What The Hell Happened To...

Movies?

I'm becoming increasingly concerned that we may be almost done with movies. I think about the best movies I've seen lately. The new Star Trek was good, but it's still just Star Trek again. The Dark Knight was awesome, but how many Batman movies can we make? Inglourious Basterds was pretty good, but about a half hour too long and certainly not Tarantino's best work. Then I think about all the bad movies I've seen or heard about lately.

I watched a little bit of the Golden Globe awards a couple of weeks ago. I honestly don't know why, that doesn't really sound like me. But I did. I usually at least pay attention to the comedy category when those award shows are on, because, ya know, I like jokes. The nominees this year were just a mess. It's complicated? I'm not going to see that, but just from the commercials and previews, my guess is I'd be more inclined to file that one under tragedy. Julie and Julia? I'm sure it's a nice movie if you like Julia Child, but I have a hard time imagining it as funny. "oh look, she wants to cook, but it's hard, and maybe she's a little clumsy, HI-larious, but also inspiring". If you're trying to inspire me, or make me feel happy, that's not a comedy, and you won't succeed.

The Hangover won for best comedy. I saw that movie. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. I sort of feel like we've already pulled out all the comedy Vegas has to offer. We get it, crazy things happen in Vegas, and there's strippers and hookers and alcohol and stuff. Avatar won for best picture. Maybe it's a great movie, but the contrary son of a bitch in me refuses to ever see it or acknowledge it's existence.

Then, this weekend, I saw two different DVD's. We'll get to the second one later, but the first one was The Invention of Lying. What a disaster. Just a wandering plot with a thin premise and 65 different versions of the same joke. "Ohhh, I get it, people would be really mean and stuff if they couldn't lie". And why do we always assume that people who don't have the ability to lie also can't just shut up? Why does not being able to lie also mean giving voice to every stupid thought that enters your head?

After about 55 minutes of that, out of nowhere, you get 5 or 10 minutes of really good, harsh religious satire. It seems good natured when you're watching the movie, but when you think about it, it's actually a pretty hard ass kicking for the concept of religion. Here's the basic premise. People can't lie and, at the same time, there's no concept of religion or the afterlife. Then, one guy figures out how to lie and, almost immediately, invents religion. After that fun little bit, you get about 30 more minutes of nonsense and there's your movie. So, I enjoyed about five minutes because I'm not religious and I wasn't offended, but if you're a religious person, who might be, ya know, bothered by the suggestion that religion is all a giant lie, it might be the worst movie you could ever see.

Have we just run out of stories to tell? That has to happen eventually, right? I don't know. I don't like this theory because it's sort of untestable. How do you tell the difference between Hollywood being out of new ideas and Hollywood just being lazy? It's impossible.

Maybe we just have too many stupid people around (this, by the way, is one of my theories for quite of few of the problems we have). Stupid people like stupid movies, because smart comedies or well-written dramas make them frightened and angry. Maybe appealing to this lowest common denominator is killing Hollywood.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen some legitimately good movies in the last few years. The previously mentioned Dark Knight and Star Trek, The Lucky Ones, Funny People, The Hurt Locker, Music Within was a really good, little known movie, District 9 was pretty solid. But none of them jumped out at me as a reason to be hopeful. They seemed more like the last remnants of quality being washed downstream in the endless river of crap.

This brings me to the second DVD I saw this weekend. 500 Days of Summer is a romantic comedy that won a lot of film festival awards. Needless to say, it wasn't on the top of my to see list. But I'm a big fan of Zooey Deschanel and it was either that or Pelham 123. Anyway, what a great movie. The romantic part was realistically depressing. The comedy was genuine and never felt forced. The whole thing was spot on from start to finish, I don't think I would have changed anything. And just like that, I feel better about movies.

Hey, you know what. Maybe movies were always mostly crap. Maybe I'm just noticing more now because my mood gets progressively worse as I get older and DVD's make it easier to see the movies I used to get through life without noticing. Yeah, I'm going with that. Hey, could that be the answer to everything? Nothing's getting worse, I just like things less than I used to. No, I don't think so, TV's definitely better (in spite of the Jersey Shore, and if you didn't see a second season of that show coming, you don't know anything about shamelessness), video games are better too. I only play Madden, but still, it's better. Phew! For a minute there I thought it was all my fault.

Dude, Where's My Pro-Bowl?

So, first of all, the superbowl match-up is set. I promised I wouldn't do anymore football picking this year if I couldn't get at least one championship game right, so I'm not picking the superbowl. It would be cruel for me to doom one team to certain defeat by picking them. I actually wound up rooting extra hard for myself to be wrong about the NFC game once the Jets lost. There's just no way I would have been able to watch a Peyton Manning vs. Brett Favre superbowl. None. I would have had to spend next Sunday watching...I don't know, whatever it is women watch during the superbowl. I have to say though, a lot of my pre-game analysis for the championship games was on point, right up until the part where I tried to pick winners.

I said the Jets would have to figure out how to cover the non-Revis side of the field. After about 600 yards from Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie, I think the Jets will be shopping for a new cornerback this off-season. It was unbelievable how poorly the Jets covered those two guys. It's like the Colts had their Madden game set on rookie.

There was a point during the second quarter of that game when I really thought the Jets could win. They were up 17-6 right before the half and the Colts were looking pretty rattled. Then Manning sliced through the Jets defense before halftime and that was pretty much that. Are you telling me you thought the Jets had a chance to hold on in the second half? I don't believe you.

The NFC game was perfect. Vikings driving, seconds left to play, all Favre had to do was take the 5-7 yards in front of him and give the kicker a shot, in a dome. What happened next was absolutely priceless, maybe my favorite football game moment ever. The best part was, anyone watching who knew anything about football knew exactly what was going to happen as soon as Favre started winding up to throw. You could practically hear the entire state of Minnesota screaming "no, NO, NOOOOOOOO!" followed by the entire state of Wisconsin laughing hysterically.

Why, you ask, do I find so much humor in Brett's failure? Well, how about this? After the game, when asked about the possibility of him returning next year, he said that it was "highly unlikely". This will go on forever, your grandchildren will be wondering if Brett Favre is coming back to play the 2087 season opener on the moon.

All of this gave us a fantastic superbowl match-up. The thoroughly likable Saints against the completely contemptible Colts. I won't pick the game, but I'll damn sure be rooting for the Saints. Not only can't I stand Peyton Manning, not only is New Orleans the obvious team to root for here unless you live in Indiana, but the football gods are the only gods I still believe in (stupid Zeus, I prayed to him for years, what do I have to show for it? Not a damn thing! Damn ancient Greeks). If the Colts win after quitting on a perfect season, I'll have nothing to believe in.

Speaking of football, this weekend is the pro-bowl. I've heard lots of different opinions about this, moving the pro-bowl to the week before the superbowl and moving it from Hawaii to the superbowl site. I have to say, I'm a fan of this idea.

First of all, it's not like I could care about the pro-bowl less than I already do. It's not like anyone has to move their big annual pro-bowl party. I've heard some people make the argument that the NFL shouldn't tinker with things while it's doing so well. I understand that idea, but when your all-star game has basically become the who cares bowl, why not try something different. You can't ruin something that's already worthless.

Now, I don't like the idea of having a 0% chance of the superbowl teams' players appearing in the pro-bowl. That problem would really bother me about the new date, except that the chance of that happening previously was about .003%.

I actually heard someone point out that the players don't get to go to Hawaii anymore. Oh, boohoo. I'm sure the incredibly rich guys who get like 7 months off every year can find the time and money to somehow get to Hawaii.

Most importantly, I think the new date is a great piece of scheduling. If there's one thing I've always hated about the NFL, it's the random week off between the rest of the season and the superbowl. It was easily my least favorite thing about football that isn't an over-hyped quarterback. I think a lot of people really want football that week. I've never watched the pro-bowl before, I'd always moved on to other sports in my head. It was like having a hockey game in August. This weekend, I'm watching the pro-bowl, because it's still football season, and that's what you do during football season, you watch football.

Article 2 Section 3

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."

I'm a political junkie, and I do enjoy keeping running commentaries of things that are happening on my TV. So, the State of the Union address is a no-brainer for me. Just to be clear, I'm not going to try and document everything the President says, this isn't the New York Times (for one thing, I might still have one or two readers, "Haw Haw!, your medium is dying"). I'm also making no promises that this blog entry will be well written, intellectually organized or correctly spelled. I'll just pick out some of the things that jump out at me.

It's probably easiest to do the highlights from the pre-speech stuff by network.

Fox went with solo O'Reilly until about five minutes before the speech. He spent his first segment bragging about his ratings. Seriously, someone needs to tell Fox that half of their viewers are watching for laughs(and the other half are watching while trying eat their soup with a fork). Bill also spent a lot of time talking about how boring he thought the speech would be and how painful it would be for him to watch. Awesome job of getting people engaged Bill, well done. Bill also had Dick Morris on at some point. The bridge Dick lives under must be right by Fox's building, he's there all the time.

MSNBC gave us the usual 8PM Olbermann hour with some extra special guests as we got closer to the speech. My favorite single moment came at 8:18PM, when they appeared to run a commercial for the show I was already watching. Keith's favorite topic tonight was the ACORN video kid and his friends who got arrested for scamming their way into a Senator's office. Keith was a little too giddy about this for me.

This is just some dumbass kid who stumbled onto the ACORN story. He got lots of publicity because Republicans hate ACORN. Also because he had the good sense to use his hot friend as the hooker, which certainly didn't hurt with making the whole story good TV. So then he tried to find other ways to get on TV, but I guess his hot friend was gone, he probably tried to sleep with her, so he needed a new idea and wound up committing a felony. It's just a sad story of a moron and the other morons who encouraged him. I don't feel all that interested in it.

In a huge upset, easily the funniest pre-speech coverage was CNN's. CNN had Campbell Brown moderating a 10-person panel. Ten. TEN! And they had other guests via satellite. Everyone got to say four words, Paul Begala's "Hope President speech good" was especially poignant.

Wolf Blitzer was there too, but he spent most of the hour lurking behind one of the panels near his magic wall. The ten panel members appeared to be sharing 6 laptops. For what? Are there speech exit polls coming in, are they coming in before the speech? Were they on twitter and facebook since they only got to talk for 20 seconds each? CNN also had this whole room full of people at computers who were going to be following and analyzing the speech. No kidding, there may have been more people on CNN during the pre-speech than there were in the House chamber during the speech. I could go on about this all night, CNN's pre-speech hour was mind blowing.

Quickly, my wish list of three things I'd love to see tonight, but aren't going to happen:
1) I'd like to see the President challenge any Republican to a fist fight.
2) I'd like to see the President fire someone on the spot with no warning. I'd vote for Janet Napolitano
3) I'd like to see the President break out a quick Bush impression.

OK, OK, enough fun. Madam Speaker, the President of the United States...

While the President makes his customary 52 minute trip from the door to the podium, I should mention that this didn't seem to start well. The two guys who announce the President's arrival spent a good 90 seconds waiting in the doorway to make the announcement. It was like Congress wasn't expecting them. "oh, the President you say? I wish I had known he was coming, I would have baked something"

Biden looks happy to be on TV, and Obama looks happy Biden and Pelosi don't get to talk.

The first section was mostly about how crappy things still are and how everyone needs to work together to move forward. A for honesty, F for being super depressing for five minutes.

The President mentioned how he and everyone else hated the bank bailout, and everyone clapped. That's funny because he and like 300 of those clapping people voted for it. Then the President said he's working on getting the rest of the money back from the banks, not as many people clapped for that one. The Republicans wouldn't even clap for the President's litany of tax cuts, and he pointed that out, which was pretty funny.

By the way, this whole clapping and not clapping thing is so petty and stupid, from both parties. These people are supposed to be running the country, every time the President finishes a sentence half of them cheer like he just cured cancer and the other half sit there sarcastically. Whenever I watch Congress I become concerned that my country is being run by kindergartners.

The President is proposing all kinds of new jobs initiatives. They include tax cuts for new hires and wage hikes as well as eliminating capital gains taxes on small business investments. He also talked about putting people to work on the infrastructure of the future, which apparently centers around very fast trains. Somewhere in this section the President accused Washington of telling us to wait for decades and letting us fall behind other countries. He kicked Washington around quite a bit tonight. I couldn't agree more, but someone should tell the President he's been working in Washington for like five years now.

The President threatened to veto any financial reform bill that isn't "real reform". I predict a future press conference in which the President pulls a few muscles straining to try and define as "real reform" whatever steaming pile of garbage the Senate tries to pass off as reform.

I'm noticing a trend here. President Obama seems to be kicking the Senate's ass a little bit. In the first 20 minutes or so, he mentioned three separate bills that the House had passed and basically said the Senate better get their asses in gear. Later, he mentioned how a bill to create some kind of fiscal committee just died in the Senate, and how he's going to create the committee he wants by executive order instead. He even spent a lot of the section on bipartisanship hammering away at the Senate. Maybe I'll get my wish and he'll challenge the whole Senate to a fist fight.

The President proposed a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants. No jokes here, I really like that idea, I hope we do it. On the other hand, he also mentioned opening up more places to drill for oil. I've never bought the argument that our oil problem is that we just haven't been looking hard enough. Unless we find an infinite oil supply somewhere, any oil we do find only extends our deadline, so why not just come up with a better idea now?

Ha! The President just sarcastically said "I know there are some who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change". Easily my favorite moment so far.

"The best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education." I couldn't agree more. We also heard a lot about college education. Tax credits for college tuition and urging colleges to lower costs. I think the President will find that getting colleges to lower tuition costs will be about as easy as getting the Senate to get off their asses and do something.

The health care section didn't really move me too much either way. We got what was, as far as I could tell, basically the same sales pitch we've been getting about health care for the last six months. I have to say, even the President looked a little tired of talking about it. I'm not incredibly hopeful about health care reform right now.

The President started out the economy section by pointing out how the current deficit is mostly President Bush's fault, which got a weird, uncomfortable moment of laughter from one side of the Congress, I think it was the Democrats. Then we moved on to the much anticipated spending freeze (brrrrr). Another awesome moment. The President said the freeze won't take effect until next year, which drew some laughter from the Republicans. The President responded by very condescendingly saying "that's how budgeting works". I'm starting to remember why I liked this guy so much.

The President just hammered the Supreme Court's campaign contributions decision from last week, so then the nine of them had to sit there while everyone else applauded how much they suck. I'm not sure it was appropriate for the President to scold the Supreme Court in front of Congress on national TV, but they made a stupid decision and they deserved it, so there.

After about an hour, the President finally got to terrorism, security and underwear based weapons. Not much new information here, combat troops out of Iraq by August, stabilizing Afghanistan, nuclear weapons are bad, etc. But I also liked how he told Congress to stop arguing about security like little children. On the down side, he just said he was going to a summit in April to talk about securing all nuclear weapons in the world within four years. That sounds a lot like terrorists have four years to get some nuclear weapons before we lock them all up, I realize that's not a quick job, but still.

I had failed to realize how entertaining it would be to watch Biden all night. He's had times he tried to start clapping while the President was still talking, many other times when everyone else stood up to applaud about five seconds before he did. He kept nodding and smirking at everything. You could have watched this speech with the volume off and been thoroughly entertained.

There's something I was waiting for, the President just called for a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. He said "it's the right thing to do". I watched a lot of cable news today, and this detail had been leaked. There was a lot of speculation about how he was doing this to appease the left, or how it wouldn't help him with moderates. The President, during the speech, was the first person to mention that it's the right thing to do. How bad have our politics gotten when "it's the right thing to do" doesn't even enter the discussion of why a politician might be doing something.

If this speech reminded me of anything, it's why I liked the President so much as a candidate. He's funny, smart and engaging. He's incredibly condescending when he thinks people are being stupid (by the way, that's the second time I called the President condescending, it's not an insult, it's what people deserve when they say or do dumb things).

If there's one thing I need to be reminded of after this speech, it's that the President doesn't write the laws, Congress does. And the Senate will pass or not pass anything they damn well please. So we'll see if anything the President talked about tonight actually happens.

PS...I don't have the energy for the Republican response, but I predict he'll mention tax cuts at some point.

Corpocracy

Did I watch Conan O'Brien's last Tonight Show? Hell yeah I did! It was fantastic. Neil Young was awesome (Neil was awesome on the Haiti concert too. Is that the first time him and Dave Matthews played together? Did Neil travel back in time at some point so he could have a second career as Dave Matthews?). Plus, and I swear this is true, I had never heard Free Bird before, at least not that I can remember. I'd heard of it, but I'd never actually heard the song. Will Ferrell, by the way, has gotten to the point where I can't tell if he's kidding anymore, but he gets an A+ for breaking out the cowbell (I feel like we needed a little more of it). If I was Fox, I'd give Conan a blank check to go on my network at 11:30 starting in September and do whatever the hell he wants. If they do it right, he'll crush Leno and Letterman. I almost wrote a whole thing about it, but then I thought, who would I be convincing? Is there anyone who would say "no Sean, I don't think Conan has a big future in TV, Fox should just stick with Seinfeld reruns at night"? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous, Glenn Beck, my favorite TV crazy person, is at it again. Last week Glenn did a whole special about how communism is bad. Thanks Glenn, that's super helpful. I hadn't noticed all the communist countries failing miserably and disappearing, except Cuba and North Korea, who can't feed themselves. At one point, Glenn teased the next segment as the story of the holocaust that history forgot. That sounded unlikely right off the bat, but I stuck around to find out. Turned out he was talking about Stalin. Ummm, what? Can I get a show of hands from anyone who didn't know Stalin killed millions of people? Seriously, wow, kudos to Glenn for pointing out that Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Che Guevara were all bad guys (I know, people wear Che t-shirts, it's not because they support all the things he did, it's because they're stupid. Glenn, of all people, should understand what that's like).

With whom did Glenn think he was arguing? Does he think people were watching and thinking "sorry dude, I totally disagree with you about that Stalin guy, he seems super cool"? I know we have some communists in America (and that's the good part about America, you get to believe whatever you want, and tell people about it too, and I'm not allowed to send you to jail, or even punch you), but they're not the crazy killing people communists, they're more the sharing the wealth types. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks all America needs is Stalin. And I know Glenn would say that the wealth sharing communists always eventually turn into the killing communists. And if there was a huge wealth sharing communist movement in America and Glenn was talking about them and warning them that it's easy to get carried away, I wouldn't make fun of him.

Unfortunately, Glenn was talking about this because he continues to insist that President Obama and the majority of Congress are, in reality, communists/marxists/socialists/facists; maybe polygamists. OK, I made up that last one. But Goldmember Beck isn't the only one saying this, lots of "conservatives" are. I'm not sure why.

The bank bailout? As far as I can tell, here are the terms we gave the banks in return for giving them an oil tanker full of unmarked bills:
1) You have to pay us back, well most of it, or some, unless you really don't want to. We might suggest a new tax/fee to get the money back, but it'll never pass Congress because, um, you own Congress.
2) You have to come to Washington every once in a while and re-apologize for lighting the economy on fire and using the flames to light your cigars. You have to try and sound really sorry.
3) We're going to use you as a political pinata for a while.
4) There are some things we're requiring you to do with the money to help re-build the economy you broke, and no more huge bonuses (or, if you prefer, boni)...just kidding. Do whatever the hell you want.

Now, you could argue, since we don't produce actual things in this country anymore, that the banks are as much a means of production as anything. I'll buy that, especially because, the way our economy is set up, it's basically impossible to start any kind of business without a loan. But if you'd say that the government controls the banks now, you have a very odd definition of control. It reminds me of that joke about who aliens would think was in charge if they came down and saw us following dogs around and picking up their poop. The banks destroy the economy, the government gives them billions of dollars and they get super rich again while the rest of our economy still sucks. It's hard to argue a lot of government control in that equation.

Health Care?
I don't know what a final health care bill is going to look like, or if we'll get one at all. I do know that Republicans have been crying about a "government take over of health care". What? What part of forcing citizens to by insurance from private insurance companies at basically the same rates we're paying now constitutes a takeover? Believe me, I've argued that a government takeover of health care might be necessary, the way the government controls the military or police, because the private sector isn't doing the job on health care. If the government was taking over health care, I'd be among the first people to say so.

What about the auto industry bailouts?
Well, we're getting warmer at least. I'm not wild about taxpayers owning the majority of GM, especially since by taxpayers I mean the federal government. Because if I owned any piece of GM, we wouldn't be getting rid of the Saturn brand. Soon I'll have to find somewhere else to take my car for service, I don't like change. On the other hand, there are a couple of realities here worth noting. First, if we're going to bailout huge banks, why not also save some jobs for blue collar auto workers. If you'd rather have done neither, that's an excellent point and I couldn't agree more, but that ship had already sailed on the President when he took office. Second, if it takes a little government input to get GM to stop making cars that get 3 miles per gallon and explode whenever they turn left, then so be it.

On a somewhat related topic, last week, the Supreme Court ruled that any limit on corporate contributions for buying campaign ads in unconstitutional. They can't just give a candidate a sack of money, but they can buy all the ads they want (which is what campaigns use money for anyway). Great job Supreme Court, well done. For years, Congress has tried to find sneaky little ways to be corporate whores, now they can do it right out in the open, I'm so thrilled (by the way, Republicans seem to be supporting this decision, I'm not sure why they think it'll be better for them, Democrats can be whores too).

This doesn't really look like socialism or communism to me. It's actually sort of the opposite of socialism, the corporations are running the government. What do you call that? Congressman Clyburn, specifically in reference to the Supreme Court ruling, called it a corpocracy. I knew there was a reason I always liked him. I especially like corpocracy because, if you look at it really quickly, it kind of looks like crapocracy. Is this better than communism or socialism? Probably not. But it isn't socialism.

J...E...T...S JETS! JETS! JETS!

I was thinking I should probably just give up on picking football games. I'm awful at it. I was 1-3 last weekend and the one I got right only happened because I had to pick one team in a Saints-Cardinals game where I had no confidence in either team. So here's the deal. I'm picking the championship games. I thought maybe if i actually think about the games for a couple of minutes before I pick them, I might do better. And if I can't get at least one of these right, I'm never picking a football game again. At least not until next season.

First Up, Vikings at Saints
Saints Overview: I really don't know what to make of the Saints. They looked awful in their last three games, I mean really awful, losing to Tampa awful. Then they came out last week and just pounded the Cardinals. It was merciless. Even worse, nobody ever knows what to make of the Cardinals, so I don't know how to factor last week's game. I really thought the Saints had peaked, now I'm not so sure. They're like the Will Ferrell of football teams. I was sure that Anchorman was his prime, his finest hour. Since then each movie has been a little bit worse. I was convinced he'd never make a great movie again. Then, I saw his cameo in The Goods. Now, I think maybe he's got something left, I don't know what's next. Will Ferrell could still never make another good movie, or he could have one or two more classics left in him. I have no idea. That's how I feel about the Saints, I have no idea.

Keys For The Saints: They have to force Brett Favre to turn the ball over. Brett is like an alcoholic when it comes to turnovers. If he stays mistake free, then he's fine. But if you get him to make one early mistake, he goes on a binge like a college kid on his 21st birthday. He can't help himself, especially in the playoffs.

Also, whoever was wearing Reggie Bush's uniform last week, make sure you get him back for this one. Seriously, where has that guy been since he got drafted? Watching the Saints-Cardinals game last week, you could watch Reggie Bush and think "there's no way that guy's team loses".

Vikings Overview: The Vikings looked really solid against Dallas and even better against the Giants in week 17. I like everything about the Vikings except Favre (I think Favre is French for "look at me! look at me!"). And really, I only dislike Favre as a personality, his quality on the field is hard to argue with this season. Minnesota can run the ball, play defense and throw the ball to a number of excellent receivers. It's hard to find a hole there.

Keys For The Vikings: Stop the run, force the Saints to be one-dimensional and then pound Drew Brees like a bass drum. This defense terrorized Tony Romo last week, Tony was in full tantrum mode by the third quarter. It's possible he was actually crying at some point. It won't be quite so easy to rattle Brees, but it's doable. A day full of sacks and knock-downs equals a Viking victory.

Also, Antoine Winfield. There were times when he looked awful this year. In Minnesota's OT loss to Chicago, he got torched on the last play by some guy who should be playing in the CFL. It was unreal. If the bye week helped Antoine get healthier, I think he can shut down one side of the field and help keep Brees in check. If he's the same guy he was in Chicago, he'll spend the night being Drew's pinata.

Who Am I Rooting For? Saints, 100%. First of all, it would be fantastic for that city to see it's team get to the Superbowl. Second, the Saints are a much more likable team and way more fun to watch. Most importantly, I would pay almost any amount of money to not have to listen to two weeks of Brett Favre going back to the Superbowl stories. This will be unbearable, and I don't know anyone outside of Minnesota who would disagree with that.

Who Am I Picking? Sadly, I like the Vikings. I trust the Vikings' defense a lot more than the Saints' defense. New Orleans has a slightly better offense, but it's not that much better. The one thing that would scare me about picking the Vikings here is the fact that the game is in New Orleans. I told you about Favre being a turnover alcoholic, and the hostile crowd won't help with that, but I think Minnesota runs well early, Favre stays sober and they put the Saints away. Vikings 27, Saints 20.

Next, Jets at Colts
Colts Overview: Something about the Colts always makes me uncomfortable. They have a handful of great players, but they don't really have overwhelming talent. I've never been sold on the Colts defense. This year isn't any different. Tony Dungy is gone and I'm not sure Jim Caldwell has the power of speech. They won a lot of close games against pretty average teams. Plus, they quit on an undefeated season, which I still say means the football gods have something really terrible in mind for them. On the other hand, they were the best team in the AFC this year, so there's that.

Jets Overview: The Jets are a weird team. I can't stand watching their offense, but every once in a while something great happens and it's shocking. They have a defense that stops people, but doesn't force a ton of turnovers and has a tendency to fold at the end of games. Jets fans should be a little worried about that last part. Even last week, they didn't really stop the Chargers late. San Diego scored, then the Jets' offense was able to get a couple of big first downs and keep the ball until the clock ran out. I don't know what happens last week if the Chargers get the ball back, and I think Jets fans should be glad we never found out. Plus, the Jets were awful in the middle of the season. If the mid-season disaster Jets show up Sunday, this game gets ugly fast.

Keys For The Colts: Stop the Jets from running the ball all over the place, make Mark Sanchez throw the ball a lot and feast on the mistakes. That one is super obvious and easier said than done, but it's still what they need to do. The Colts also need to find a way to run the ball. It's not impossible against the Jets, and if they don't do it, the Jets will find a way to create problems for Peyton Manning and his passing game.

Also, try not to quit in the middle of the game. I know this is tough for the Colts, especially if they're winning, they're big on quitting. But really, they have to actually, ya know, try the whole time. If they beat the Jets, they get two whole weeks to rest before the next game.

Keys For The Jets: I think the biggest key for the Jets is coverage. Sure, Reggie Wayne might find himself on Revis Island this week, and maybe they can bracket Dallas Clark with a linebacker (Harris or Scott) and a safety (Rhodes if he's healthy). But what about the other side? What's to stop Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie from doing what many number 2 receivers have done against the Jets this year, run circles around Lito Sheppard. What happened to Lito, anyway? Has he been playing with two broken legs? If they can find a way to keep Manning from destroying the non-Revis parts of the secondary, they'll be in pretty good shape.

Also, if the Jets are down at the half, I say they send Rex Ryan into the Indy locker room to flash Peyton Manning. Wouldn't Peyton be paralyzed with terror for the next couple of hours, at least? I'm not calling this plan A, I'm just saying it can work if they run out of options.

Who Am I Rooting For? Obviously, I'm rooting for the Jets. First, I'm a New York guy. I'm not an active fan of every New York team, but I never root against a New York team unless it's playing another New York team I like more. Second, I've never liked the Colts, and watching them quit in week 16 didn't help. Most importantly, Peyton Manning may be my least favorite legitimately great athlete of all time. There's just something about him that makes me want to punch him in the stomach every time I see him on TV (which, by the way, is like every 4 minutes). I can't be the only one who feels that way, right?

Who Am I Picking? Tough one, close game, but I like the Jets. I don't care how many Superbowls he wins, I still think Peyton Manning is soft. The Jets' defense might not sack him a lot, but they'll hit him. The Colts' run defense is not that good, and the Jets will just keep pounding the run at them. Jets 21, Colts 17. I think that includes a defensive or special teams score from the Jets.

If I'm right, we get two weeks of Brett vs. the Jets stories, and I can't guarantee that won't force me to kill myself, or at least try to put myself into a two-week coma. But I'm a team player, and I picks em how I sees em.

What Can Brown Do For You?

Well, it's all over. Goodbye health care, goodbye socialism, hello Scott Brown. Oh, the poor Democrats, how will they ever get anything done when they only control 59% of the Senate and roughly just over 59% of the House? Why not just give up right now? You might say, "hey Sean, I seem to remember Republicans doing pretty much whatever the hell they wanted with quite a bit fewer votes, and I seem to remember it happening not that long ago." Nice try, but they had the Republican voodoo magic on their side (and by that, of course, I mean that you can say whatever you want about Republican policies, but, right now, they're like a billion times better at politics than the Democrats).

I watched Scott Brown's victory speech in Massachusetts and I learned a few things about our newest Senator:
1) I can see why people voted for this guy, he's super likable. I don't know a lot about where he stands on issues, though I can probably guess, but he knows how to relate to a crowd. Take away the rookie speech mistakes (like driving home the talking points a little too hard so they sound like they don't belong, like they're fake additions to his otherwise real speech, which he'll learn to stop doing) and he's really got something.
2) He has good political instincts. He spent a few minutes praising and thanking Ted Kennedy and his wife, it looked genuinely classy. Was it all fake? Maybe, but he did it and in today's politics, that's really all we expect. It's been a long time since we cared if anyone meant anything they said.
3) Scott Brown's daughter is pretty hot. You heard me.
4) Scott Brown wants to be the President.

(Before I continue, I should say that I am in no way suggesting Scott Brown would make a good President, or even that he'll definitely ever run. I'm just saying he wants to.)

How do I know that last part? First, he talked a lot about being the "independent" candidate and how the independent voice of Massachusetts elected him. We'll see if he actually votes independently when he gets to Washington (I'm predicting no, not even a little), but that's campaign talk that means "if you've had it with both parties, vote for me". Since the percentage of people in this country who've had it with both parties might get near 100% by 2012, that sounds like a pretty good strategy.

Second, he talked a lot about national issues. For example, he mentioned the upcoming terror trials in New York and how Constitutional rights protect us, not terrorists. Setting aside Mr. Brown's tragically simplistic understanding of how Constitutional rights protect us, can anyone tell me what that has to do with being the new Senator from Massachusetts? The answer is nothing, that whole section of his speech was a national campaign section. I could go on, but if you watched Scott Brown last night, I doubt I have to convince you.

So, how does he do it?
Step 1: Health Care. I know I said this election wouldn't impact health care, but I'm having second thoughts. I may have underestimated the cowardice of Democrats (impossible right? maybe not). I could see 6 or 7 moderate Democrats using this as an excuse to run scared from the health care bill. This would reset the issue and Mr. Brown would be in a unique position to show himself to be a reasonable Republican who will break from his party leadership and support a good bill that covers more people and regulates the industry. Normally a brand new Senator wouldn't be able to get in and be such a big part of such a major bill, but the Democrats will work with him if he's the only Republican willing to talk. The chances of Brown actually doing this? Like .0001%, but he should.

Step 2: Vote Against Earmarks. All of them, and don't even think about taking any for Massachusetts. In reality, this is pretty stupid. Earmarks are a big part of how we get federal money to the states, which is sometimes necessary. But guess what? Most voters don't know that, they think earmarks are all multi-million dollar highway rest areas named after members of Congress, and people hate earmarks. Plus, if Scott Brown does plan on running for President, he doesn't have to worry so much about what he gets for Massachusetts, because he's not planning to go back there. The chances of this happening may actually be pretty good.

Step 3: Don't Say Crazy Things. Don't call the President a socialist. Don't say the health care bill includes death panels. Basically, get away from the Glenn Becks of the world. Brown wants independents, you can't get them by standing next to the lunatics. People are looking for someone reasonable, someone who can respectfully disagree and offer a better idea.

Step 4: Learn. I still say this is Sarah Palin's biggest ongoing mistake. Look, she was pretty dumb in 2008, but they grabbed her out of the middle of nowhere and asked her to be the VP candidate, so what did we expect? She should have finished her term as Governor, disappeared for six months while getting a crash course in everything and then come back looking smart and knowledgeable compared to her earlier self, and ready to run. Instead, she released a book and decided to work for Fox.

I don't know if Scott Brown is stupid, but I know he's never been a national figure before and he'll have a lot to learn on national (and international) issues. He needs to go to school (ya know, metaphorically, he doesn't have time for actual school, he's a Senator now). Learn everything he can about foreign policy, national security and everything else a serious candidate needs to know about. Running for President isn't about being right all the time, it's about having an informed opinion all the time. He needs to resist the temptation to mock so-called "academic elites" and, instead, get a little elite himself. Being elite isn't a bad thing. Knowing more than your opponent isn't a bad thing. I don't know if Scott Brown can get to where he knows more than Barack Obama, but he can at least get to where he looks like he belongs on the stage with him.

These aren't the only things he'd need to do, but they're the first things that come to mind for me. Will these four things get him my vote? Hell no. The Republican platform has so many positions that annoy me right now, he'd really have to piss off the party to get me to consider him. But I'm just one vote. I'm talking about getting 50.1% of people to vote for him. Do I think that will happen? Probably not. But like I said, I'm not saying Scott Brown is going to be the next President, I'm just saying he wants to, so he's worth keeping an eye on.

The Search For Meaning

I've become fascinated by today's special election in Massachusetts. This is for the seat Ted Kennedy held since he took over for the guy who took over for his brother. JFK won it from a guy named Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., which sounds made up, but it isn't. Apparently, that was just one in a series of electoral ass kickings the Kennedys dished out to the Lodges. OK, this doesn't really sound that fascinating so far.

Actually, I'm not fascinated by the election so much as by the coverage. Fox is in the middle of some kind of teabagging orgy right now (wow, that must sound super dirty to anyone who doesn't follow politics and doesn't know what I'm referring to). MSNBC is in full panic mode, if this doesn't go well for them, Ed Schultz might set the building on fire.

I find myself asking one question. Why? Come to think of it, I find myself asking my TV some variation of that question quite a bit lately? Like this weekend when I was flipping around and wound up watching about 10 minutes of MTV's Jersey Shore. Why aren't those people in prison? Or at the very least, exiled to Saint Helena like Napoleon? I have no idea. Or, if you prefer something more related to today's topic, last Friday I heard Sean Hannity refer to the possibility of the Republican winning this special election as a "political earthquake, magnitude 9.9". I don't think Hannity was trying to offend anyone, it's a pretty widely used figure of speech, and I've got plenty of better reasons to call Sean a bad guy, but damn dude.

Let's meet the candidates first. The Democratic candidate is Martha Coakley. As far as I can tell, she was trying to become, possibly, the first U.S. Senator to win her seat without campaigning. If a bad campaign is a train wreck (hello John McCain!), the Coakley train didn't even leave the station until sometime last week. I've seen her make one speech, on Sunday. It was awful. The only thing I learned about her platform is that she likes applause. On top of that, her campaign apparently spelled Massachusetts wrong in an ad. At this point, I wouldn't vote for her if she was running against a plate of nachos, because at least the nachos would be delicious. She doesn't even have a good Boston accent. It's like the Democrats were trying to win with a degree of difficulty. Also, I think her campaign slogan "Red Sox suck, Coakley for Senate" may have been a mistake.

The Republican is Scott Brown. It seems like he emerged a few months ago from a laboratory that creates politicians. I know he owns a truck and plans to vote against the health care bill. Seriously, how bad have our politics become that a guy can become incredibly popular and exceed all reasonable expectations by pointing to one thing and talking about how he has no intention of doing it. I've seen him standing in front of signs that say "jobs", but I have yet to see evidence that he has a plan for how to create jobs. Except, of course, the Republican magic of tax cuts. People say every problem looks like a nail to a guy with a hammer. For Republicans, every tax cut looks tax cut a tax cut. TAX CUT!

Democrats will have you believe this election means next to nothing (I mostly agree with them, but it's funny how every political defeat is so meaningless if you ask the losing party. If Coakley was up by 30 points, something tells me Democrats would be squawking about how this is a firm endorsement of their agenda). Well, the one Martha Coakley speech I saw, she was introducing the President. He went to Boston on Sunday to campaign for her. By the way, this was a good move by the President. You could say if Coakley loses he'll look weak. But the truth is, if Coakley loses, he is weak. So I'm not really buying the Democrats' whole this isn't that important line when they're bringing the closer out of the bullpen. "Oh, this election isn't a huge deal, Barack just really wanted to see Boston in January".

Meanwhile, Republicans will tell you the fate of world rests on this election. Scott Brown will kill Obamacare and end socialism once and for all. If Scott Brown wins, then every Republican will win in November, all of them, no matter what. I was looking forward to what Barack Obama was going to do with the next three years, but apparently a Brown victory will force him to immediately resign in shame. Tough break. Especially since it would leave us with President Biden. I'm not sure what a Biden Presidency would look like, but I feel like we'd start blowing more stuff up.

What this election really means, of course, is that both parties, Democrats especially, can't take anything for granted at this point. Midterm elections are all about turnout, and turnout is all about energy. Democratic energy is pretty low right now, because even when we elect the people they want, they still don't get anything done. Republican energy is high right now, I'm not sure why. I think it has something to do with socialism, or death panels, or tea. I really don't know. I mean, I like tea, but I don't think I'd vote for Scott Brown.

More than anything else, I'm struck by what seems to be a desperation for every little thing to have meaning. In November, two Gubernatorial races and one upstate New York House seat were the end of the political world. Back then, the Republicans lost the House seat because the original Republican wasn't conservative enough for the teabaggers, so some empty vessel third party guy jumped in and the Democrats took a seat they had no business winning. Simultaneously, the Democrats had two awful candidates who ran two awful campaigns and they lost two Governors, as they should have. What we learned then, and what we're learning now, is simply that bad candidates make bad candidates, and they often lose.

Some say this Senate special election is more important because it's the 60th seat. Scott Brown can kill health care. Really? The leadership won't just find some other way to buy the 60th vote from someone? Olympia Snowe's always been on the fence, maybe we can give Maine 100 million dollars for lobster subsidies. Honestly, I'm not super worried about health care, especially since the bill's pretty crappy by now anyway.

What happens today isn't a referendum on the President or his agenda. It isn't a valid indicator of what will happen in November. I don't think it'll even have a great deal of policy impact. It's not like the Democrats knew what to do with 60 votes when they had them. All today's election means is that it's important to find good candidates who run solid campaigns. If both parties didn't know that already, I don't know what to tell you.