Bailey and his brother Boss, out for six weeks and the rest of the season, respectively. Offensively, they are going to be in every game, but they cannot stop anyone. They may not be ranked higher than this again this season.
19. Dallas Cowboys. They are falling fast, but they will be alright once Romo comes back. The problem is, they could be 4-5 and no easy games in sight with Tampa, New York Giants and Redskins on deck.
20. San Diego No-So-Super Chargers. Inexplicable loss on Sunday. Tomlinson is injured. He might not be healthy all season, and if that is the case, they are not going to make the playoffs.
21. New York Jets. The Jets are what their record says they are. AVERAGE.
22. Indianapolis Colts. They can't run the ball (Addai) nor stop the run. They'll stay here until they figure it out.
23. Minnesota Vikings. Confusing how Gus Frerotte KILLS their chances to win with FIVE turnovers on Sunday (4 INT) when they only lost 48-41 -- yet the fans boo Tavaris Jackson lustily for the slightest mistake. Frerotte SINGLEHANDEDLY killed their chances to win Sunday. Brad Childress, should he lose his job, better go down with the guy who he chose the man the ship in the first place, if he's going to go down at all -- not with a washed-up has-been!
24. Oakland Raiders. I really believe the Raiders are going to be better... next year. But they are turning the corner offensively. JaMarcus Russell still looks raw (bad).
25. Cleveland Browns. Braylon Edwards should play for the Seattle Seahawks, he'd fit right in with them with all those dropped passes. Along with Derek Anderson's awful play, it's amazing they were able to 1) beat the Giants and 2) even have a chance at beating a Redskins team that DID NOT overlook them. They are insane... in a bad way -- as exemplified by their foolish suspension and fine of TE Kellen Winslow for TELLING THE TRUTH when asked. I don't get it. The Browns will never win anything else again.
26. Miami Dolphins. No more Wildcat! No more Wildcat!
27. Cincinnati Bengals. I keep saying the Bengals aren't that bad (0-7). But that was when Carson Palmer played. Ryan Fitzpatrick looks overwhelmed to even play club football at UNCG.
28. San Francisco 49ers. I said last week that Mike Nolan might lose his job if they lost Sunday. They did. And he lost his job. Singletary gets a pass for the rest of the season. Anything above 5 wins total this year is a bonus for SF.
29. St. Louis Rams. These past two weeks are aberrations: they won basically due to the bounce of the ball against Washington and due to the circus that is known as the Dallas Cowboys -- where their trapeze artist fell off the rope with no net. They were supposed to win that game. I said they would. Let's not get carried away and lift them TOO FAR out of the cellar.
BTW, I finally gave up on Steven Jackson in Fantasy two weeks ago, the trade goes through, effective Week 7 -- what does he do? 160 yds and scores at will? Go figure fantasy football.
30. Seattle Seahawks. They are historically bad. Injuries or not. I couldn't even sit through the first half of their game on Sunday night after witnessing Seneca Wallace miss WIDE OPEN WRs with jump passes that skipped in front of the receivers as if Donovan McNabb threw the passes...
31. Kansas City Chiefs. Herm Edwards and Larry Johnson will be gone by season's end. Their starting QB Brodie Croyle is out for the year. They are going to go 1-15.
32. Detroit Lions. People say there are no winless teams in the NFL. We are witnessing the first team to do it in 32 years. They are NOT going to win a game this year... unless the refs cheat.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
When & How To Terminate A Relationship, Pt. II
When & How To Terminate A Relationship, Pt. II
Neil Clark Warren
Terminating a relationship—a romantic relationship—successfully requires enormous skill. Unfortunately both people usually do not agree on how or when this should be done. This is a big part of the problem-that they don't agree.
There are several considerations that relate to successful termination. One of the most important ones has to do with feeling confident that you have waited long enough—that you have given the relationship every chance to demonstrate its long-term quality—that you won't look back and wish like everything that you had waited just a little longer.
In the first part of this five part series we talked about using six months as a general guide for determining how long to work on a new relationship. I believe that, after six months, if things aren't working they probably never will.
Idea Number Two
If the two of you have had some very stormy times you probably don't even need to wait six months. Long enough is long enough when indeed something very unacceptable has happened between the two of you. And what is this unacceptable thing?
First of all, if physical abuse has taken place between the two of you in a dating relationship, think about how much more likely then physical abuse is going to be a part of any future relationship. About the time there is physical abuse between you and a person you are dating, I say back away from that relationship. That's long enough.
I don't condone any kind of physical abuse. In fact, I do a lot of work on radio and television having to do with anger mismanagement and I say to spouses all the time, "If your spouse abuses you, you call 911 and report your spouse." Report this person you're dating.
I don't care if it's a woman or a man because what we know is that the likelihood of repeating abuse in the future is great if indeed there is no intervention by a legal authority. If there is intervention by a legal authority we have so much better chance of rectifying the situation and making it unlikely it will happen again.
If between you and the other person there is loud yelling, I say, I don't like that. As a matter of fact, if I got into a situation with someone in which yelling got out of control, I would wonder if long enough is already long enough. Belligerent behavior of any kind is unacceptable, like intimidation: "If you don't do that, I promise you I'm going to do this to you." I mean, I don't like intimidation like that. That might make me think, "This marriage is going to have a lot of trouble should we ever get married." I might want to back away from that relationship pretty fast.
While I believe that anger mismanagement can be significantly changed, experiences of this mismanagement usually do tremendous damage to a couple's trust level, and repeated experiences are nearly impossible to overcome.
So, if you're in a relationship right now in which there is any physical abuse, in which there is this kind of loud yelling, or in which you feel fearful for your own safety at times and the other person is intimidating, I say it has been long enough. I just want you to move away from that situation as quickly and as well as you can. There's so much likelihood that not only will it continue, but it will continue on a more frequent basis should you get married.
Neil Clark Warren
Terminating a relationship—a romantic relationship—successfully requires enormous skill. Unfortunately both people usually do not agree on how or when this should be done. This is a big part of the problem-that they don't agree.
There are several considerations that relate to successful termination. One of the most important ones has to do with feeling confident that you have waited long enough—that you have given the relationship every chance to demonstrate its long-term quality—that you won't look back and wish like everything that you had waited just a little longer.
In the first part of this five part series we talked about using six months as a general guide for determining how long to work on a new relationship. I believe that, after six months, if things aren't working they probably never will.
Idea Number Two
If the two of you have had some very stormy times you probably don't even need to wait six months. Long enough is long enough when indeed something very unacceptable has happened between the two of you. And what is this unacceptable thing?
First of all, if physical abuse has taken place between the two of you in a dating relationship, think about how much more likely then physical abuse is going to be a part of any future relationship. About the time there is physical abuse between you and a person you are dating, I say back away from that relationship. That's long enough.
I don't condone any kind of physical abuse. In fact, I do a lot of work on radio and television having to do with anger mismanagement and I say to spouses all the time, "If your spouse abuses you, you call 911 and report your spouse." Report this person you're dating.
I don't care if it's a woman or a man because what we know is that the likelihood of repeating abuse in the future is great if indeed there is no intervention by a legal authority. If there is intervention by a legal authority we have so much better chance of rectifying the situation and making it unlikely it will happen again.
If between you and the other person there is loud yelling, I say, I don't like that. As a matter of fact, if I got into a situation with someone in which yelling got out of control, I would wonder if long enough is already long enough. Belligerent behavior of any kind is unacceptable, like intimidation: "If you don't do that, I promise you I'm going to do this to you." I mean, I don't like intimidation like that. That might make me think, "This marriage is going to have a lot of trouble should we ever get married." I might want to back away from that relationship pretty fast.
While I believe that anger mismanagement can be significantly changed, experiences of this mismanagement usually do tremendous damage to a couple's trust level, and repeated experiences are nearly impossible to overcome.
So, if you're in a relationship right now in which there is any physical abuse, in which there is this kind of loud yelling, or in which you feel fearful for your own safety at times and the other person is intimidating, I say it has been long enough. I just want you to move away from that situation as quickly and as well as you can. There's so much likelihood that not only will it continue, but it will continue on a more frequent basis should you get married.
Friday, October 17, 2008
NFL Week 7 Picks
NFL Week 7 Picks
M.D. Wright
10.17.08
The season is breezing by, which is a good thing, because that means the fall 2008 semester is doing the same. May 15, 2009 can't get here soon enough.
I digress.
We are learning more and more about these teams as we approach the halfway point in the season. That does not save me from a streak of awful calls the past few weeks. Let's hope I get back on track this week with my picks.
Week 7
San Diego (Super) Chargers vs. Buffalo Bills
Ralph Wilson Stadium
Orchard Park, New York
The Chargers are coming off a strong performance where they finally showed signs of what everyone expected from them this season. I am still concerned about Tomlinson's health. If that toe does not heal, they cannot beat the absolute best teams in the AFC nor NFC. I really mean it.
The Bills are solid, with a decent running game from RB Marshawn Lynch and their passing game should not miss a beat with the transition from Edwards to Losman and back to Edwards. Buffalo's defense looks a bit porous of late, and I'm not certain the bye will fix that. The Chargers look very strong offensively, and when they're playing like this, no one can beat them.
Call:
San Diego 31
Buffalo 21
---
Minnesota Vikings vs. Chicago Bears
Soldier Field
Chicago, Illinois
Minnesota fans are turning into Eagles fans. Unappreciative of a guy who was learning (Jackson) and overvaluing a has-been's mediocre play (Frerotte) while deceiving themselves that they are a legitimate contender solely because they have Adrian Peterson and a little above-average defense. Yeah, right.
The Bears let one slip away from them last week, and I really believe they will rebound and manhandle the Vikes with their defense.
Minnesota 13
Chicago 24
---
Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Cincinnati Bengals
Paul Brown Stadium
Cincinnati, Ohio
The Steelers are coming off a bye and fighting mad due to a bevy of ridiculous fines from the league raning from CLEAN football plays (Hines Ward), criticisms of the referees (James Harrison accusing the refs of "cheating" which I have been known to do a few thousand times myself in 25 years of watching the NFL) and now Troy Polamalu is going to get one for stating the league's policy of fining guys for benign offenses is making the NFL into a "pansy" league. Way to use a word that had been dormant for years. It has been in my vernacular for years, but I'm really going to start back using it now that I heard Polamalu's comments.
The Bengals are not as bad as their 0-6 record indicates, but with QB Ryan Fitzpatrick in for injured QB Carson Palmer, they don't stand a chance against the Steeler defense. PERIOD.
Call:
Pittsburgh 30
Cincinnati 17
---
Tennessee Titans vs. Kansas City Chiefs
Arrowhead Stadium
Kansas City, Missouri
The Titans are coming off a bye themselves and boast the league's best overall defense. They are stingy. The Chiefs are looking awful, but feeling good because they won a game -- finally. This is going to be ugly. Another shutout?
Call:
Tennessee 20
Kansas City 0
---
Dallas Cowboys vs. St. Louis Rams
Edward Jones Dome
St. Louis, Missouri
The Cowboys catch somewhat of a break by playing the second worst team in the NFL. They better figure out what they are going to do to shore up their shaky defense and their offense situation after QB Tony Romo injured his thumb vs. Arizona last week and WR Roy E. Williams being acquired mid-week. They should win this game, but their next two could, and very well SHOULD BE losses. They should have a sense of urgency in this one.
The Rams aren't any good. They only "beat" the Redskins due to fluky turnovers and field position afforded to them due to those turnovers. But hey, you can't take anything from them. They took advantage. Bad teams usually do not. they still have the worst defense in the NFL.
Call:
Dallas 31
St. Louis 7
---
Baltimore Ravens vs. Miami Dolphins
Dolphin Stadium
Miami, Florida
The Ravens are coming off three straight tough-to-swallow losses. They saw their offense come to life a bit when RB Ray Rice got a few touches and now that QB Troy Smith is healthy, they should place him in the starting lineup, because Joe Flacco, while a good player thus far as a rookie, does not know the system as well as Smith. The defense is as stout as ever and will not be fooled by that "Wildcat" offense (notice how only bad teams resort to using this set-up). The Ravens got backhanded by Peyton Manning last week, but they should rebound well in this one.
The Dolphins should feature more of the aforementioned "Wildcat". How effective will it be? That remains to be seen. Without the gimmicks, they don't stand much of a chance, unless the Ravens continue to be inept at moving the ball in the red zone.
Call:
Baltimore 14
Miami 9
---
San Francisco 49ers vs. New York Football Giants
Giants Stadium at The New Jersey Meadowlands
East Rutherford, New Jersey
The Giants laid an egg on Monday. The whole nation saw it (of course this would be when they do it, so people who hate or are oblivious to the Giants will have more fuel to do so when they argue with Jints fans), but I'm glad they lost now rather than in January or that game in February like another CERTAIN team did. The 49ers don't stand a chance after this week of practice out in Fairfield.
Call:
San Francisco 10
NY Giants 41
---
New Orleans Saints vs. Carolina Panthers
Bank of America Stadium
Charlotte, North Carolina
The Saints are the new Greatest Show on Turf. But unlike those Rams teams of 1999-2002, they don't have the defense to match. The Panthers are bubbling under the radar and playing very well at home thus far. They are just as complete of a team as the Giants and Redskins are. And it will show.
Call:
New Orleans 26
Carolina 37
---
Detroit Lions vs. Houston Texans
Reliant Stadium
Houston, Texas
The Lions are the worst team in the NFL and playing on the road.
Call:
Detroit 6
Houston 34
---
New York Titans-Jets vs. Oakland-Los Angeles-Oakland Raiders
McAfee Coliseum
Oakland, California
The Jets are coming off solid wins and appear to be in good shape to beat the Raiders who look anemic offensively -- with the Raiders having to scale back their offense so that QB JaMarcus Russell can grasp on. That would be enough of a statement, but the Jets aren't guaranteed to win here. They always have a tough time playing Oakland in Oakland. It will be close.
Call:
NY Jets 20
Oakland 17
---
Indianapolis Colts vs. Green Bay Packers
Lambeau Field
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Lambeau used to be a very intimidating place to play beginning this time of the year. It is not anymore. Brett Favre (and his overrated-ness) are not there anymore. The Colts looked great in dismantling the Ravens last week. I expect more of the same, as Manning is healthy and the Packers aren't 100% in their secondary.
The Pack better get their running game figured out VERY SOON if they expect to make the playoffs.
Call:
Indianapolis 35
Green Bay 24
---
Cleveland Browns vs. Washington Redskins
FedEx Field
Landover, Maryland
Both teams are coming off fluky games which should be looked at as aberrations to the norm and not a trend. The Browns "beat" a team that had overlooked them and come out flat, and the Redskins thoroughly dominated the Rams in every facet, but gave the game away in fluky turnovers. I expect the Redskins to restore order. Besides, the Redskins run the ball just as well as the Giants and one of the things the Browns DID NOT do Monday (nor do well at all) is stop the run.
Call:
Cleveland 14
Washington 24
---
Seattle Seahawks vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Raymond James Stadium
Tampa, Florida
*** SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL -- But Without John Madden ***
This could be viewed as two ways for the Bucs. 1) A potential "Trap Game" or 2) a should-be beatdown of a very bad(ly injured) team. With QB Jeff Garcia, there is no quit, so I am leaning toward the latter.
Call:
Seattle 9
Tampa Bay 21
---
Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots
Gillette Stadium
Foxborough, Massachusetts
*** MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ***
The Broncos have yet to tie together two games where they dominate defensively. They manhandled the Buccaneers one week, then laid an egg the next. The Patriots are walking wounded. History says never count them out, but reality (which is what I live in) says that Matt Cassel is not very good and the Pats' defense is leaky. Recipe for disaster with Jay Cutler & Co. coming to town. Could be back to back blowouts for the Cheatriots.
Call:
Denver 41
New England 20
---
M.D. Wright
10.17.08
The season is breezing by, which is a good thing, because that means the fall 2008 semester is doing the same. May 15, 2009 can't get here soon enough.
I digress.
We are learning more and more about these teams as we approach the halfway point in the season. That does not save me from a streak of awful calls the past few weeks. Let's hope I get back on track this week with my picks.
Week 7
San Diego (Super) Chargers vs. Buffalo Bills
Ralph Wilson Stadium
Orchard Park, New York
The Chargers are coming off a strong performance where they finally showed signs of what everyone expected from them this season. I am still concerned about Tomlinson's health. If that toe does not heal, they cannot beat the absolute best teams in the AFC nor NFC. I really mean it.
The Bills are solid, with a decent running game from RB Marshawn Lynch and their passing game should not miss a beat with the transition from Edwards to Losman and back to Edwards. Buffalo's defense looks a bit porous of late, and I'm not certain the bye will fix that. The Chargers look very strong offensively, and when they're playing like this, no one can beat them.
Call:
San Diego 31
Buffalo 21
---
Minnesota Vikings vs. Chicago Bears
Soldier Field
Chicago, Illinois
Minnesota fans are turning into Eagles fans. Unappreciative of a guy who was learning (Jackson) and overvaluing a has-been's mediocre play (Frerotte) while deceiving themselves that they are a legitimate contender solely because they have Adrian Peterson and a little above-average defense. Yeah, right.
The Bears let one slip away from them last week, and I really believe they will rebound and manhandle the Vikes with their defense.
Minnesota 13
Chicago 24
---
Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Cincinnati Bengals
Paul Brown Stadium
Cincinnati, Ohio
The Steelers are coming off a bye and fighting mad due to a bevy of ridiculous fines from the league raning from CLEAN football plays (Hines Ward), criticisms of the referees (James Harrison accusing the refs of "cheating" which I have been known to do a few thousand times myself in 25 years of watching the NFL) and now Troy Polamalu is going to get one for stating the league's policy of fining guys for benign offenses is making the NFL into a "pansy" league. Way to use a word that had been dormant for years. It has been in my vernacular for years, but I'm really going to start back using it now that I heard Polamalu's comments.
The Bengals are not as bad as their 0-6 record indicates, but with QB Ryan Fitzpatrick in for injured QB Carson Palmer, they don't stand a chance against the Steeler defense. PERIOD.
Call:
Pittsburgh 30
Cincinnati 17
---
Tennessee Titans vs. Kansas City Chiefs
Arrowhead Stadium
Kansas City, Missouri
The Titans are coming off a bye themselves and boast the league's best overall defense. They are stingy. The Chiefs are looking awful, but feeling good because they won a game -- finally. This is going to be ugly. Another shutout?
Call:
Tennessee 20
Kansas City 0
---
Dallas Cowboys vs. St. Louis Rams
Edward Jones Dome
St. Louis, Missouri
The Cowboys catch somewhat of a break by playing the second worst team in the NFL. They better figure out what they are going to do to shore up their shaky defense and their offense situation after QB Tony Romo injured his thumb vs. Arizona last week and WR Roy E. Williams being acquired mid-week. They should win this game, but their next two could, and very well SHOULD BE losses. They should have a sense of urgency in this one.
The Rams aren't any good. They only "beat" the Redskins due to fluky turnovers and field position afforded to them due to those turnovers. But hey, you can't take anything from them. They took advantage. Bad teams usually do not. they still have the worst defense in the NFL.
Call:
Dallas 31
St. Louis 7
---
Baltimore Ravens vs. Miami Dolphins
Dolphin Stadium
Miami, Florida
The Ravens are coming off three straight tough-to-swallow losses. They saw their offense come to life a bit when RB Ray Rice got a few touches and now that QB Troy Smith is healthy, they should place him in the starting lineup, because Joe Flacco, while a good player thus far as a rookie, does not know the system as well as Smith. The defense is as stout as ever and will not be fooled by that "Wildcat" offense (notice how only bad teams resort to using this set-up). The Ravens got backhanded by Peyton Manning last week, but they should rebound well in this one.
The Dolphins should feature more of the aforementioned "Wildcat". How effective will it be? That remains to be seen. Without the gimmicks, they don't stand much of a chance, unless the Ravens continue to be inept at moving the ball in the red zone.
Call:
Baltimore 14
Miami 9
---
San Francisco 49ers vs. New York Football Giants
Giants Stadium at The New Jersey Meadowlands
East Rutherford, New Jersey
The Giants laid an egg on Monday. The whole nation saw it (of course this would be when they do it, so people who hate or are oblivious to the Giants will have more fuel to do so when they argue with Jints fans), but I'm glad they lost now rather than in January or that game in February like another CERTAIN team did. The 49ers don't stand a chance after this week of practice out in Fairfield.
Call:
San Francisco 10
NY Giants 41
---
New Orleans Saints vs. Carolina Panthers
Bank of America Stadium
Charlotte, North Carolina
The Saints are the new Greatest Show on Turf. But unlike those Rams teams of 1999-2002, they don't have the defense to match. The Panthers are bubbling under the radar and playing very well at home thus far. They are just as complete of a team as the Giants and Redskins are. And it will show.
Call:
New Orleans 26
Carolina 37
---
Detroit Lions vs. Houston Texans
Reliant Stadium
Houston, Texas
The Lions are the worst team in the NFL and playing on the road.
Call:
Detroit 6
Houston 34
---
New York Titans-Jets vs. Oakland-Los Angeles-Oakland Raiders
McAfee Coliseum
Oakland, California
The Jets are coming off solid wins and appear to be in good shape to beat the Raiders who look anemic offensively -- with the Raiders having to scale back their offense so that QB JaMarcus Russell can grasp on. That would be enough of a statement, but the Jets aren't guaranteed to win here. They always have a tough time playing Oakland in Oakland. It will be close.
Call:
NY Jets 20
Oakland 17
---
Indianapolis Colts vs. Green Bay Packers
Lambeau Field
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Lambeau used to be a very intimidating place to play beginning this time of the year. It is not anymore. Brett Favre (and his overrated-ness) are not there anymore. The Colts looked great in dismantling the Ravens last week. I expect more of the same, as Manning is healthy and the Packers aren't 100% in their secondary.
The Pack better get their running game figured out VERY SOON if they expect to make the playoffs.
Call:
Indianapolis 35
Green Bay 24
---
Cleveland Browns vs. Washington Redskins
FedEx Field
Landover, Maryland
Both teams are coming off fluky games which should be looked at as aberrations to the norm and not a trend. The Browns "beat" a team that had overlooked them and come out flat, and the Redskins thoroughly dominated the Rams in every facet, but gave the game away in fluky turnovers. I expect the Redskins to restore order. Besides, the Redskins run the ball just as well as the Giants and one of the things the Browns DID NOT do Monday (nor do well at all) is stop the run.
Call:
Cleveland 14
Washington 24
---
Seattle Seahawks vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Raymond James Stadium
Tampa, Florida
*** SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL -- But Without John Madden ***
This could be viewed as two ways for the Bucs. 1) A potential "Trap Game" or 2) a should-be beatdown of a very bad(ly injured) team. With QB Jeff Garcia, there is no quit, so I am leaning toward the latter.
Call:
Seattle 9
Tampa Bay 21
---
Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots
Gillette Stadium
Foxborough, Massachusetts
*** MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ***
The Broncos have yet to tie together two games where they dominate defensively. They manhandled the Buccaneers one week, then laid an egg the next. The Patriots are walking wounded. History says never count them out, but reality (which is what I live in) says that Matt Cassel is not very good and the Pats' defense is leaky. Recipe for disaster with Jay Cutler & Co. coming to town. Could be back to back blowouts for the Cheatriots.
Call:
Denver 41
New England 20
---
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
My Retort To The B.S. I've Been Hearing ALOT In My Adult Life...
My Retort To The B.S. I've Been Hearing ALOT In My Adult Life...
M.D. Wright
10.15.08
I ain't gon' have no friends left after I publish this, but I don't care. I love the truth, even if someone speaks it to me and my knees buckle from the jarring hit. The truth is beautiful. I hate political correctness, lies, blame shifting, inferiority complexes (not the people who suffer from them, however) and all the guilt-tripping that I will discuss here. But again, as I said, I may not have any friends once they read it and I'm fine with that. I don't want you around me if you're full of crap and self-hatred (but accusing others of having that same "self-hate" to deflect the focus from their OWN inadequacies and poor self-image). I'm really sick of it and things have gotten worse since I graduated high school.
When I was coming along, there was always this hang-up on skin color. It hasn't gone away now, but it has shifted focus. You hear people say "Dark-skinned/chocolate bruvas is in now..." Back when I was in elementary, middle and the first part of high school (when things shifted) all you heard was "Light skinned dudes are in..." BLAH BLAH BLAH... why does it matter? At the end of the day, all the bull (I'm really trying to not slip back into cursing, because I HAVE been delivered) but all the bull that women talk about favoring a man's inner core, his character, his spirituality/relationship with Jesus Christ takes a back seat to crap like skin color, hair texture and other genetic nonsense that no one truly has 100% control over.
For instance, I have female friends from just about every "race" (I hate the word), ethnicity, many nationalities and just within the Black diaspora itself -- of ALL shades: from see-through/light-bright-but-still-Black to Blue/Black Purple. I have female friends from every end of the spectrum skin color-wise, hair texture-wise (more on that in a moment) and all heights, weights, sizes, what have you... And while I have my own personal preferences, apart from what media and society dictates as "beautiful" (someone's going to be excluded -- so why guilt-trip me because I favor "this" over "that", right? However, one FUNDAMENTAL difference between what my preferences emanate from and the BULLSPIT that I am ranting about is my desires are pure, not birthed from self-hatred or trying to fit into some cookie-cutter image that in and of ITSELF is fleeting!
I digress.
Of those women I speak of from my female friends, I hear them say a LOT of stuff about what they want in a man. This is one of the few times I get completely silent (strategically) and just listen. You cannot learn if you're talking while information is being disseminated. Most of it SOUNDS GOOD, but it doesn't seem to match their actions (in many cases). I won't get personal with it, but I DO listen and observe and it's just not adding up.
And let's be straight here, I don't want to sound like I'm nailing women and leaving men out -- we know men's faults, because we hear about them 1,000 times a day from overhearing conversations on campus, TV shows, magazines and what have you -- plus, I'm talking from my perspective; and since I'm no maricon, I'm focusing on women -- since I have personally had experiences with the things of which I speak.
But my spirit was somewhat grieved when I had read the transcript of an episode of The Tyra Banks Show and this Black woman went on there to tell the WORLD that she married and had children by an Asian man SOLELY to "ensure" that her children would have this elusive (and foolishly-termed) "GOOD HAIR". WHAT?!?!?! What about his character?! What about what kind of father he will be?
This is why I personally get upset, because those qualities and virtues that I possess are always secondary. While I am not complaining, I kind of wonder about certain women who only come at me because they are "curious" about getting with a Black man. I certainly don't mind the attention. What I wonder about is motive; and given my desire to build a healthy relationship -- such motives cannot be the foundation of a healthy relationship -- so I take umbrage with it.
My father is a great man. He has always been there for us. When I was born, things were definitely grimy. Awful conditions, squalor, and I was sickly. Unlike a lot of Black men, HE STAYED and perservered through thick and thin. Things have gotten progressively better over the years, to the point that by high school I was very much privileged (although I loved money too much and became a workaholic/degenerate gambler). There is something to be said for that. I got a lot of my qualities, not genetically, but by emulation.
My mother, who has pushed me like I was training to run for the Kentucky Derby since BEFORE she pushed me out of the womb, has helped shaped me in the ways that a father cannot. I am driven to be excellent in all that I do (not to be better than OTHERS, but to be my best -- I am only in competition with MYSELF; big difference from the hypercompetitive people out there who try to put others down to make themselves look better). All that came from her. I believe that with the combination of the two, I turned out pretty good. How it is it then, that this NEVER gets discussed whenever I am getting to know women? All I hear is stuff about my skin complexion/texture, or my hair texture and all this PHYSICAL stuff; while I LOVE compliments, what about getting to know me for who I am inside, since this is what they CLAIM they want... since this is what they CLAIM they want to see different in a man... not just his money, or his looks or whether or not he is a thug (another hilarious thing is to see cats in Greensboro give me ice grills, walk around acting tough, talking tough and if I took them to three of the 'hoods I've lived in: Harlem, Fort Greene and Newark, they'd turn softer than silly putty in Arizona heat after 10 minutes on the block -- meanwhile, I'm a nice dude, don't start beefs with anyone and try to respect everyone -- including the dudes who run around thinking they got something on me... when I've DONE what they are breaking their necks, selling their souls and stepping all over others to GET TO).
OK, back to what I was saying. Another thing that bugs me is Black womens' infatuation with hair. What's REALLY good, though? Why is this so important? Why are so many still so ignorant to think that everyone's hair texture is the same -- that they hate on each other because of weave, then go perm their own hair... or because a guy's hair isn't as kinky as the next Black man's and rolled up on his neck, that he AUTOMATICALLY has to be "putting something" in his hair? And these are college-educated women who MUST take Biology at some point in life... so SURELY you should know that genetics is not a perfect science. Just like skin complexions, weight, bone density and other things I won't even talk about, EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. Why flock to a guy because of the texture of his hair, and only want to get with him BECAUSE of that (and yes, I have had women say that directly to me)? Or why assume silly things, while not understanding his family tree? Instead of looking for who has "good hair" or who isn't "ughhhhh TOO DARK" why not focus on who would make a great husband, a great supporter, a great provider, a prayer warrior, and MAN WHO LOVES THE LORD and therefore, will respect and value you above rubies (or, in the contemporary sense, above PLATINUM, 28 karat diamonds, Lamborghini whips, mansions, etc.)?
I have heard a lot of those aforementioned female friends make comments about a guy being "too dark". I have heard it said about me, even WHILE some of them made the admission that "otherwise" I am a "nice guy" and "nice looking, to be a dark skinned guy". Well, while I am not bitter or even the least bit upset about that (I just go elsewhere and commisserate with women who appreciate me for me, rather than develop a nasty attitude, blame-shift and guilt-trip those women who try to tear me down, instead of building me up as they SHOULD) I seriously wonder what is behind that sentiment. Again, what does that have to do with my personality and character? Secondly, with MY genetic background, even IF you want to be hung up on skin color, you have no idea how my children will turn out; because I truly thought my mother was white until I was about 7 or 8 years old... but you would not know that I am the product of such parentage just by looking at me. You have to get to know people. Skin color and hair texture hang-ups are stupid -- especially for a group of women who already limit themselves in the dating/marriage pool (by not allowing non-Black men to make themselves available as serious suitors for them, and 10 women clamoring for every 1 good man -- since that is the ratio these days). I just don't understand where the self-hatred comes from. And to top it off, I get guilt-tripped because I decided years ago to not limit myself to just Black or Puerto Rican women. I think it is foolish, that if I am a Christian man, that if God be God and His Word be His Word, that if a woman is a born-again Christian, regardless of where she is from, her skin color, ethnicity, culture, nationality, etc., that it cannot work with God's blessing. I am officially over it now. But I am deeply saddened by women who are like that woman from the Tyra Show, because I KNOW some like that and it goes a long way to answering the ("why aren't you married yet?!?!?!") question that people keep asking me. I never have been and still am not in a rush. I want a real and healthy friendship with a woman who shares the foundational things in common that I value and enough commonalities outside of spiritual things that we can relate. I don't want a twin and I am not idealizing anyone. But ONLY giving Black women a chance, when so many of them refuse to treat you right -- is foolish.
And to those on the "I can't find a man on my level" or "I don't want to take care of a man (aka 'I make more money than him, so even though he's doing his best, I need someone who makes more than me so I'll feel good about myself around my girlfriends') or even "Men are intimidated by my education, income, blah blah blah" -- HOGWASH! BALDERDASH! I have never seen a bigger gaffle ever run in my lifetime than those lines. Enough already. I have seen women like this walk with their noses in the air right past me and some of my friends (who are ALL educated, as I am, and of great reputation, as I do not deal closely with scumbags) and then lay into each other and whine in church or their little groups that "there are no good Black men left..." I just never bought that line and I have seen how such women act around men who they readily discern aren't as educated or making as much money as they are.
But please, please, PLEASE let's stop the self-hate, the poor self-image/blameshifting onto Black men and get back to loving ourselves and who we are. It's not about fitting into an ideal standard of "beauty" or "handsomeness", it's about CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY, and I would LOVE to be complimented (or insulted) on THOSE things for once, rather than physical attributes. I am not perfect and I am not Jesus Christ, but jeez, can I bruva get some love for being a great role model for young men (check) and someone who many older mothers would love to see their daughter with (not going there LOL)? There has to be something said about a guy's personality ALONG WITH -- not ASIDE FROM -- his looks and other physical attributes. We hear women complain about men being hung up on those external things and supposedly not looking inside, but we DO look inward (there just has to be an attraction there FIRST; non-negotiatable. Sorry.)
That Tyra Show transcript pushed me over the edge, because I have been enduring a lot of nonsensical remarks for quite a while and never said anything. THAT woman literally made me throw my hands up and want to throw in the towel!
M.D. Wright
10.15.08
I ain't gon' have no friends left after I publish this, but I don't care. I love the truth, even if someone speaks it to me and my knees buckle from the jarring hit. The truth is beautiful. I hate political correctness, lies, blame shifting, inferiority complexes (not the people who suffer from them, however) and all the guilt-tripping that I will discuss here. But again, as I said, I may not have any friends once they read it and I'm fine with that. I don't want you around me if you're full of crap and self-hatred (but accusing others of having that same "self-hate" to deflect the focus from their OWN inadequacies and poor self-image). I'm really sick of it and things have gotten worse since I graduated high school.
When I was coming along, there was always this hang-up on skin color. It hasn't gone away now, but it has shifted focus. You hear people say "Dark-skinned/chocolate bruvas is in now..." Back when I was in elementary, middle and the first part of high school (when things shifted) all you heard was "Light skinned dudes are in..." BLAH BLAH BLAH... why does it matter? At the end of the day, all the bull (I'm really trying to not slip back into cursing, because I HAVE been delivered) but all the bull that women talk about favoring a man's inner core, his character, his spirituality/relationship with Jesus Christ takes a back seat to crap like skin color, hair texture and other genetic nonsense that no one truly has 100% control over.
For instance, I have female friends from just about every "race" (I hate the word), ethnicity, many nationalities and just within the Black diaspora itself -- of ALL shades: from see-through/light-bright-but-still-Black to Blue/Black Purple. I have female friends from every end of the spectrum skin color-wise, hair texture-wise (more on that in a moment) and all heights, weights, sizes, what have you... And while I have my own personal preferences, apart from what media and society dictates as "beautiful" (someone's going to be excluded -- so why guilt-trip me because I favor "this" over "that", right? However, one FUNDAMENTAL difference between what my preferences emanate from and the BULLSPIT that I am ranting about is my desires are pure, not birthed from self-hatred or trying to fit into some cookie-cutter image that in and of ITSELF is fleeting!
I digress.
Of those women I speak of from my female friends, I hear them say a LOT of stuff about what they want in a man. This is one of the few times I get completely silent (strategically) and just listen. You cannot learn if you're talking while information is being disseminated. Most of it SOUNDS GOOD, but it doesn't seem to match their actions (in many cases). I won't get personal with it, but I DO listen and observe and it's just not adding up.
And let's be straight here, I don't want to sound like I'm nailing women and leaving men out -- we know men's faults, because we hear about them 1,000 times a day from overhearing conversations on campus, TV shows, magazines and what have you -- plus, I'm talking from my perspective; and since I'm no maricon, I'm focusing on women -- since I have personally had experiences with the things of which I speak.
But my spirit was somewhat grieved when I had read the transcript of an episode of The Tyra Banks Show and this Black woman went on there to tell the WORLD that she married and had children by an Asian man SOLELY to "ensure" that her children would have this elusive (and foolishly-termed) "GOOD HAIR". WHAT?!?!?! What about his character?! What about what kind of father he will be?
This is why I personally get upset, because those qualities and virtues that I possess are always secondary. While I am not complaining, I kind of wonder about certain women who only come at me because they are "curious" about getting with a Black man. I certainly don't mind the attention. What I wonder about is motive; and given my desire to build a healthy relationship -- such motives cannot be the foundation of a healthy relationship -- so I take umbrage with it.
My father is a great man. He has always been there for us. When I was born, things were definitely grimy. Awful conditions, squalor, and I was sickly. Unlike a lot of Black men, HE STAYED and perservered through thick and thin. Things have gotten progressively better over the years, to the point that by high school I was very much privileged (although I loved money too much and became a workaholic/degenerate gambler). There is something to be said for that. I got a lot of my qualities, not genetically, but by emulation.
My mother, who has pushed me like I was training to run for the Kentucky Derby since BEFORE she pushed me out of the womb, has helped shaped me in the ways that a father cannot. I am driven to be excellent in all that I do (not to be better than OTHERS, but to be my best -- I am only in competition with MYSELF; big difference from the hypercompetitive people out there who try to put others down to make themselves look better). All that came from her. I believe that with the combination of the two, I turned out pretty good. How it is it then, that this NEVER gets discussed whenever I am getting to know women? All I hear is stuff about my skin complexion/texture, or my hair texture and all this PHYSICAL stuff; while I LOVE compliments, what about getting to know me for who I am inside, since this is what they CLAIM they want... since this is what they CLAIM they want to see different in a man... not just his money, or his looks or whether or not he is a thug (another hilarious thing is to see cats in Greensboro give me ice grills, walk around acting tough, talking tough and if I took them to three of the 'hoods I've lived in: Harlem, Fort Greene and Newark, they'd turn softer than silly putty in Arizona heat after 10 minutes on the block -- meanwhile, I'm a nice dude, don't start beefs with anyone and try to respect everyone -- including the dudes who run around thinking they got something on me... when I've DONE what they are breaking their necks, selling their souls and stepping all over others to GET TO).
OK, back to what I was saying. Another thing that bugs me is Black womens' infatuation with hair. What's REALLY good, though? Why is this so important? Why are so many still so ignorant to think that everyone's hair texture is the same -- that they hate on each other because of weave, then go perm their own hair... or because a guy's hair isn't as kinky as the next Black man's and rolled up on his neck, that he AUTOMATICALLY has to be "putting something" in his hair? And these are college-educated women who MUST take Biology at some point in life... so SURELY you should know that genetics is not a perfect science. Just like skin complexions, weight, bone density and other things I won't even talk about, EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. Why flock to a guy because of the texture of his hair, and only want to get with him BECAUSE of that (and yes, I have had women say that directly to me)? Or why assume silly things, while not understanding his family tree? Instead of looking for who has "good hair" or who isn't "ughhhhh TOO DARK" why not focus on who would make a great husband, a great supporter, a great provider, a prayer warrior, and MAN WHO LOVES THE LORD and therefore, will respect and value you above rubies (or, in the contemporary sense, above PLATINUM, 28 karat diamonds, Lamborghini whips, mansions, etc.)?
I have heard a lot of those aforementioned female friends make comments about a guy being "too dark". I have heard it said about me, even WHILE some of them made the admission that "otherwise" I am a "nice guy" and "nice looking, to be a dark skinned guy". Well, while I am not bitter or even the least bit upset about that (I just go elsewhere and commisserate with women who appreciate me for me, rather than develop a nasty attitude, blame-shift and guilt-trip those women who try to tear me down, instead of building me up as they SHOULD) I seriously wonder what is behind that sentiment. Again, what does that have to do with my personality and character? Secondly, with MY genetic background, even IF you want to be hung up on skin color, you have no idea how my children will turn out; because I truly thought my mother was white until I was about 7 or 8 years old... but you would not know that I am the product of such parentage just by looking at me. You have to get to know people. Skin color and hair texture hang-ups are stupid -- especially for a group of women who already limit themselves in the dating/marriage pool (by not allowing non-Black men to make themselves available as serious suitors for them, and 10 women clamoring for every 1 good man -- since that is the ratio these days). I just don't understand where the self-hatred comes from. And to top it off, I get guilt-tripped because I decided years ago to not limit myself to just Black or Puerto Rican women. I think it is foolish, that if I am a Christian man, that if God be God and His Word be His Word, that if a woman is a born-again Christian, regardless of where she is from, her skin color, ethnicity, culture, nationality, etc., that it cannot work with God's blessing. I am officially over it now. But I am deeply saddened by women who are like that woman from the Tyra Show, because I KNOW some like that and it goes a long way to answering the ("why aren't you married yet?!?!?!") question that people keep asking me. I never have been and still am not in a rush. I want a real and healthy friendship with a woman who shares the foundational things in common that I value and enough commonalities outside of spiritual things that we can relate. I don't want a twin and I am not idealizing anyone. But ONLY giving Black women a chance, when so many of them refuse to treat you right -- is foolish.
And to those on the "I can't find a man on my level" or "I don't want to take care of a man (aka 'I make more money than him, so even though he's doing his best, I need someone who makes more than me so I'll feel good about myself around my girlfriends') or even "Men are intimidated by my education, income, blah blah blah" -- HOGWASH! BALDERDASH! I have never seen a bigger gaffle ever run in my lifetime than those lines. Enough already. I have seen women like this walk with their noses in the air right past me and some of my friends (who are ALL educated, as I am, and of great reputation, as I do not deal closely with scumbags) and then lay into each other and whine in church or their little groups that "there are no good Black men left..." I just never bought that line and I have seen how such women act around men who they readily discern aren't as educated or making as much money as they are.
But please, please, PLEASE let's stop the self-hate, the poor self-image/blameshifting onto Black men and get back to loving ourselves and who we are. It's not about fitting into an ideal standard of "beauty" or "handsomeness", it's about CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY, and I would LOVE to be complimented (or insulted) on THOSE things for once, rather than physical attributes. I am not perfect and I am not Jesus Christ, but jeez, can I bruva get some love for being a great role model for young men (check) and someone who many older mothers would love to see their daughter with (not going there LOL)? There has to be something said about a guy's personality ALONG WITH -- not ASIDE FROM -- his looks and other physical attributes. We hear women complain about men being hung up on those external things and supposedly not looking inside, but we DO look inward (there just has to be an attraction there FIRST; non-negotiatable. Sorry.)
That Tyra Show transcript pushed me over the edge, because I have been enduring a lot of nonsensical remarks for quite a while and never said anything. THAT woman literally made me throw my hands up and want to throw in the towel!
NFL Power Rankings: Week 7
NFL Power Rankings: Week 7
Michael D. Wright
10.15.08
I believe I am going to continue doing these weekly; as ESPN posts their Power Rankings, I'll post mine. Of course there has been a shake up at the top. The Titans go to #1 by default, after the Giants looked uninspired and stiff (no homo) against the Browns.
The Top 5 is pretty much true to form.
1. Tennessee Titans. They are coming off a bye and they'll stay here until Kerry Collins kills them with the INTs he killed the Giants with over five years.
2. New York (Football) Giants. I don't mind the loss. The goal isn't to go undefeated (and have an arrogant locker room/fanbase like the Patriots had last year). The goal is to win the last game. The Giants are still the best team overall in the NFL aside from the egg they laid Monday.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers. I put them here by default, also. Their one loss was against a team that blitzes 80% of the time -- their offensive line was (and still is) in shambles. The fact they've won their last three games is a testament to their tenacity.
4. Buffalo Bills. I was hesitant to put them in the Top 5 last week and did not. This week, they deserve it.
5. Arizona Cardinals. People will point to that 56-pt Jets debacle and think that is more indicative of the Cards than their wins vs. Dallas and Buffalo; which are REALLY more of a barometer of this team. They have the best WR tandem (and trio, with Breaston) in the NFL. The Jet game was an anomaly.
6. Tampa Bay Buccaneers. They are ugly. They win ugly. But they win. That's all that matters. With Garcia in for Griese, they won't commit turnovers -- making them tough to beat. An easy game coming up vs. Dallas, which is missing half its original starting roster should put them 6-2 following that game.
7. Carolina Panthers. They are only here because they just lost to the Bucs. Otherwise, they'd be breathing down the Steelers' necks for 3rd.
8. Washington Redskins. The Redskins get a pass much like the Jints get. They didn't lay the egg that the Giants laid, but a loss to a winless team knocks you down a few spots. PERIOD.
9. Indianapolis Colts. Count me in the camp who believes that Sunday vs. Baltimore signals that they are back.
10. San Diego Chargers. A convincing win against the overrated Patriots helps, but they are going to have to tie more than one game together to be considered true contenders as they expected.
11. Atlanta Falcons. YES, the Falcons. Tell why I should not have them here.
12. Denver Broncos. I hate Denver, and I still think their record causes people to have loftier expectations of them than they should, but we will see over the next four games.
13. Jacksonville Jaguars. Steady, not spectacular, not bad. If there is a such thing as the best of the mediocre teams, the Jags are it.
14. Philadelphia Eagles. The Iggles SHOULD be done if Westbrook can't play effectively. McNabb can have all the resurgence he wants, but without Westbrook, that offense is pedestrian at best.
15. New York Jets. The Jets are making me look bad by winning games I keep picking them to lose. You have to hand it to them, they aren't that bad on defense, and Brett Favre, or Barve, as John Madden would call him, is keeping them in games instead of losing them with his wild INTs... for now, that is.
16. New England Patriots. The Patriots are closer to the team that lost to the Chargers Sunday than the team that won games vs. KC, SF and NYJ -- all of which are very bad to below average teams (including the Jets and what I just said about them).
17. Dallas Cowboys. They were overrated from the get-go, with their defense that does not make big plays outside of DeMarcus Ware. Now half of their starters are either injured or suspended. Adam Jones might be out of the NFL for another couple of years after his latest infraction. Without Romo, they aren't even going to have a fighter's chance vs. defenses in Tampa and New York. They might not even beat the Rams this week. Brad Johnson is steady and Roy E. Williams does his thing, but Johnson might get sacked a half dozen times in TB and NY.
18. New Orleans Saints. I would put them higher, but they are like a huge lion with no teeth, like I said in my preview for Week 6. The offense is scary good, but they can't stop anyone defensively, either. Their record (3-3) is fitting.
19. Baltimore Ravens. Throw out their record. They are a couple of good Troy Smith starts (Flacco isn't ready to lead yet) and Ray Rice-featured games away from being back in the mix. The Steelers may have a tough couple of games vs. CLE and NYG (both potential losses) so the Ravens need to right the ship after three straight tough losses. They are still beasts defensively, despite the IND game.
20. Houston Texans. Again, throw out the record. What you saw Sunday is what this team is capable of.
21. Cleveland Browns. Their backs were against the wall against a team resting on its laurels Sunday. They have another game like that vs. PIT coming, they could get back into the mix as well. They aren't as bad as their previous 1-3 record. Their play Monday was more along the lines of what Browns fans and handicappers such as myself expected.
22. Green Bay Packers. I don't know how they are winning any games or staying in them. Rodgers is good, but that defense is like an old car that hasn't had an oil change in 2 years.
23. Chicago Bears. The loss against Atlanta makes them hard to figure out, which I have said all season.
24. Minnesota Vikings. Notice a trend? If the Lions weren't so abysmally bad, all four NFC North teams would be right here; appropriately the second worst division in the NFL (ahead of the NFC West).
25. Miami Dolphins. Overrated. That Wildcat offense isn't rocket science.
26. Oakland Raiders. They figure to turn the corner soon... right?
27. Cincinnati Bengals. They aren't 0-6 bad, but as Bill Parcells said many years ago -- "You are what your record says you are." There you have it.
28. Kansas City Chiefs. Part of this is me banking on them beating Tennessee this Sunday, but they are dead in the water. Herm Edwards better thank God for his friendship with Carl Peterson as the reason he still has a job.
29. San Francisco 49ers. Mike Nolan could get fired any week now.
30. Seattle Seahawks. Even if you hate Holmgren, Green Bay or Seattle, you have to feel bad that he's going out like this.
31. St. Louis Rams. They have life now. The "win" (aided by fluke turnovers by the Redskins) Sunday rescued them from the basement. They're still horrible, although a win vs. DAL would make them look good and make ME feel good.
32. Detroit Lions. They don't deserve words.
Michael D. Wright
10.15.08
I believe I am going to continue doing these weekly; as ESPN posts their Power Rankings, I'll post mine. Of course there has been a shake up at the top. The Titans go to #1 by default, after the Giants looked uninspired and stiff (no homo) against the Browns.
The Top 5 is pretty much true to form.
1. Tennessee Titans. They are coming off a bye and they'll stay here until Kerry Collins kills them with the INTs he killed the Giants with over five years.
2. New York (Football) Giants. I don't mind the loss. The goal isn't to go undefeated (and have an arrogant locker room/fanbase like the Patriots had last year). The goal is to win the last game. The Giants are still the best team overall in the NFL aside from the egg they laid Monday.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers. I put them here by default, also. Their one loss was against a team that blitzes 80% of the time -- their offensive line was (and still is) in shambles. The fact they've won their last three games is a testament to their tenacity.
4. Buffalo Bills. I was hesitant to put them in the Top 5 last week and did not. This week, they deserve it.
5. Arizona Cardinals. People will point to that 56-pt Jets debacle and think that is more indicative of the Cards than their wins vs. Dallas and Buffalo; which are REALLY more of a barometer of this team. They have the best WR tandem (and trio, with Breaston) in the NFL. The Jet game was an anomaly.
6. Tampa Bay Buccaneers. They are ugly. They win ugly. But they win. That's all that matters. With Garcia in for Griese, they won't commit turnovers -- making them tough to beat. An easy game coming up vs. Dallas, which is missing half its original starting roster should put them 6-2 following that game.
7. Carolina Panthers. They are only here because they just lost to the Bucs. Otherwise, they'd be breathing down the Steelers' necks for 3rd.
8. Washington Redskins. The Redskins get a pass much like the Jints get. They didn't lay the egg that the Giants laid, but a loss to a winless team knocks you down a few spots. PERIOD.
9. Indianapolis Colts. Count me in the camp who believes that Sunday vs. Baltimore signals that they are back.
10. San Diego Chargers. A convincing win against the overrated Patriots helps, but they are going to have to tie more than one game together to be considered true contenders as they expected.
11. Atlanta Falcons. YES, the Falcons. Tell why I should not have them here.
12. Denver Broncos. I hate Denver, and I still think their record causes people to have loftier expectations of them than they should, but we will see over the next four games.
13. Jacksonville Jaguars. Steady, not spectacular, not bad. If there is a such thing as the best of the mediocre teams, the Jags are it.
14. Philadelphia Eagles. The Iggles SHOULD be done if Westbrook can't play effectively. McNabb can have all the resurgence he wants, but without Westbrook, that offense is pedestrian at best.
15. New York Jets. The Jets are making me look bad by winning games I keep picking them to lose. You have to hand it to them, they aren't that bad on defense, and Brett Favre, or Barve, as John Madden would call him, is keeping them in games instead of losing them with his wild INTs... for now, that is.
16. New England Patriots. The Patriots are closer to the team that lost to the Chargers Sunday than the team that won games vs. KC, SF and NYJ -- all of which are very bad to below average teams (including the Jets and what I just said about them).
17. Dallas Cowboys. They were overrated from the get-go, with their defense that does not make big plays outside of DeMarcus Ware. Now half of their starters are either injured or suspended. Adam Jones might be out of the NFL for another couple of years after his latest infraction. Without Romo, they aren't even going to have a fighter's chance vs. defenses in Tampa and New York. They might not even beat the Rams this week. Brad Johnson is steady and Roy E. Williams does his thing, but Johnson might get sacked a half dozen times in TB and NY.
18. New Orleans Saints. I would put them higher, but they are like a huge lion with no teeth, like I said in my preview for Week 6. The offense is scary good, but they can't stop anyone defensively, either. Their record (3-3) is fitting.
19. Baltimore Ravens. Throw out their record. They are a couple of good Troy Smith starts (Flacco isn't ready to lead yet) and Ray Rice-featured games away from being back in the mix. The Steelers may have a tough couple of games vs. CLE and NYG (both potential losses) so the Ravens need to right the ship after three straight tough losses. They are still beasts defensively, despite the IND game.
20. Houston Texans. Again, throw out the record. What you saw Sunday is what this team is capable of.
21. Cleveland Browns. Their backs were against the wall against a team resting on its laurels Sunday. They have another game like that vs. PIT coming, they could get back into the mix as well. They aren't as bad as their previous 1-3 record. Their play Monday was more along the lines of what Browns fans and handicappers such as myself expected.
22. Green Bay Packers. I don't know how they are winning any games or staying in them. Rodgers is good, but that defense is like an old car that hasn't had an oil change in 2 years.
23. Chicago Bears. The loss against Atlanta makes them hard to figure out, which I have said all season.
24. Minnesota Vikings. Notice a trend? If the Lions weren't so abysmally bad, all four NFC North teams would be right here; appropriately the second worst division in the NFL (ahead of the NFC West).
25. Miami Dolphins. Overrated. That Wildcat offense isn't rocket science.
26. Oakland Raiders. They figure to turn the corner soon... right?
27. Cincinnati Bengals. They aren't 0-6 bad, but as Bill Parcells said many years ago -- "You are what your record says you are." There you have it.
28. Kansas City Chiefs. Part of this is me banking on them beating Tennessee this Sunday, but they are dead in the water. Herm Edwards better thank God for his friendship with Carl Peterson as the reason he still has a job.
29. San Francisco 49ers. Mike Nolan could get fired any week now.
30. Seattle Seahawks. Even if you hate Holmgren, Green Bay or Seattle, you have to feel bad that he's going out like this.
31. St. Louis Rams. They have life now. The "win" (aided by fluke turnovers by the Redskins) Sunday rescued them from the basement. They're still horrible, although a win vs. DAL would make them look good and make ME feel good.
32. Detroit Lions. They don't deserve words.
ESPN Power Rankings: Week 7
Rank(LW) TEAM REC COMMENT
1 (2) Titans 5-0-0 It will be a huge surprise if they get burned looking past a trip to KC. But that Monday night in Nashville against the Colts looms large. (PK)
2 (1) Giants 4-1-0 I know this loss to the Browns will cause panic in some circles, but a team's going to have one or two howlers a season. Get it out of the way early. (MM)
3 (5) Steelers 4-1-0 The bye week came at a perfect time for Pittsburgh. Now let's see how good the Steelers can be when healthy. (JW)
4 (8) Bills 4-1-0 With so much wreckage at the top of the power rankings, the Bills' stock went up even though they didn't play. (TG)
5 (3) Redskins 4-2-0 This team didn't suddenly get bad overnight. I think they'll bounce back against a surging Browns team. (MM)
6 (4) Cowboys 4-2-0 Remember when we thought this was the best team in the league? Seems so long ago now. (MM)
7 (13) Buccaneers 4-2-0 Jeff Garcia is back as QB, but the Bucs are winning with defense, special teams. (PY)
8 (11) Colts 3-2-0 Colts could not have made a bigger statement than they did with dismantling of Baltimore. If that's a sign of things to come, it won't be long before they're back near the top of this list. (PK)
9 (14) Cardinals 4-2-0 Defense improved with Adrian Wilson, Bert Berry healthier. Steve Breaston, Tim Hightower impress on offense. (MS)
10 (6) Panthers 4-2-0 Panthers crumbled against Tampa Bay. (PY)
11 (16) Chargers 3-3-0 Are the Chargers ready to fulfill their promise? They looked unbeatable Sunday night against New England. (BW)
12 (7) Broncos 4-2-0 The Denver offense is one of the best in the NFL, but it can't make mistakes like it has in the team's two losses. (BW)
13 (12) Eagles 3-3-0 Why does everyone keep calling this the best 3-3 team in football? They didn't look particularly impressive Sunday against the 49ers. (MM)
14 (17) Jaguars 3-3-0 Considering what they have endured injury-wise and schedule-wise, the Jaguars have done well to position themselves for softer opponents after their bye. (PK)
15 (20) Falcons 4-2-0 No longer a fluke. The Falcons are for real. (PY)
16 (18) Jets 3-2-0 The Jets can make a move with their soft upcoming schedule. Beating the Bengals was first step in post-bye push.(TG)
17 (9) Patriots 3-2-0 The Patriots don't have an extra week to regroup from this blowout like they did their last one. Next up are the Broncos on Monday night. (TG)
18 (22) Saints 3-3-0 Drew Brees for MVP? Saints finally put it all together against Raiders. (PY)
19 (21) Packers 3-3-0 The Packers ran into a team more undermanned than they are in Seattle. (KS)
20 (10) Bears 3-3-0 The Bears have lost late leads in all three losses. Are they unlucky or unable to protect a lead? (KS)
21 (19) Vikings 3-3-0 Two narrow victories have brought the Vikings to a first-place tie in the division. Do they deserve it? (KS)
22 (25) Browns 2-3-0 The Browns are back in the mix after a big win Monday. Will this team live up to preseason expectations? (JW)
23 (15) Ravens 2-3-0 The Ravens are falling behind in the AFC. But the opponents get easier, despite 4 of the next 5 on the road. (JW)
24 (23) Dolphins 2-3-0 A heartbreaking loss to the previously winless Texans derailed the Dolphins, but they might be the most entertaining team in the league. (TG)
25 (24) 49ers 2-4-0 Defensive shortcomings have mystified the 49ers. How about featuring Frank Gore when protecting a lead? (MS)
26 (28) Texans 1-4-0 Finally, something to change the tone. They've got a chance to put together a little streak now. (PK)
27 (26) Seahawks 1-4-0 Mike Holmgren would have been better off taking that sabbatical this season. His team appears finished. (MS)
28 (32) Rams 1-4-0 Jim Haslett restores fire and attitude to the Rams. Rookie Donnie Avery picking up pace. (MS)
29 (27) Raiders 1-4-0 The Tom Cable era began with a forgettable performance. Is this what the Raiders are going to be like the rest of the season? (BW)
30 (29) Chiefs 1-4-0 The Chiefs are coming off their bye week. Did anyone notice they were gone? (BW)
31 (30) Bengals 0-6-0 Picking the Bengals' first win would make good office-pool fodder. (JW)
32 (31) Lions 0-5-0 A patented Lions move: Quarterback Dan Orlovsky steps three feet out of the back of the end zone for a safety -- in a two-point loss. (KS)
1 (2) Titans 5-0-0 It will be a huge surprise if they get burned looking past a trip to KC. But that Monday night in Nashville against the Colts looms large. (PK)
2 (1) Giants 4-1-0 I know this loss to the Browns will cause panic in some circles, but a team's going to have one or two howlers a season. Get it out of the way early. (MM)
3 (5) Steelers 4-1-0 The bye week came at a perfect time for Pittsburgh. Now let's see how good the Steelers can be when healthy. (JW)
4 (8) Bills 4-1-0 With so much wreckage at the top of the power rankings, the Bills' stock went up even though they didn't play. (TG)
5 (3) Redskins 4-2-0 This team didn't suddenly get bad overnight. I think they'll bounce back against a surging Browns team. (MM)
6 (4) Cowboys 4-2-0 Remember when we thought this was the best team in the league? Seems so long ago now. (MM)
7 (13) Buccaneers 4-2-0 Jeff Garcia is back as QB, but the Bucs are winning with defense, special teams. (PY)
8 (11) Colts 3-2-0 Colts could not have made a bigger statement than they did with dismantling of Baltimore. If that's a sign of things to come, it won't be long before they're back near the top of this list. (PK)
9 (14) Cardinals 4-2-0 Defense improved with Adrian Wilson, Bert Berry healthier. Steve Breaston, Tim Hightower impress on offense. (MS)
10 (6) Panthers 4-2-0 Panthers crumbled against Tampa Bay. (PY)
11 (16) Chargers 3-3-0 Are the Chargers ready to fulfill their promise? They looked unbeatable Sunday night against New England. (BW)
12 (7) Broncos 4-2-0 The Denver offense is one of the best in the NFL, but it can't make mistakes like it has in the team's two losses. (BW)
13 (12) Eagles 3-3-0 Why does everyone keep calling this the best 3-3 team in football? They didn't look particularly impressive Sunday against the 49ers. (MM)
14 (17) Jaguars 3-3-0 Considering what they have endured injury-wise and schedule-wise, the Jaguars have done well to position themselves for softer opponents after their bye. (PK)
15 (20) Falcons 4-2-0 No longer a fluke. The Falcons are for real. (PY)
16 (18) Jets 3-2-0 The Jets can make a move with their soft upcoming schedule. Beating the Bengals was first step in post-bye push.(TG)
17 (9) Patriots 3-2-0 The Patriots don't have an extra week to regroup from this blowout like they did their last one. Next up are the Broncos on Monday night. (TG)
18 (22) Saints 3-3-0 Drew Brees for MVP? Saints finally put it all together against Raiders. (PY)
19 (21) Packers 3-3-0 The Packers ran into a team more undermanned than they are in Seattle. (KS)
20 (10) Bears 3-3-0 The Bears have lost late leads in all three losses. Are they unlucky or unable to protect a lead? (KS)
21 (19) Vikings 3-3-0 Two narrow victories have brought the Vikings to a first-place tie in the division. Do they deserve it? (KS)
22 (25) Browns 2-3-0 The Browns are back in the mix after a big win Monday. Will this team live up to preseason expectations? (JW)
23 (15) Ravens 2-3-0 The Ravens are falling behind in the AFC. But the opponents get easier, despite 4 of the next 5 on the road. (JW)
24 (23) Dolphins 2-3-0 A heartbreaking loss to the previously winless Texans derailed the Dolphins, but they might be the most entertaining team in the league. (TG)
25 (24) 49ers 2-4-0 Defensive shortcomings have mystified the 49ers. How about featuring Frank Gore when protecting a lead? (MS)
26 (28) Texans 1-4-0 Finally, something to change the tone. They've got a chance to put together a little streak now. (PK)
27 (26) Seahawks 1-4-0 Mike Holmgren would have been better off taking that sabbatical this season. His team appears finished. (MS)
28 (32) Rams 1-4-0 Jim Haslett restores fire and attitude to the Rams. Rookie Donnie Avery picking up pace. (MS)
29 (27) Raiders 1-4-0 The Tom Cable era began with a forgettable performance. Is this what the Raiders are going to be like the rest of the season? (BW)
30 (29) Chiefs 1-4-0 The Chiefs are coming off their bye week. Did anyone notice they were gone? (BW)
31 (30) Bengals 0-6-0 Picking the Bengals' first win would make good office-pool fodder. (JW)
32 (31) Lions 0-5-0 A patented Lions move: Quarterback Dan Orlovsky steps three feet out of the back of the end zone for a safety -- in a two-point loss. (KS)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
When And How To Terminate A Relationship
When And How To Terminate A Relationship
Neil Clark Warren
eHarmony.com
You've been going with someone for a long time and you're wondering how long you need to continue going with them before you can have enough information to make a real decision, a tough decision, maybe a decision not to continue the relationship at all.
When is long enough long enough?
How do you know when you've given your relationship all the chances it deserves?
I want to tell you that terminating a relationship-a romantic relationship-successfully requires enormous skill. Unfortunately both people usually do not agree on how or when this should be done. This is a big part of the problem-that they don't agree.
There are several considerations that relate to successful termination. One of the most important ones has to do with feeling confident that you have waited long enough, that you have given the relationship every chance to demonstrate its long-term quality, that you won't look back and wish like everything that you had waited just a little longer.
I have developed five ideas about this over the course of my years of seeing people in psychotherapy. Five ideas that may help you know when long enough is indeed long enough to hold on to a dating relationship.
Idea Number One
When you or your dating partner or both of you have been unhappy in your relationship for six months or longer, and you have tried your hardest to work on the specific problems you have identified and there has simply been no progress and you are still very unhappy with each other, I would say you should be pretty certain that you have waited long enough.
It all depends on a lot of variables of course, like:
How outstanding you think this relationship could be?
How dependent are you on this other person?
How important it is for you to keep trying to make this relationship everything you need it to be?
If one or both of you have been unhappy with each other for six months or longer, and you've tried your hardest to work on the problems you have and you're still really unhappy with each other because you've seen little or no progress, then I want to tell you that maybe you need to say, "Well, that's long enough. I've given it my best shot. I've tried my hardest."
People around the country say to me all the time, "Neil, be very careful about telling us to terminate a relationship because we don't have all kinds of candidates in the wings. It isn't like I can say, 'That's long enough for this one. I'll go on to the next one.' There may not be a next one."
I understand that the pool of candidates is too small for a lot of people around the United States today. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what we're going to try to change in the next few years with eharmony, the online relationship service that started as a part of my desire to see my children marry well.
One of the founding principles of eharmony is that the older a person becomes, the less single people they have in their lives. We want to beat this dating pool problem.
Right now I want you to understand one other thing: A bad marriage is a thousand times worse than no marriage at all.
I don't want you getting yourself in a bad marriage, and if time is of the essence, I don't want you to take too much time making the decision. Six months in which you've really tried to do the job of correcting or remediating a relationship may well be enough. That's enough, I think, for you to be able to look back and say, "I gave it my very best effort."
Now, what about this one other thing? What about your looking back and wishing like everything that you would've waited just a little longer? There's always the possibility that you will do that, too.
There's also the possibility that this other person will "shape up" and become the perfect person after you leave. But I have to tell you something: If you've tried for six months and that person hasn't tried to "shape up" and become the perfect person, the odds are very, very high that they won't in the next six months, or the six months after that, or any six-month period for the rest of their lives, because six months is a long time for people to demonstrate their consistency in not doing what is necessary in order to make the relationship work.
More next time!
Neil Clark Warren
eHarmony.com
You've been going with someone for a long time and you're wondering how long you need to continue going with them before you can have enough information to make a real decision, a tough decision, maybe a decision not to continue the relationship at all.
When is long enough long enough?
How do you know when you've given your relationship all the chances it deserves?
I want to tell you that terminating a relationship-a romantic relationship-successfully requires enormous skill. Unfortunately both people usually do not agree on how or when this should be done. This is a big part of the problem-that they don't agree.
There are several considerations that relate to successful termination. One of the most important ones has to do with feeling confident that you have waited long enough, that you have given the relationship every chance to demonstrate its long-term quality, that you won't look back and wish like everything that you had waited just a little longer.
I have developed five ideas about this over the course of my years of seeing people in psychotherapy. Five ideas that may help you know when long enough is indeed long enough to hold on to a dating relationship.
Idea Number One
When you or your dating partner or both of you have been unhappy in your relationship for six months or longer, and you have tried your hardest to work on the specific problems you have identified and there has simply been no progress and you are still very unhappy with each other, I would say you should be pretty certain that you have waited long enough.
It all depends on a lot of variables of course, like:
How outstanding you think this relationship could be?
How dependent are you on this other person?
How important it is for you to keep trying to make this relationship everything you need it to be?
If one or both of you have been unhappy with each other for six months or longer, and you've tried your hardest to work on the problems you have and you're still really unhappy with each other because you've seen little or no progress, then I want to tell you that maybe you need to say, "Well, that's long enough. I've given it my best shot. I've tried my hardest."
People around the country say to me all the time, "Neil, be very careful about telling us to terminate a relationship because we don't have all kinds of candidates in the wings. It isn't like I can say, 'That's long enough for this one. I'll go on to the next one.' There may not be a next one."
I understand that the pool of candidates is too small for a lot of people around the United States today. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what we're going to try to change in the next few years with eharmony, the online relationship service that started as a part of my desire to see my children marry well.
One of the founding principles of eharmony is that the older a person becomes, the less single people they have in their lives. We want to beat this dating pool problem.
Right now I want you to understand one other thing: A bad marriage is a thousand times worse than no marriage at all.
I don't want you getting yourself in a bad marriage, and if time is of the essence, I don't want you to take too much time making the decision. Six months in which you've really tried to do the job of correcting or remediating a relationship may well be enough. That's enough, I think, for you to be able to look back and say, "I gave it my very best effort."
Now, what about this one other thing? What about your looking back and wishing like everything that you would've waited just a little longer? There's always the possibility that you will do that, too.
There's also the possibility that this other person will "shape up" and become the perfect person after you leave. But I have to tell you something: If you've tried for six months and that person hasn't tried to "shape up" and become the perfect person, the odds are very, very high that they won't in the next six months, or the six months after that, or any six-month period for the rest of their lives, because six months is a long time for people to demonstrate their consistency in not doing what is necessary in order to make the relationship work.
More next time!
Friday, October 10, 2008
NFL Week 6 Picks
NFL Week 6 Picks
Michael D. Wright
10.10.08
I'm going to get my picks in earlier this week, in lieu of NC A&T's Homecoming Festivities this weekend. I am definitely not going to have time to assess things tomorrow. So if guys are ruled out for Sunday's games sometime Saturday or at game-time, give me some slack when it comes to picks (i.e. guys like Brian Westbrook and Roddy White).
There should not be that many upsets this week. We are starting to find out who each team is at this point.
I don't have much else to add at this point, let's get to the picks:
Baltimore Ravens vs. Indianapolis Colts
Lucas Oil Stadium
Indianapolis, Indiana
The Ravens have the stingiest defense in the NFL. The Colts have the most benevolent (regardless of DE Dwight Freeney's status for the game). I could look like Adrian Peterson rushing against the Colts. It's going to be tough for either team to score points -- the Colts, because of the Ravens' defense; the Ravens, because... well, they're the Ravens. In a game with a matchup like this, I want to favor the defense, but I still think the Colts will pull it out in the end. They're still looking real Muhammad Ali in 1980, though...
Call:
Baltimore 10
Indianapolis 21
---
Detroit Lions vs. Minnesota Vikings
The Metrodome
Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Lions are battling the Rams for rights to call themselves the worst teams in the NFL. I'm not going to waste any of my 1,500 words on them. The Vikings proved some moxie in New Orleans on Monday. Should be an easy win for them. The Lions are like running over something, thinking it was a nail, looking back to see it was nothing but a twig.
Detroit 6
Minnesota 23
---
Oakland Raiders vs. New Orleans Saints
The Louisiana SuperDome
New Orleans, Louisiana
The Raiders are getting better incrementally. That is not to say that they have "arrived" yet. The Saints are like a toothless lion... much like the Detroit Lions are -- all growl and at the end of the day, might come out of the scuffle with a few scrapes from their offense and a few close calls with their bites -- until you find out they are toothless (i.e. unable to close out games or stop ANYONE). This is one of the few upsets I see brewing. The Raiders defense isn't all that bad, and offensively, as long as they are able to run the ball, they can keep up with the Saints.
Oakland 24
New Orleans 20
---
Cincinnati Bengals vs. New York Jets
Giants Stadium at the New Jersey Meadowlands
East Rutherford, New Jersey
The Bengals aren't QUITE as bad as their 0-5 record may suggest. They are competitive. They have been in every game. Their defense isn't even as bad as it has been the past three years. Their offense (handicapped by QB Carson Palmer's inaccurate throws and banged up throwing arm) is hit-and-miss. They have far too much talent to be playing so spotty. RB Chris Henry's Tiki Barberitis doesn't help, either.
The Jets are getting too much publicity for their 56 points against the Cardinals. True, 56 is 56. However, they ran up the score when game was out of reach and they caught Cards' QB Kurt Warner in one of Those Games he has once a month where everytime he gets sacked he fumbles and he tosses a couple of INTs to boot. The Jets scored defensively a couple of times in that game as well. That is not to take anything from them. Just don't read too much into that; thinking that is more indicative of the Jets. It is not. They are still a 7-9, 8-8 team. I actually think the Bengals will win this game regardless if Carson Palmer plays or not. Yes, I said it.
Call:
Cincinnati 31
NY Jets 27
---
Chicago Bears vs. Atlanta Falcons
The Georgia Dome
Atlanta, Georgia
The Bears are hard to figure out. Their defense isn't. They are KILLERS. As for the offense, QB Kyle Orton isn't just "managing" the offense; he is getting it done. I just do not know how long or how consistently you can count on that. Atlanta's QB is matching him. The running games are similar, although I would give the Bears a bit of an edge running against the Falcons vs. Michael Turner running against the Bears' defense. Stranger things have happened. For the sake of uniformity and consistency with my picks, I'm going to play it safe and take the Bears in a close one here. I am tempted to take the Falcons because John Abraham WILL sack Orton twice. You can mark that down. Will Orton fumble, leading to a TD? That is the question. Points will be hard to come by, which is why such a question is pivotal.
Call:
Chicago 13
Atlanta 9
---
Carolina Panthers vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Raymond James Stadium
Tampa, Florida
The Panthers are bubbling below the surface like an underground rapper who has yet to be signed. No one is mentioning them, because of the Giants' stellar play, the Redskins' resurgence and the Cowboys' annual soap opera. They probably prefer it that way. Makes things easier? They have a consistent leader in QB Jake Delhomme, a two-headed running game which I have written about several times, a tandem of WRs who work off each other and a healthy defense. The Bucs only have a healthy defense. Easy math.
Call:
Carolina 34
Tampa Bay 17
---
St. Louis Rams vs. Washington Redskins
FedEx Field
Landover, Maryland
The Rams are the worst team in the NFL. The Redskins are amongst the top three right now. I know "that's WHY they play the games..." but not in this one.
Call:
St. Louis 13
Washington 28
---
Miami Dolphins vs. Houston Texans
Reliant Stadium
Houston, Texas
Those tricky Dolphins and their Wildcat Offense! For the life of me, I do not know why teams don't just stay in their gaps against this, when they can clearly see there is only one back in the backfield and it isn't the QB. I know my football, so I am not oversimplifying this. The Texans look inept, which is shocking to me. I honestly had them winning 11 games this year, given that they are healthy and in their fourth year in Head Coach Gary Kubiak's offense. Their offensive line just isn't that good (which makes whatever yards RB Steve Slaton gets even more eye-popping; by the way, I'm starting him this week in fantasy -- about to be 5-1 and leading my league... hah)
Neither team has a fearsome defense, although I believe DE Mario Williams should have a field day against rookie LT Jake Long. This is your classic stayaway game. Pick 'em!
Call:
Miami 30
Houston 28
---
Jacksonville Jaguars vs. Denver Broncos
Invesco Field at Mile High
Denver, Colorado
The Jags are an enigma. However, I should not have expected that much from them and their hamheaded offensive philosophy and the loss of DT Marcus Stroud. They're just a little above average. That LITTLE being when their WRs decide to catch the ball. They bend and rarely break on defense, but aside from CB Rasean Mathis, they don't have any playmakers.
The Broncos are night and day when it comes to their offense and defense. Although they looked like the 70s Orange Crush defense against a stodgy offense in Tampa Bay last week, they aren't that good defensively either. QB Jay Cutler should be able to pick apart a Jag defense that is penalty-prone. QB David Garrard CAN do the same to the Broncos, but his WRs are so very inconsistent it is painful to watch. WR Matt Jones COULD lead the NFL in receiving if he would be precise in his cuts and not take plays off. RB Fred Taylor should do his thing, since the Broncos haven't stopped ANYONE on the ground this year (except LaDainian Tomlinson, ironically). This could be high-scoring.
Call:
Jacksonville 31
Denver 41
---
Philadelphia Eagles vs. San Francisco 49ers
Candlestick Park
San Francisco, California
The Eagles got hit with a dose of reality this week. I do not wish injuries on anyone, not even a player that I HATE -- in Brian Westbrook. Not at all. I'm dead serious. I was disheartened to hear about him being out with an ankle and ribs. Most of this vitriol is directed at QB Donovan McNabb, who has obviously moved up to drinking Scotch during training camp, because for whatever reason he TRULY believed the Iggles were made of the same fiber of the Giants, Redskins (and was "embarrassed" because his middle-of-the-road team lost to a legitimate Super Bowl contender? GO FIGURE!) and even Dallas? No way. Not with every single player healthy on that team are they anymore than third in the NFC East. And that THIRD is basically saying that they would have beaten Dallas if all their WRs had been healthy for that game. I did not understand the talk in August and I definitely was vindicated for that belief after these past couple of games.
The 49ers are trying to get Mike Nolan fired. This loss is just another coal on the fire under Nolan's seat. Unfortunate. Nolan is a very good coach, but he's trying to make authentic spaghetti without any sauce with that team. They are game, though.
Call:
Philadelphia 35
San Francisco 24
---
Green Bay Packers vs. Seattle Seahawks
Qwest Field
Seattle, Washington
The Seahawks are in DEEP TROUBLE with all those injuries on offense. Their defense WAS good, but they spend 40 minutes a game on the field. That is never good. The Packers will get back on track here.
Call:
Green Bay 37
Seattle 17
---
Dallas Cowboys vs. Arizona Cardinals
University of Phoenix Stadium
Glendale, Arizona
See, this is one of those games where if I had not heard about WR Anquan Boldin being held out, my pick would have swung dramatically. Do I think Dallas can slow down Arizona even without Boldin? NO WAY. They are slow and as I have said a half dozen times already this year, without DE DeMarcus Ware, they are not even an average defense (which is what they are, despite what their delusional fans think). Sure, I expect Ware to get to QB Kurt Warner a couple of times; as I expect DE Bert Berry to do to Romo. Romo will also try to overdo it and fumble much like he did vs. Cincinnati. However, Boldin being out makes me less BOLD about picking Arizona definitively, as I would have, say, three weeks ago.
Call:
Dallas 38
Arizona 44
---
New England Patriots vs. San Diego (Super) Chargers
Qualcomm Stadium
San Diego, California
* SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL *
The Patriots go to the West Coast for two straight games. The first one, vs. SF was a methodical beatdown in their favor. I believe the Chargers will return that favor (as well as exact revenge -- somewhat; since it is not 100% fulfilling without QB Tom Brady in the game) while RB LaDainian Tomlinson FINALLY puts together a solid game. The Patriots are looking VERRRRRY smoke and mirrors right now. I think the lights, stage and sense of urgency will get the Chargers fired up like they were in the Jet game earlier this year.
Call:
New England 27
San Diego 45
---
New York Football Giants vs. Cleveland Browns
Cleveland Browns Stadium
Cleveland, Ohio
* MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL *
The Browns talked trash all week about stopping the Giants' offense. Please explain the a) validity, b) possibility and c) NEED TO SAY THAT on their part? Once the comments from Browns' DT Corey Williams reached Giants' RB Brandon Jacobs Thursday, things were guaranteed to be hard-hitting Monday. The Giants are the most complete team in the NFL. They feature the best offense, defense (top to bottom, not by the stupid standards that the statisticians use to consider for the #1 spot -- although they are 2nd in points allowed and first in the NFC in everything else). I have already used up too many words dignifying that. The Browns aren't even as good as the Bengals, who they only beat because the Bengals were starting an inept backup.
Call:
NY Giants 51
Cleveland 13
---
Comments Monday.
Michael D. Wright
10.10.08
I'm going to get my picks in earlier this week, in lieu of NC A&T's Homecoming Festivities this weekend. I am definitely not going to have time to assess things tomorrow. So if guys are ruled out for Sunday's games sometime Saturday or at game-time, give me some slack when it comes to picks (i.e. guys like Brian Westbrook and Roddy White).
There should not be that many upsets this week. We are starting to find out who each team is at this point.
I don't have much else to add at this point, let's get to the picks:
Baltimore Ravens vs. Indianapolis Colts
Lucas Oil Stadium
Indianapolis, Indiana
The Ravens have the stingiest defense in the NFL. The Colts have the most benevolent (regardless of DE Dwight Freeney's status for the game). I could look like Adrian Peterson rushing against the Colts. It's going to be tough for either team to score points -- the Colts, because of the Ravens' defense; the Ravens, because... well, they're the Ravens. In a game with a matchup like this, I want to favor the defense, but I still think the Colts will pull it out in the end. They're still looking real Muhammad Ali in 1980, though...
Call:
Baltimore 10
Indianapolis 21
---
Detroit Lions vs. Minnesota Vikings
The Metrodome
Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Lions are battling the Rams for rights to call themselves the worst teams in the NFL. I'm not going to waste any of my 1,500 words on them. The Vikings proved some moxie in New Orleans on Monday. Should be an easy win for them. The Lions are like running over something, thinking it was a nail, looking back to see it was nothing but a twig.
Detroit 6
Minnesota 23
---
Oakland Raiders vs. New Orleans Saints
The Louisiana SuperDome
New Orleans, Louisiana
The Raiders are getting better incrementally. That is not to say that they have "arrived" yet. The Saints are like a toothless lion... much like the Detroit Lions are -- all growl and at the end of the day, might come out of the scuffle with a few scrapes from their offense and a few close calls with their bites -- until you find out they are toothless (i.e. unable to close out games or stop ANYONE). This is one of the few upsets I see brewing. The Raiders defense isn't all that bad, and offensively, as long as they are able to run the ball, they can keep up with the Saints.
Oakland 24
New Orleans 20
---
Cincinnati Bengals vs. New York Jets
Giants Stadium at the New Jersey Meadowlands
East Rutherford, New Jersey
The Bengals aren't QUITE as bad as their 0-5 record may suggest. They are competitive. They have been in every game. Their defense isn't even as bad as it has been the past three years. Their offense (handicapped by QB Carson Palmer's inaccurate throws and banged up throwing arm) is hit-and-miss. They have far too much talent to be playing so spotty. RB Chris Henry's Tiki Barberitis doesn't help, either.
The Jets are getting too much publicity for their 56 points against the Cardinals. True, 56 is 56. However, they ran up the score when game was out of reach and they caught Cards' QB Kurt Warner in one of Those Games he has once a month where everytime he gets sacked he fumbles and he tosses a couple of INTs to boot. The Jets scored defensively a couple of times in that game as well. That is not to take anything from them. Just don't read too much into that; thinking that is more indicative of the Jets. It is not. They are still a 7-9, 8-8 team. I actually think the Bengals will win this game regardless if Carson Palmer plays or not. Yes, I said it.
Call:
Cincinnati 31
NY Jets 27
---
Chicago Bears vs. Atlanta Falcons
The Georgia Dome
Atlanta, Georgia
The Bears are hard to figure out. Their defense isn't. They are KILLERS. As for the offense, QB Kyle Orton isn't just "managing" the offense; he is getting it done. I just do not know how long or how consistently you can count on that. Atlanta's QB is matching him. The running games are similar, although I would give the Bears a bit of an edge running against the Falcons vs. Michael Turner running against the Bears' defense. Stranger things have happened. For the sake of uniformity and consistency with my picks, I'm going to play it safe and take the Bears in a close one here. I am tempted to take the Falcons because John Abraham WILL sack Orton twice. You can mark that down. Will Orton fumble, leading to a TD? That is the question. Points will be hard to come by, which is why such a question is pivotal.
Call:
Chicago 13
Atlanta 9
---
Carolina Panthers vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Raymond James Stadium
Tampa, Florida
The Panthers are bubbling below the surface like an underground rapper who has yet to be signed. No one is mentioning them, because of the Giants' stellar play, the Redskins' resurgence and the Cowboys' annual soap opera. They probably prefer it that way. Makes things easier? They have a consistent leader in QB Jake Delhomme, a two-headed running game which I have written about several times, a tandem of WRs who work off each other and a healthy defense. The Bucs only have a healthy defense. Easy math.
Call:
Carolina 34
Tampa Bay 17
---
St. Louis Rams vs. Washington Redskins
FedEx Field
Landover, Maryland
The Rams are the worst team in the NFL. The Redskins are amongst the top three right now. I know "that's WHY they play the games..." but not in this one.
Call:
St. Louis 13
Washington 28
---
Miami Dolphins vs. Houston Texans
Reliant Stadium
Houston, Texas
Those tricky Dolphins and their Wildcat Offense! For the life of me, I do not know why teams don't just stay in their gaps against this, when they can clearly see there is only one back in the backfield and it isn't the QB. I know my football, so I am not oversimplifying this. The Texans look inept, which is shocking to me. I honestly had them winning 11 games this year, given that they are healthy and in their fourth year in Head Coach Gary Kubiak's offense. Their offensive line just isn't that good (which makes whatever yards RB Steve Slaton gets even more eye-popping; by the way, I'm starting him this week in fantasy -- about to be 5-1 and leading my league... hah)
Neither team has a fearsome defense, although I believe DE Mario Williams should have a field day against rookie LT Jake Long. This is your classic stayaway game. Pick 'em!
Call:
Miami 30
Houston 28
---
Jacksonville Jaguars vs. Denver Broncos
Invesco Field at Mile High
Denver, Colorado
The Jags are an enigma. However, I should not have expected that much from them and their hamheaded offensive philosophy and the loss of DT Marcus Stroud. They're just a little above average. That LITTLE being when their WRs decide to catch the ball. They bend and rarely break on defense, but aside from CB Rasean Mathis, they don't have any playmakers.
The Broncos are night and day when it comes to their offense and defense. Although they looked like the 70s Orange Crush defense against a stodgy offense in Tampa Bay last week, they aren't that good defensively either. QB Jay Cutler should be able to pick apart a Jag defense that is penalty-prone. QB David Garrard CAN do the same to the Broncos, but his WRs are so very inconsistent it is painful to watch. WR Matt Jones COULD lead the NFL in receiving if he would be precise in his cuts and not take plays off. RB Fred Taylor should do his thing, since the Broncos haven't stopped ANYONE on the ground this year (except LaDainian Tomlinson, ironically). This could be high-scoring.
Call:
Jacksonville 31
Denver 41
---
Philadelphia Eagles vs. San Francisco 49ers
Candlestick Park
San Francisco, California
The Eagles got hit with a dose of reality this week. I do not wish injuries on anyone, not even a player that I HATE -- in Brian Westbrook. Not at all. I'm dead serious. I was disheartened to hear about him being out with an ankle and ribs. Most of this vitriol is directed at QB Donovan McNabb, who has obviously moved up to drinking Scotch during training camp, because for whatever reason he TRULY believed the Iggles were made of the same fiber of the Giants, Redskins (and was "embarrassed" because his middle-of-the-road team lost to a legitimate Super Bowl contender? GO FIGURE!) and even Dallas? No way. Not with every single player healthy on that team are they anymore than third in the NFC East. And that THIRD is basically saying that they would have beaten Dallas if all their WRs had been healthy for that game. I did not understand the talk in August and I definitely was vindicated for that belief after these past couple of games.
The 49ers are trying to get Mike Nolan fired. This loss is just another coal on the fire under Nolan's seat. Unfortunate. Nolan is a very good coach, but he's trying to make authentic spaghetti without any sauce with that team. They are game, though.
Call:
Philadelphia 35
San Francisco 24
---
Green Bay Packers vs. Seattle Seahawks
Qwest Field
Seattle, Washington
The Seahawks are in DEEP TROUBLE with all those injuries on offense. Their defense WAS good, but they spend 40 minutes a game on the field. That is never good. The Packers will get back on track here.
Call:
Green Bay 37
Seattle 17
---
Dallas Cowboys vs. Arizona Cardinals
University of Phoenix Stadium
Glendale, Arizona
See, this is one of those games where if I had not heard about WR Anquan Boldin being held out, my pick would have swung dramatically. Do I think Dallas can slow down Arizona even without Boldin? NO WAY. They are slow and as I have said a half dozen times already this year, without DE DeMarcus Ware, they are not even an average defense (which is what they are, despite what their delusional fans think). Sure, I expect Ware to get to QB Kurt Warner a couple of times; as I expect DE Bert Berry to do to Romo. Romo will also try to overdo it and fumble much like he did vs. Cincinnati. However, Boldin being out makes me less BOLD about picking Arizona definitively, as I would have, say, three weeks ago.
Call:
Dallas 38
Arizona 44
---
New England Patriots vs. San Diego (Super) Chargers
Qualcomm Stadium
San Diego, California
* SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL *
The Patriots go to the West Coast for two straight games. The first one, vs. SF was a methodical beatdown in their favor. I believe the Chargers will return that favor (as well as exact revenge -- somewhat; since it is not 100% fulfilling without QB Tom Brady in the game) while RB LaDainian Tomlinson FINALLY puts together a solid game. The Patriots are looking VERRRRRY smoke and mirrors right now. I think the lights, stage and sense of urgency will get the Chargers fired up like they were in the Jet game earlier this year.
Call:
New England 27
San Diego 45
---
New York Football Giants vs. Cleveland Browns
Cleveland Browns Stadium
Cleveland, Ohio
* MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL *
The Browns talked trash all week about stopping the Giants' offense. Please explain the a) validity, b) possibility and c) NEED TO SAY THAT on their part? Once the comments from Browns' DT Corey Williams reached Giants' RB Brandon Jacobs Thursday, things were guaranteed to be hard-hitting Monday. The Giants are the most complete team in the NFL. They feature the best offense, defense (top to bottom, not by the stupid standards that the statisticians use to consider for the #1 spot -- although they are 2nd in points allowed and first in the NFC in everything else). I have already used up too many words dignifying that. The Browns aren't even as good as the Bengals, who they only beat because the Bengals were starting an inept backup.
Call:
NY Giants 51
Cleveland 13
---
Comments Monday.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Summer 2009
Summer 2009
10.9.08
I have quite a few options for next summer after graduation. I truly thank the Lord for that, because these past three years have been rough, coming off six straight years of increasing returns and being in the black with no worries. But hey, when you're doing what is right, satan will come at you and try to derail you; attempting to get you to let go of your faith. Hah.
Anyway, I'm back at it. In reality, I should have moved back to New York last August when I had the opportunity. I'm on first-name terms with the undergrad admissions rep at NYU and could have made the seamless transition. WHAT HAVE YOU...
I just get tired of Greensboro. UNCG isn't bad, but you can't enjoy it to the fullest in a town where you NEED a car. Well, most of you know I have been planning to move back to New York for two years now. I don't want to be taking a flashy car to Harlem. Not concerned about gettin' caught in the gaffle, but insurance is a BEAST. I don't need a car in New York. I know the train and bus lines like the back of my hand (as well as Exile aka Staten Island). I'm torn. But I am going to have to buy a car in the very near future. The past year was okay because my roommate was one of my friends; so I tagged along with him like someone's 12 year old little brother LOL. I'm sick of it.
But yeah, I have several options post-grad:
1. I could move directly after graduation, and begin working immediately (will either be on Wall Street or Midtown), and go directly into law school in September while continuing to work.
2. I could work and put off law school for a year (or two) and just work, dive back into real estate like I did in 2001 and do it for real this time. Acquiring some of the properties I had my eyes on in 212 right now will pay off when this housing market balances out in about 18-24 months. Mark my words. If I am able to swing things next year, by 2011, it's going to be VERY BEAUTIFUL if you own property there.
3. I could study abroad either for Session I or the entire summer in Roma or down in Santurce (so I can finally get up with some of my people!). This is what I have been leaning towards lately, but nothing is concrete right now by ANY means.
4. I could just do law school and my other stuff that I ain't got to talk about and just keep head above water (tired of that; been doing it for three years now -- enough is enough; but it is an option if it comes down to it).
5. OR, I could scrap all of that and go to school in Toronto or Montreal. They pay American students great money to come study there at the graduate level. As I said the other day, The U. (aka University of Miami-Florida) has a great Sports Law program. I have never wanted to live in Miami. I prefer to keep it as what it has always been for me: a great getaway spot for a week or two at a time. Living there would become monotonous after a while. After talking with one of my cousins who is in the same boat in terms of decisions at this point, the Canada option is looking real beautiful right now and of course at the end of the day I can fall back on the original plan of just moving back and work my original plans -- all of which I will never let out of the bag... YAK!!!
10.9.08
I have quite a few options for next summer after graduation. I truly thank the Lord for that, because these past three years have been rough, coming off six straight years of increasing returns and being in the black with no worries. But hey, when you're doing what is right, satan will come at you and try to derail you; attempting to get you to let go of your faith. Hah.
Anyway, I'm back at it. In reality, I should have moved back to New York last August when I had the opportunity. I'm on first-name terms with the undergrad admissions rep at NYU and could have made the seamless transition. WHAT HAVE YOU...
I just get tired of Greensboro. UNCG isn't bad, but you can't enjoy it to the fullest in a town where you NEED a car. Well, most of you know I have been planning to move back to New York for two years now. I don't want to be taking a flashy car to Harlem. Not concerned about gettin' caught in the gaffle, but insurance is a BEAST. I don't need a car in New York. I know the train and bus lines like the back of my hand (as well as Exile aka Staten Island). I'm torn. But I am going to have to buy a car in the very near future. The past year was okay because my roommate was one of my friends; so I tagged along with him like someone's 12 year old little brother LOL. I'm sick of it.
But yeah, I have several options post-grad:
1. I could move directly after graduation, and begin working immediately (will either be on Wall Street or Midtown), and go directly into law school in September while continuing to work.
2. I could work and put off law school for a year (or two) and just work, dive back into real estate like I did in 2001 and do it for real this time. Acquiring some of the properties I had my eyes on in 212 right now will pay off when this housing market balances out in about 18-24 months. Mark my words. If I am able to swing things next year, by 2011, it's going to be VERY BEAUTIFUL if you own property there.
3. I could study abroad either for Session I or the entire summer in Roma or down in Santurce (so I can finally get up with some of my people!). This is what I have been leaning towards lately, but nothing is concrete right now by ANY means.
4. I could just do law school and my other stuff that I ain't got to talk about and just keep head above water (tired of that; been doing it for three years now -- enough is enough; but it is an option if it comes down to it).
5. OR, I could scrap all of that and go to school in Toronto or Montreal. They pay American students great money to come study there at the graduate level. As I said the other day, The U. (aka University of Miami-Florida) has a great Sports Law program. I have never wanted to live in Miami. I prefer to keep it as what it has always been for me: a great getaway spot for a week or two at a time. Living there would become monotonous after a while. After talking with one of my cousins who is in the same boat in terms of decisions at this point, the Canada option is looking real beautiful right now and of course at the end of the day I can fall back on the original plan of just moving back and work my original plans -- all of which I will never let out of the bag... YAK!!!
A Loss That Is Not a Loss, Pt. I
A Loss That Is Not a Loss, Pt. I
Hudson Russell Davis
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
I sing songs when I am lonely, and I cry when it hurts. Yet that which plagues me, my specter, is ephemeral—it lacks substance, lacks shape, and lacks form.
It is a shadow; a longing and expectation fueled by desire and sustained by hope. It makes it difficult for me to explain my sorrow to those who would comfort me in a way that they understand. I mourn a loss that is not a loss—an ambiguous loss.
Psychologists use the term “ambiguous loss” to explain the sorrow all human beings experience in the face of traumatic circumstances and it is everywhere. The mother whose son has been kidnapped pleads with the kidnappers, “Just tell me if my boy is alright!” Ambiguous loss! In New Orleans, they buried the last unclaimed body from Hurricane Katrina on the third anniversary of that disaster and somewhere a family wonders if their loved one is still alive. Ambiguous loss!
The book, Ambiguous Loss: Learning to Live With Unresolved Grief, has been a balm to my soul. Just seeing the title I thought, “That’s it! Finally what I feel has a name. Finally the pain of singleness has some describable grounding.” The single, too, must learn to live with unresolved grief. The chapters made sense for the single life: “Frozen Grief,” “Leaving Without Goodbye,” “Goodbye Without Leaving,” “Mixed Emotions,” “Ups and Downs,” “The Turning Point,” “Making Sense of Ambiguity,” and finally “The Benefit of a Doubt.”
“Frozen Grief” describes a situation in which the loss is unnamed or unnamable. It describes a situation in which the mind considers whether it is right or whether it is time to mourn? “Goodbye Without Leaving” explains the confused sorrow we face when a loved one slips slowly away due to illness or—old age. That person is there, but not there. “Mixed Emotions” correspond to being content but not satisfied. The others are somewhat self-explanatory. All these fall under the heading “ambiguous loss”—a loss that is not a loss and thus difficult to mourn.
For the single, ambiguous loss takes the form of longing for a person who is not there and a family that does not (as yet) exist. The divorced single must face both the longing for what might be and the sorrow of what might have been. Both share the sorrow that is not only difficult to define but difficult to resolve, a loss that is difficult to mourn—a loss that is not a loss.
As with the wife of the soldier who is MIA, singles struggle to keep hope alive, to dream and to keep from growing cynical in the process of waiting. Singles also struggle because, while rejoicing with those who rejoice, they must constantly wonder why their dreams and hopes remain unfulfilled. Growing older, they mourn as though something has escaped their grasp. And yet, because marriage is still possible, because hope still exists, they cannot really say goodbye, cannot really give up or mourn the loss as a loss. It is a loss that is not a loss. Which makes hope a struggle and a proper goodbye—impossible.
There are two reasons, the book suggests, why ambiguous loss is so devastating to a person’s well-being. First: “Perceiving loved ones as present when they are physically gone, or perceiving them as gone when they are physically present, can make people feel helpless and thus more prone to depression, anxiety” (7). Secondly: “The uncertainty prevents people from adjusting to the ambiguity of their loss by reorganizing the roles and rules of their relationships…” This is compounded, the author adds, because “meaningful connections can’t happen if people in the community never validate and ambiguous loss as a traumatic loss” (79).
The first point is true because “the loss is confusing” and because the uncertainty is baffling. The ambiguity paralyzes. We are unable to make sense of the situation. We can’t problem-solve because we do not know whether the problem (the loss) “is final or temporary” (7).
The single, called to “prepare for marriage,” must perceive “loved ones as present” though in reality they are not. So the woman who has, for years, walked the aisle in her head can smell the roses on the pews and hear the wedding march in her ears. Marriage is as real to her as the air she breathes. She can hardly differentiate the possibilities that have been lost to time from what never was. Having never been married, she feels like a widow. How is she to mourn what has never been and who will listen without rebuke?
The man who longs to play ball with his son or know the comfort of his little girl’s arms works as though he is already supporting his family. He saves and plans and prepares and approaches despair at the thought that, for all his responsible planning, he may leave it all to someone other than his posterity. He may not have visualized his wedding but neither did he imagine he would be alone for so long.
There are mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles, mourning children they hoped for by now to have spoiled rotten. We are not alone in our fears of growing old alone. Our parents, too, want to see us cared for and they, too, know the baffling sorrow of ambiguous loss.
All must find a way to store these desires without burying them; to nurture them without allowing them to become household gods—idols. There is an inexplicable loss that is not a loss. There is a sorrow that seems unfounded and yet it is a real sorrow and a real loss—an ambiguous loss that must be mourned.
There are many ways to cope with ambiguous loss but trying to master the confusion, attempting to harness the wind, will lead to disaster and certain depression. Our enemy is not flesh and blood that we cannot throw it to the ground and beat it into submission. Neither can we, by the power of our will, reason it away. For now this confused longing and loss is something we must live with and even thrive within.
“Be still and know that I am God,” means simply, “If you know that I am God you will cease your struggle.” He is God. Let us be still. “God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.” BECAUSE OF THIS “we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea.”
“He lifts his voice, the earth melts.”
“The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.”
“Come and see the works of the LORD … He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth …” and He will make the wars within us to cease.
Our comfort in the midst of ambiguity is the certainty that God sees our need and is concerned. “Indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep” (Psa. 121:4). BECAUSE OF THIS—we can be still. “The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress” (Psa. 46). In this there is no ambiguity.
Hudson Russell Davis was born on a small Island in the West Indies called Dominica, and this is only one reason he does not like cold weather and loves guava. He is a graduate of James Madison University with a B.A. in Graphic Design and earned a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Currently he is a Ph.D. candidate at Saint Louis University studying historical theology. Hudson has worked as a graphic artist and worship leader but expresses himself through poetry, prose, photography, and music. His activities are just about anything outdoors, but tennis is his current passion.
Hudson Russell Davis
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
I sing songs when I am lonely, and I cry when it hurts. Yet that which plagues me, my specter, is ephemeral—it lacks substance, lacks shape, and lacks form.
It is a shadow; a longing and expectation fueled by desire and sustained by hope. It makes it difficult for me to explain my sorrow to those who would comfort me in a way that they understand. I mourn a loss that is not a loss—an ambiguous loss.
Psychologists use the term “ambiguous loss” to explain the sorrow all human beings experience in the face of traumatic circumstances and it is everywhere. The mother whose son has been kidnapped pleads with the kidnappers, “Just tell me if my boy is alright!” Ambiguous loss! In New Orleans, they buried the last unclaimed body from Hurricane Katrina on the third anniversary of that disaster and somewhere a family wonders if their loved one is still alive. Ambiguous loss!
The book, Ambiguous Loss: Learning to Live With Unresolved Grief, has been a balm to my soul. Just seeing the title I thought, “That’s it! Finally what I feel has a name. Finally the pain of singleness has some describable grounding.” The single, too, must learn to live with unresolved grief. The chapters made sense for the single life: “Frozen Grief,” “Leaving Without Goodbye,” “Goodbye Without Leaving,” “Mixed Emotions,” “Ups and Downs,” “The Turning Point,” “Making Sense of Ambiguity,” and finally “The Benefit of a Doubt.”
“Frozen Grief” describes a situation in which the loss is unnamed or unnamable. It describes a situation in which the mind considers whether it is right or whether it is time to mourn? “Goodbye Without Leaving” explains the confused sorrow we face when a loved one slips slowly away due to illness or—old age. That person is there, but not there. “Mixed Emotions” correspond to being content but not satisfied. The others are somewhat self-explanatory. All these fall under the heading “ambiguous loss”—a loss that is not a loss and thus difficult to mourn.
For the single, ambiguous loss takes the form of longing for a person who is not there and a family that does not (as yet) exist. The divorced single must face both the longing for what might be and the sorrow of what might have been. Both share the sorrow that is not only difficult to define but difficult to resolve, a loss that is difficult to mourn—a loss that is not a loss.
As with the wife of the soldier who is MIA, singles struggle to keep hope alive, to dream and to keep from growing cynical in the process of waiting. Singles also struggle because, while rejoicing with those who rejoice, they must constantly wonder why their dreams and hopes remain unfulfilled. Growing older, they mourn as though something has escaped their grasp. And yet, because marriage is still possible, because hope still exists, they cannot really say goodbye, cannot really give up or mourn the loss as a loss. It is a loss that is not a loss. Which makes hope a struggle and a proper goodbye—impossible.
There are two reasons, the book suggests, why ambiguous loss is so devastating to a person’s well-being. First: “Perceiving loved ones as present when they are physically gone, or perceiving them as gone when they are physically present, can make people feel helpless and thus more prone to depression, anxiety” (7). Secondly: “The uncertainty prevents people from adjusting to the ambiguity of their loss by reorganizing the roles and rules of their relationships…” This is compounded, the author adds, because “meaningful connections can’t happen if people in the community never validate and ambiguous loss as a traumatic loss” (79).
The first point is true because “the loss is confusing” and because the uncertainty is baffling. The ambiguity paralyzes. We are unable to make sense of the situation. We can’t problem-solve because we do not know whether the problem (the loss) “is final or temporary” (7).
The single, called to “prepare for marriage,” must perceive “loved ones as present” though in reality they are not. So the woman who has, for years, walked the aisle in her head can smell the roses on the pews and hear the wedding march in her ears. Marriage is as real to her as the air she breathes. She can hardly differentiate the possibilities that have been lost to time from what never was. Having never been married, she feels like a widow. How is she to mourn what has never been and who will listen without rebuke?
The man who longs to play ball with his son or know the comfort of his little girl’s arms works as though he is already supporting his family. He saves and plans and prepares and approaches despair at the thought that, for all his responsible planning, he may leave it all to someone other than his posterity. He may not have visualized his wedding but neither did he imagine he would be alone for so long.
There are mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles, mourning children they hoped for by now to have spoiled rotten. We are not alone in our fears of growing old alone. Our parents, too, want to see us cared for and they, too, know the baffling sorrow of ambiguous loss.
All must find a way to store these desires without burying them; to nurture them without allowing them to become household gods—idols. There is an inexplicable loss that is not a loss. There is a sorrow that seems unfounded and yet it is a real sorrow and a real loss—an ambiguous loss that must be mourned.
There are many ways to cope with ambiguous loss but trying to master the confusion, attempting to harness the wind, will lead to disaster and certain depression. Our enemy is not flesh and blood that we cannot throw it to the ground and beat it into submission. Neither can we, by the power of our will, reason it away. For now this confused longing and loss is something we must live with and even thrive within.
“Be still and know that I am God,” means simply, “If you know that I am God you will cease your struggle.” He is God. Let us be still. “God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.” BECAUSE OF THIS “we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea.”
“He lifts his voice, the earth melts.”
“The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.”
“Come and see the works of the LORD … He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth …” and He will make the wars within us to cease.
Our comfort in the midst of ambiguity is the certainty that God sees our need and is concerned. “Indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep” (Psa. 121:4). BECAUSE OF THIS—we can be still. “The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress” (Psa. 46). In this there is no ambiguity.
Hudson Russell Davis was born on a small Island in the West Indies called Dominica, and this is only one reason he does not like cold weather and loves guava. He is a graduate of James Madison University with a B.A. in Graphic Design and earned a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Currently he is a Ph.D. candidate at Saint Louis University studying historical theology. Hudson has worked as a graphic artist and worship leader but expresses himself through poetry, prose, photography, and music. His activities are just about anything outdoors, but tennis is his current passion.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Tim McCarver Is An Idiot
Tim McCarver Is An Idiot: He Proved It Yet Again - Version 1,723.8
Michael D. Wright
10.8.08
I have never hidden my disdain for Tim McCarver (and Joe Buck, for that matter -- with his anti-New York bias forever shining during NFL and MLB broadcasts... see 2007 NFC Championship Game, 1996-2000 New York Yankees series clinching wins for the Yankees, etc. etc. etc.) but he just loses more and more points everytime he opens his mouth nowadays. We should be remembering him for being a pretty decent catcher from the 1960s and early 1970s. Unless you are 45 or older, you won't do that, sadly.
All most of us will know about McCarver is his annoying broadcasting style ala The Billy Packer School of Pisspoor Broadcasting. How you can manage to piss off the fans of an ENTIRE SPORT for the better part of 20 years is beyond me. What is even more beyond me is how he still has a job (and Joe Buck for that matter). FOX Sports does a great job with their package (no homo) in delivering MLB and NFL. But their "lead" announcers for the Major League Baseball playoffs are awful. Troy Aikman, who is probably the best color analyst right now in the NFL, saves their NFL telecasts when Buck is going off the deep end with his smug, elitist, anti-New York nonsense.
I was APPALLED when McCarver called out my then-idol (forgive me, I was 13, not knowledgeable about the Word of God and idols, etc.) Deion Sanders in 1992, he did not have his facts straight. He was just HATING. Plain and simple. Deion was not even under contract with the Atlanta Falcons; yet he went out and played for them earlier in the day, flew into Pittsburgh to join the Atlanta Braves, who were playing the Pittsburgh Pirates in the MLB National League Championship Series. After the game, Sanders was told what McCarver said, and proceeded to enter the clubhouse and dump Gatorade on McCarver (who was interviewing one of Sanders' Braves teammates post-game) Harry Carson/Carl Banks-style. HE DESERVED IT. Anyone who supported what McCarver -- who is known to belabor what he THINKS is true for as long as an hour during a baseball game, thereby dominating the telecast and taking the focus from the GAME itself -- is a meathead. I will not argue this.
I was 13 when this Sanders-McCarver thing occurred. McCarver remarked, "You're a real man, Deion, I'll tell you that..." Yeah, and you were mad that your bull got to Sanders before you could sneak out of town unscathed too, huh? Man I hate Tim McCarver.
THEN, I go on espn.com earlier this afternoon and read/hear what he said about my boy Manny Ramirez. Sure, everyone knows that at times Manny does not play 100% (his half-hearted effort is better than 95% of the guys in Baseball's BEST EFFORTS, by the way -- the man hit .347 with a near .500 On-Base Percentage when he was supposedly "not trying" -- most guys in the league would kill for those numbers; Manny does it half-asleep). Everyone knows that Manny is an eccentric. But this clown McCarver goes out of his way to talk trash about Manny (while throwing a few bigoted subliminals at Randy Moss -- what does he have to do with this? He made one statement and no one can cite evidence other than one questionable time where Moss ever "took plays off" -- and mentioning Terrell Owens, who NEVER does. You can hate Owens if you want, but you cannot claim he is a slacker on the field).
Screw McCarver.
Michael D. Wright
10.8.08
I have never hidden my disdain for Tim McCarver (and Joe Buck, for that matter -- with his anti-New York bias forever shining during NFL and MLB broadcasts... see 2007 NFC Championship Game, 1996-2000 New York Yankees series clinching wins for the Yankees, etc. etc. etc.) but he just loses more and more points everytime he opens his mouth nowadays. We should be remembering him for being a pretty decent catcher from the 1960s and early 1970s. Unless you are 45 or older, you won't do that, sadly.
All most of us will know about McCarver is his annoying broadcasting style ala The Billy Packer School of Pisspoor Broadcasting. How you can manage to piss off the fans of an ENTIRE SPORT for the better part of 20 years is beyond me. What is even more beyond me is how he still has a job (and Joe Buck for that matter). FOX Sports does a great job with their package (no homo) in delivering MLB and NFL. But their "lead" announcers for the Major League Baseball playoffs are awful. Troy Aikman, who is probably the best color analyst right now in the NFL, saves their NFL telecasts when Buck is going off the deep end with his smug, elitist, anti-New York nonsense.
I was APPALLED when McCarver called out my then-idol (forgive me, I was 13, not knowledgeable about the Word of God and idols, etc.) Deion Sanders in 1992, he did not have his facts straight. He was just HATING. Plain and simple. Deion was not even under contract with the Atlanta Falcons; yet he went out and played for them earlier in the day, flew into Pittsburgh to join the Atlanta Braves, who were playing the Pittsburgh Pirates in the MLB National League Championship Series. After the game, Sanders was told what McCarver said, and proceeded to enter the clubhouse and dump Gatorade on McCarver (who was interviewing one of Sanders' Braves teammates post-game) Harry Carson/Carl Banks-style. HE DESERVED IT. Anyone who supported what McCarver -- who is known to belabor what he THINKS is true for as long as an hour during a baseball game, thereby dominating the telecast and taking the focus from the GAME itself -- is a meathead. I will not argue this.
I was 13 when this Sanders-McCarver thing occurred. McCarver remarked, "You're a real man, Deion, I'll tell you that..." Yeah, and you were mad that your bull got to Sanders before you could sneak out of town unscathed too, huh? Man I hate Tim McCarver.
THEN, I go on espn.com earlier this afternoon and read/hear what he said about my boy Manny Ramirez. Sure, everyone knows that at times Manny does not play 100% (his half-hearted effort is better than 95% of the guys in Baseball's BEST EFFORTS, by the way -- the man hit .347 with a near .500 On-Base Percentage when he was supposedly "not trying" -- most guys in the league would kill for those numbers; Manny does it half-asleep). Everyone knows that Manny is an eccentric. But this clown McCarver goes out of his way to talk trash about Manny (while throwing a few bigoted subliminals at Randy Moss -- what does he have to do with this? He made one statement and no one can cite evidence other than one questionable time where Moss ever "took plays off" -- and mentioning Terrell Owens, who NEVER does. You can hate Owens if you want, but you cannot claim he is a slacker on the field).
Screw McCarver.
Why I Am Not Married Yet - Once And For All
Why I Am Not Married Yet - Once And For All
10.8.08
If I get asked this ONE more time. Whether it is that old lady who always speaks to you and compliments your attire and hair, or that cousin you haven't seen in a couple of years, or that ex co-worker that you bumped into who was always trying to hook you up with her slaggy friends -- you get tired of it after a while. If the wrong person asks you on the wrong day, you MIGHT release on 'em!
But yeah, real quick -- because even some of my friends (especially the ones who are just getting to know me in the past 2-3 years) have been asking me this and I'm sick of it. A little chronology of my adult life:
Throughout high school, I was stricken with Erythrodermic Psoriasis. I have a Photo Album on Facebook that exhibits what that affliction looks like -- and yes, that's EXACTLY what I looked like from late 1993 until early 2000. 24/7/365, the entire time. BE HONEST (ladies) -- HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD GIVE A YOUNG DUDE WHO LOOKED LIKE THAT THE TIME OF DAY??? I'll wait for a hand to come up so I can call you a boldface liar.
Fast forward. April, 2000. The Lord miraculously heals me. My skin clears up overnight. Literally. I wake up. I have newfound swag. Bought my first car (and since I never drive cars with hard mileage or old buckets; anyone who knows me knows my track record with cars) and I'm feeling good about myself. Except one thing: I'm 21 and work in an insurance company full of women 34, 37... 41... many of them RAW (my inner circle knows what that means) and the one or two that were my age were scary unattractive or hittin' off all the non-homo dudes in the office.
I started that job in January 1998. Left in August 2005. I started at UNCG in the fall of 2004, so I spent a full year working full time (50 hours a week) and going to school full time (12-15 hours per semester), plus I was president of the Singles Ministry at our church, and had started two businesses within that time.
I am now at a college where I am 8, 9, 10, sometimes ELEVEN years older than the young women I'm surrounded by all day. Excuse me? And the only ones who are about a relationship are clingy, ugly, over the tonnage limit, what have you. You finally meet a couple of them here or there and they are either on some extra nonsense... psycho-feminist, or you finally meet one who COULD turn out to be about something, but you are diametric opposites on THE fundamental thing that is non-negotiable(faith beliefs) or That Chick who gives up that Butter the FIRST NIGHT (not hating on them, trust me lol... but for what I am looking for, do I need that...?)
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. Merely explaining. If I wanted to be a manwhore, I could easily have done it. I try to do what's wRight. I try to set the standard. I've done some chicks wrong, I will admit LOL... I've had my share of "what the BLEEP!!! was I thinking that night???" moments, and many of them in the past two years. So I am not without fault or blame. But simply put, I have always been around cougars (from age 18 until 26) or greenbacks (now; around 18-22 year olds. When have I ever been around women my age... except for a few psychos from That Place (not saying where, because a few of them are on Facebook and will probably snitch on me for badmouthing That Place) but those of you who know me know where I am referring to.
I am going to state the glaringly obvious truth: "One stands a much better chance of meeting a potential life mate if he/she is around a multitude of peers of the opposite sex who are of similar age."
Well, you don't say?!?! I have no concept of what that is like. DEAD SERIOUS.
I hope that answers that question, because I'm going to give you the Lewis/Robinson Look to whoever asks me again until it happens; irrespective of age. That's just how sick of hearing it I am. Have friends who "wonder" about me. Direct them to this blog post.
Both teams played hard.
Both teams played hard.
Both teams played hard.
Both teams played hard.
Both teams played hard.
God bless and good night.
10.8.08
If I get asked this ONE more time. Whether it is that old lady who always speaks to you and compliments your attire and hair, or that cousin you haven't seen in a couple of years, or that ex co-worker that you bumped into who was always trying to hook you up with her slaggy friends -- you get tired of it after a while. If the wrong person asks you on the wrong day, you MIGHT release on 'em!
But yeah, real quick -- because even some of my friends (especially the ones who are just getting to know me in the past 2-3 years) have been asking me this and I'm sick of it. A little chronology of my adult life:
Throughout high school, I was stricken with Erythrodermic Psoriasis. I have a Photo Album on Facebook that exhibits what that affliction looks like -- and yes, that's EXACTLY what I looked like from late 1993 until early 2000. 24/7/365, the entire time. BE HONEST (ladies) -- HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD GIVE A YOUNG DUDE WHO LOOKED LIKE THAT THE TIME OF DAY??? I'll wait for a hand to come up so I can call you a boldface liar.
Fast forward. April, 2000. The Lord miraculously heals me. My skin clears up overnight. Literally. I wake up. I have newfound swag. Bought my first car (and since I never drive cars with hard mileage or old buckets; anyone who knows me knows my track record with cars) and I'm feeling good about myself. Except one thing: I'm 21 and work in an insurance company full of women 34, 37... 41... many of them RAW (my inner circle knows what that means) and the one or two that were my age were scary unattractive or hittin' off all the non-homo dudes in the office.
I started that job in January 1998. Left in August 2005. I started at UNCG in the fall of 2004, so I spent a full year working full time (50 hours a week) and going to school full time (12-15 hours per semester), plus I was president of the Singles Ministry at our church, and had started two businesses within that time.
I am now at a college where I am 8, 9, 10, sometimes ELEVEN years older than the young women I'm surrounded by all day. Excuse me? And the only ones who are about a relationship are clingy, ugly, over the tonnage limit, what have you. You finally meet a couple of them here or there and they are either on some extra nonsense... psycho-feminist, or you finally meet one who COULD turn out to be about something, but you are diametric opposites on THE fundamental thing that is non-negotiable(faith beliefs) or That Chick who gives up that Butter the FIRST NIGHT (not hating on them, trust me lol... but for what I am looking for, do I need that...?)
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. Merely explaining. If I wanted to be a manwhore, I could easily have done it. I try to do what's wRight. I try to set the standard. I've done some chicks wrong, I will admit LOL... I've had my share of "what the BLEEP!!! was I thinking that night???" moments, and many of them in the past two years. So I am not without fault or blame. But simply put, I have always been around cougars (from age 18 until 26) or greenbacks (now; around 18-22 year olds. When have I ever been around women my age... except for a few psychos from That Place (not saying where, because a few of them are on Facebook and will probably snitch on me for badmouthing That Place) but those of you who know me know where I am referring to.
I am going to state the glaringly obvious truth: "One stands a much better chance of meeting a potential life mate if he/she is around a multitude of peers of the opposite sex who are of similar age."
Well, you don't say?!?! I have no concept of what that is like. DEAD SERIOUS.
I hope that answers that question, because I'm going to give you the Lewis/Robinson Look to whoever asks me again until it happens; irrespective of age. That's just how sick of hearing it I am. Have friends who "wonder" about me. Direct them to this blog post.
Both teams played hard.
Both teams played hard.
Both teams played hard.
Both teams played hard.
Both teams played hard.
God bless and good night.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Politics & Mr. Wright
Politics & Mr. Wright
Michael D. Wright
10.7.08
This is the one and only time I am going to talk about politics until AFTER the Presidential/General Elections on November 4, 2008.
1) I am fed up with people trying to tell me about politics when I've been following them longer than they've been living. Or people who are much older than me assuming that I am just now "dabbling" into politics as if I wasn't with my mother in the '83/'84 campaign season when the candidates were in town; or at the booths with my parents in '88 inquiring about the whole process and instantly becoming interested in all things political (stayed up well past midnight in the 1988 Election to see what would happen with GHW Bush and Dukakis) and eager for 1997 to get here so that I could vote. Please. Enough already.
2) Too many people let their prejudices about the "other" party or their conspicuous (or inconspicuous, in some cases) bigotry get in the way of logic and common sense. When you cannot give a candidate credit SOLELY because he is Black or SOLELY because she is Republican, or Democrat or what have you, you have serious issues. The crap we see on TV isn't democracy in action. It is doghouse fighting. Plain and simple.
Anyone who, regardless of their party affiliation, cannot see that for the most part, Barack Obama is speaking more closely to the facts of his voting record and what he has said consistently over time than John McCain (who, for those of you who AREN'T OLD ENOUGH TO EVEN KNOW/REMEMBER -- was caught up in the big S&L investigation years back, while he talks about wasteful spending and pork barrel projects???) has. Sure, 26 years of Washington politics will set you up for inevitable wrong-doing at times and no one is perfect. But this isn't about "fundamentals", because anyone who knows politics knows that these candidates are swayed by every wind and doctrine; they are going to say what it takes (particularly when they see Gallup polls stating what is "most important" to the voting public) to garner more votes to support their platform.
Let's not forget, the President can only be an initiator and a pipeline of sorts. He/she does not have absolute power, for the system of checks and balances (especially with the upcoming volatility that will take place in the House after Nov. 4) will surely rise up to correct it. Nothing that these candidates CLAIM they will do can happen without the prescribed requirement of support in both parts of the House.
These guys, as I type, are arguing semantics. While we live in charged times, I can remember previous debates where there WERE distinct differences in fundamentals, where there WERE blatantly obvious differences between what one candidate/party stood for and the other(s). Now, more than ever, the lines are blurred. There has been much more "reaching across the aisle" than there was before 1980. There is no absolute "fundamental truth". Sure, Republicans TYPICALLY embodied the conservative spirit of America, whereas TYPICALLY embodied the more liberal spirit/outlook on things. This is no longer absolute, and therefore singling people out because of the way they dress, where they live, attend school, their political beliefs (which can line up with people from ALL parties) is meatheaded, irresponsible and reeks of control issues. Anyone with a psychology and/or sociology background can see from a mile away that such a person feels that anyone opposed to their ideaology is a threat and therefore, the quickest way to quiet a threat is to shout them down, and discredit their name (without any other basis outside of bigotry, hatred and willfull ignorance).
3) I am a registered Independent. I am sick of all the backbiting and finger-pointing. While I lean Conservative on some things and Liberal on others, I am neither a Republican (2001-2007) nor Democrat (1997-2001). I am more Moderate, and my voting/political outlook will definitely reflect as such. I refuse to cave in to the narrow-minded, single-minded whims of people (in denial as they are) who try to tug me into their political party's corner (I've had it happen quite frequently from many people in the past eighteen months). I'm done with all that. As is the case with my relationship with the Lord God and Jesus Christ, and from my CLOSEST FRIENDS -- it is ALL about absolute truth with me; whoever is speaking it. If they are Democrat; fine. If they are Republican; fine. If they are Libertarian; fine. If they are Independent; fine. If they have no political bents whatsoever; FINE. Just as it is with my friends, if you can't call me out when I am dead wrong, I don't want you around me, dullah! If I can't tell you the truth, which benefits you, I don't want to be around you. I used to hang around a circle of people who could witness their best friend mistreat people, lie, cheat and deceive and then co-sign that friend's actions as if they did not witness it all first-hand. I cannot deal with that. Such is the case with me and politics from now on. WHOEVER SPEAKS THE TRUTH AND CAN GET THE JOB DONE, THAT IS WHO I AM SIDING WITH.
Do not send me anymore messages talking about John McCain's age, or your unwillingness to vote for him because he cannot raise his arms above his head... or Sarah Palin's deer in the headlights OBVIOUS lack of knowledge/understanding (or those of you who see this and STILL think she's effective or a "barracuda" -- not realizing she's doing it because she's backed into a corner of unfamiliarity)... nor do I want to hear about Biden's comments about Obama before he was chosen as VP. What Biden said was spoken from the heart and not entirely without merit; regarding Obama's preparedness for the Office. I have told people recently that those who may speak about your inadequacies aren't AUTOMATICALLY an enemy (again, going back to someone being able to tell you the TRUTH!!!), indeed, as Obama probably thought, he was wise enough to know he lacks foreign policy experience and went and got the best person to do the job, DESPITE what Biden spoke; which was quite frankly true -- although relative to the other candidates ONLY.
Finally, I do not want to hear these blind Obama supporters who only support him because he is Black, or as I've heard a bunch of foolish women say, he's "good-looking" (no homo) or any superficial nonsense that has nothing to do with one's ability to do the job. I get just as sick and tired with Black people who are guilty as White people who only associate with Whites because they believe they are superior. The support of Obama solely based upon those reasons is no different. Let's not keep the cycle of cowardice, bigotry and predujice continue. Vote for who is the best for the job, not because he/she is Black (or voting AGAINST he/she solely BECAUSE he/she is Black or even FEMALE). And please, ENOUGH WITH THIS STUPID PARTISAN NONSENSE.
I am done talking politics. This debate was the final chapter. If you don't know who you are going to vote for by now, then so be it you. However, please remember a common courtesy, unless you have absolute facts (and none of us do, since we are not Washington insiders) or in someone's closest circle of friends, DO NOT engage in political discussion unless you are going to do it in a courteous manner. I have heard people who start out rational and the minute they find out you don't agree with their ideals, they lash out and bash you with a plethora of stereotypes. This is the ultimate reason why people do not vote as it is. Don't contribute to the problem. Learn how to debate properly and don't be a meathead when someone disagrees with you. You are not always right, your ideals aren't always what's best for the whole. Realize that and this "Democracy" (Republic) that we live in can move closer to actually BEING one.
Michael D. Wright
10.7.08
This is the one and only time I am going to talk about politics until AFTER the Presidential/General Elections on November 4, 2008.
1) I am fed up with people trying to tell me about politics when I've been following them longer than they've been living. Or people who are much older than me assuming that I am just now "dabbling" into politics as if I wasn't with my mother in the '83/'84 campaign season when the candidates were in town; or at the booths with my parents in '88 inquiring about the whole process and instantly becoming interested in all things political (stayed up well past midnight in the 1988 Election to see what would happen with GHW Bush and Dukakis) and eager for 1997 to get here so that I could vote. Please. Enough already.
2) Too many people let their prejudices about the "other" party or their conspicuous (or inconspicuous, in some cases) bigotry get in the way of logic and common sense. When you cannot give a candidate credit SOLELY because he is Black or SOLELY because she is Republican, or Democrat or what have you, you have serious issues. The crap we see on TV isn't democracy in action. It is doghouse fighting. Plain and simple.
Anyone who, regardless of their party affiliation, cannot see that for the most part, Barack Obama is speaking more closely to the facts of his voting record and what he has said consistently over time than John McCain (who, for those of you who AREN'T OLD ENOUGH TO EVEN KNOW/REMEMBER -- was caught up in the big S&L investigation years back, while he talks about wasteful spending and pork barrel projects???) has. Sure, 26 years of Washington politics will set you up for inevitable wrong-doing at times and no one is perfect. But this isn't about "fundamentals", because anyone who knows politics knows that these candidates are swayed by every wind and doctrine; they are going to say what it takes (particularly when they see Gallup polls stating what is "most important" to the voting public) to garner more votes to support their platform.
Let's not forget, the President can only be an initiator and a pipeline of sorts. He/she does not have absolute power, for the system of checks and balances (especially with the upcoming volatility that will take place in the House after Nov. 4) will surely rise up to correct it. Nothing that these candidates CLAIM they will do can happen without the prescribed requirement of support in both parts of the House.
These guys, as I type, are arguing semantics. While we live in charged times, I can remember previous debates where there WERE distinct differences in fundamentals, where there WERE blatantly obvious differences between what one candidate/party stood for and the other(s). Now, more than ever, the lines are blurred. There has been much more "reaching across the aisle" than there was before 1980. There is no absolute "fundamental truth". Sure, Republicans TYPICALLY embodied the conservative spirit of America, whereas TYPICALLY embodied the more liberal spirit/outlook on things. This is no longer absolute, and therefore singling people out because of the way they dress, where they live, attend school, their political beliefs (which can line up with people from ALL parties) is meatheaded, irresponsible and reeks of control issues. Anyone with a psychology and/or sociology background can see from a mile away that such a person feels that anyone opposed to their ideaology is a threat and therefore, the quickest way to quiet a threat is to shout them down, and discredit their name (without any other basis outside of bigotry, hatred and willfull ignorance).
3) I am a registered Independent. I am sick of all the backbiting and finger-pointing. While I lean Conservative on some things and Liberal on others, I am neither a Republican (2001-2007) nor Democrat (1997-2001). I am more Moderate, and my voting/political outlook will definitely reflect as such. I refuse to cave in to the narrow-minded, single-minded whims of people (in denial as they are) who try to tug me into their political party's corner (I've had it happen quite frequently from many people in the past eighteen months). I'm done with all that. As is the case with my relationship with the Lord God and Jesus Christ, and from my CLOSEST FRIENDS -- it is ALL about absolute truth with me; whoever is speaking it. If they are Democrat; fine. If they are Republican; fine. If they are Libertarian; fine. If they are Independent; fine. If they have no political bents whatsoever; FINE. Just as it is with my friends, if you can't call me out when I am dead wrong, I don't want you around me, dullah! If I can't tell you the truth, which benefits you, I don't want to be around you. I used to hang around a circle of people who could witness their best friend mistreat people, lie, cheat and deceive and then co-sign that friend's actions as if they did not witness it all first-hand. I cannot deal with that. Such is the case with me and politics from now on. WHOEVER SPEAKS THE TRUTH AND CAN GET THE JOB DONE, THAT IS WHO I AM SIDING WITH.
Do not send me anymore messages talking about John McCain's age, or your unwillingness to vote for him because he cannot raise his arms above his head... or Sarah Palin's deer in the headlights OBVIOUS lack of knowledge/understanding (or those of you who see this and STILL think she's effective or a "barracuda" -- not realizing she's doing it because she's backed into a corner of unfamiliarity)... nor do I want to hear about Biden's comments about Obama before he was chosen as VP. What Biden said was spoken from the heart and not entirely without merit; regarding Obama's preparedness for the Office. I have told people recently that those who may speak about your inadequacies aren't AUTOMATICALLY an enemy (again, going back to someone being able to tell you the TRUTH!!!), indeed, as Obama probably thought, he was wise enough to know he lacks foreign policy experience and went and got the best person to do the job, DESPITE what Biden spoke; which was quite frankly true -- although relative to the other candidates ONLY.
Finally, I do not want to hear these blind Obama supporters who only support him because he is Black, or as I've heard a bunch of foolish women say, he's "good-looking" (no homo) or any superficial nonsense that has nothing to do with one's ability to do the job. I get just as sick and tired with Black people who are guilty as White people who only associate with Whites because they believe they are superior. The support of Obama solely based upon those reasons is no different. Let's not keep the cycle of cowardice, bigotry and predujice continue. Vote for who is the best for the job, not because he/she is Black (or voting AGAINST he/she solely BECAUSE he/she is Black or even FEMALE). And please, ENOUGH WITH THIS STUPID PARTISAN NONSENSE.
I am done talking politics. This debate was the final chapter. If you don't know who you are going to vote for by now, then so be it you. However, please remember a common courtesy, unless you have absolute facts (and none of us do, since we are not Washington insiders) or in someone's closest circle of friends, DO NOT engage in political discussion unless you are going to do it in a courteous manner. I have heard people who start out rational and the minute they find out you don't agree with their ideals, they lash out and bash you with a plethora of stereotypes. This is the ultimate reason why people do not vote as it is. Don't contribute to the problem. Learn how to debate properly and don't be a meathead when someone disagrees with you. You are not always right, your ideals aren't always what's best for the whole. Realize that and this "Democracy" (Republic) that we live in can move closer to actually BEING one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
