This started as a comment, but got a little long. So surprise…Bonus post!
I’m F$#%ing Ben Affleck is my favorite Ben Affleck role of all time. And a Josh Groban cameo?…genius.
To briefly respond to P Corc’s comments (starting with your first post): the “experience” issue is something that has bewildered me since the outset of the primaries. Why is Hillary trying to make this election about experience, when all this does is undermine her campaign should she actually get the democratic nomination? She’s a first term senator that has been elected to office a grand total of once. What is this experience she speaks of? Where does she get off saying she would hold up better against the Republican attack machine in a general election? Barack has at least gone through multiple elections.
Not to mention (and I’ve said this before), McCain was a POW while she was attending her senior prom. He was a senator when we were still in diapers. Experience doesn’t bode well for either democratic contender.
Moving on to your second post (responding in numerical order):
1) It’s no secret that I’m an unabashed Obama man. That said, what I’m about to say puts some pretty serious holes in his campaign, and I only bring this issue up because we’re all serious thinkers who either A) know which way we’re going to vote and are unlikely to be swayed much either way or B) are open-minded and intelligent enough to consider all the facts and weigh multiple perspectives before making decisions. Also, this is something that Obama will inevitably run up against should he survive the primaries (which he will), so we may as well start discussing it now.
Barack appeals to independent voters with his talk of change, and these independents (who see him as a like-minded independent) provide a considerable amount of his support. But if you look at his voting record (or just take a look at his Maverick points in Fantasy Congress), you will find that he rarely strays from the party line. He votes with the democrats 97% of the time (a party unity track record surpassed by only 5 other dems). Where’s the independence? This is something that concerns me quite a bit (as I am one of those independents currently propping him up). It’s an issue that he will need answers for come general election time or he may find himself bleeding independent voters to McCain.
On the other hand, he has crossed party lines to work on legislation, including working with McCain on ethics reform.
To get back to your response, PCorcs, will Obama be another party puppet? (I know how DC really works) Why buy into what he says? Because at some point we have to believe in the possibilities of the American Spirit (it is, after all, the very thing that has made us the most powerful nation in the world). The success of Barack’s upstart campaign has shown without a doubt that Americans are hungry for a change: that we are ready to hold our politicians to higher standards and are looking to individuals willing to move past prejudice in order to accomplish goals for the greater good. Barack himself has elevated his campaign (and potential presidency) to this lofty standard, and if he gets to office and fails us, there will be a public outcry (maybe the very catalyst we need to push us into revolution – not to sound crazy or anything). Business as usual will no longer do, and at this point, if Obama gets elected and doesn’t push towards change, I think we’re ready to do it for him. This segues into comment 2.
2) Will McCain be George Bush III? Yes and no. He’s less worried about peer approval, less apt to be coerced by an overbearing VP, less inclined to lie to the American people (whether it be by arrogance or ignorance). I like that he speaks and votes his conscience, seems to despise party lines, and irritates Repubs and Dems alike.
On the other hand, he shares the Bush foreign policy of threatening, bullying, and blowing up countries with worldviews that don’t align with ours. I, for one, think diplomacy can go a long way, and by extending a little respect to foreign leaders that we don’t see eye to eye with (yes, I feel American leaders should meet with the likes of Raul Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and hell, even Kim Jon Il, without preconditions), showing a little sympathy to foreign cultures, and advocating peaceful resolutions, we can do wonders for our global image and start moving towards a nonviolent world. I realize these men and their regimes are guilty of human rights violations, treaty violations, nuclear violations, et al, but what is the aim of foreign policy? I personally think solutions are more important than retribution. What do sanctions and war accomplish other than punishing the very innocents that we are trying to liberate?
Let’s face it, the assumption that all countries will be best off with a democracy in the American mold is unrealistic. And the best way to urge a country towards civil liberty is not by killing everybody in it. Democracy by death will never work, and makes us little better than 21st century Crusaders.
To wrap up, George W. Bush has been a horrible president.
Thanks for reading.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Clinton Refocuses Attack Ads on America
In an unprecedented and arguably risky late-game alteration in campaign strategy, New York Junior Senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton has indicated that she will shift the focus of her largely negative campaign from her surging and overwhelmingly popular opponent, Barack Obama, to the American people who have failed to lift her to the presidential nomination to which she feels she is entitled.
The tactical shift was announced Late Tuesday by Clinton’s grossly overpaid chief strategist Mark Penn after yet another shellacking by the formidable Obama, who has proven beyond a doubt that American citizens would rather entrust the future of the country to a charming and inspirational newcomer than subject themselves to four (or heaven forbid eight) years of nagging by a heartless dominatrix who “reminds them of their mother-in-law.”
The Clinton camp’s planned advertising blitz will include a series of TV spots juxtaposing images of uneducated, unemployed, snaggle-toothed hillbillies, sweaty, overweight cube monkeys, celebrities gone wild, and death row inmates. The unifying theme will become apparent in the final screen shot, which reveals the new Clinton campaign slogan: America ’08: Hopeless.
“With this new campaign strategy, we’re trying to beat the optimism out of the American people,” Penn explained. “By showing them that they are degenerate, powerless and ultimately hopeless individuals drowning in seas of their own misery, we hope to instill in them a fear akin to that of a meek husband terrified of losing his overbearing wife. These people need to understand that they are embarrassingly pathetic, and without a strong female figure telling them to clean out the garage on Sunday during the biggest game of the season, nothing will ever get accomplished.”
Clinton disgustedly added “these dolts have failed to vote for me time and again despite empty promises, shameless pandering, and misguided attempts at sincerity. I’ve pretended to think the elderly don’t smell funny, I’ve pretended to like poor people, I’ve even cried like a sissy for you, America. I’ve been down in Texas eating nothing but taquitos for two weeks. I’ve got a case of the runs that won’t quit and my asshole is rawer than steak tartare. Well now you’re gonna hear about it. Screw you all! Screw you all! Come on, everybody say it with me. Screw you all! Screw you all!”
The ads are slated to begin early next week, at which point America will reportedly need a stiff drink.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. The Oscars were on Sunday night and I, for one, watched them from beginning to end. Then again I’m a nerd and get a kick out of that sort of thing.
Overall, the entertainment value was a little lacking (maybe a symptom of the recently settled writers’ strike), and noticeably absent were any pre-produced sketches, spoofs, etc. This was either a blessing or a curse, as these attempts at comedy can either border on brilliance or bomb in spectacular fashion. It’s odd that even without these, the ceremony was inexplicably long.
Highlight of the evening: Anything involving Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova (winners for best song with “Falling Slowly” from Once). These two were genuinely excited to be there, their performance of the song was transcendent, and John Stewart inviting Ms. Irglova back onto the stage to finish her acceptance speech was one of the night’s few endearing moments. Speaking of John Stewart, I’ll forever be a fan and he was once again a solid host (though at times his cynical wit must have been borderline offensive to industry insiders).
The other bright spots were the Coen brothers’ acceptance speeches (particularly the second). The brevity of their thank-yous highlighted their general disdain for the Hollywood machine, which is the very reason I’m a huge fan of the Coens.
Letdowns of the evening: Seriously, enough with the montages. Every single award came with a montage of past winners. And the PricewaterhouseCoopers “how we vote” segment…who honestly gives a shit?
The parade of montages, however, didn’t hold a candle to my aggravation during the pre-ceremony red carpet coverage (serves me right for watching that garbage). I could point out a number of minor irritants in this self-congratulatory vanity-fest, but I’ll focus on just one: Juno was an endearing little film created by a very unique, very talented, very entertaining group of individuals. Think of the interview possibilities: the eccentric Diablo Cody, the irreverent Ellen Page, the awkward Michael Cera, the sarcastic Jason Bateman, the up-and-coming director Jason Reitman. I would love to see any one of these people field a few softball questions from Ryan Seacrest. So why did I see 3 or 4 interviews with Jennifer Garner, hands down the most uninteresting person involved with the film (and arguably one of the most boring people in all of Hollywood)? Gross.
On a loosely affiliated side note, I rented Gone Baby Gone the other night and, though it pains me to say it (it was directed by one of my Hollywood nemeses and uber-acting hack Ben Affleck), I give this film the stamp of approval. Casey Affleck is a hell of an actor with a bright future, an incomprehensible fact when coupled with the magnificent suckitude of his big dumb brother. Who knows, maybe Ben has found his niche on the other side of the camera and will prove to be one of the industry’s great directors, meaning I’ll need to rethink my entire worldview.
Sigh…
The tactical shift was announced Late Tuesday by Clinton’s grossly overpaid chief strategist Mark Penn after yet another shellacking by the formidable Obama, who has proven beyond a doubt that American citizens would rather entrust the future of the country to a charming and inspirational newcomer than subject themselves to four (or heaven forbid eight) years of nagging by a heartless dominatrix who “reminds them of their mother-in-law.”
The Clinton camp’s planned advertising blitz will include a series of TV spots juxtaposing images of uneducated, unemployed, snaggle-toothed hillbillies, sweaty, overweight cube monkeys, celebrities gone wild, and death row inmates. The unifying theme will become apparent in the final screen shot, which reveals the new Clinton campaign slogan: America ’08: Hopeless.
“With this new campaign strategy, we’re trying to beat the optimism out of the American people,” Penn explained. “By showing them that they are degenerate, powerless and ultimately hopeless individuals drowning in seas of their own misery, we hope to instill in them a fear akin to that of a meek husband terrified of losing his overbearing wife. These people need to understand that they are embarrassingly pathetic, and without a strong female figure telling them to clean out the garage on Sunday during the biggest game of the season, nothing will ever get accomplished.”
Clinton disgustedly added “these dolts have failed to vote for me time and again despite empty promises, shameless pandering, and misguided attempts at sincerity. I’ve pretended to think the elderly don’t smell funny, I’ve pretended to like poor people, I’ve even cried like a sissy for you, America. I’ve been down in Texas eating nothing but taquitos for two weeks. I’ve got a case of the runs that won’t quit and my asshole is rawer than steak tartare. Well now you’re gonna hear about it. Screw you all! Screw you all! Come on, everybody say it with me. Screw you all! Screw you all!”
The ads are slated to begin early next week, at which point America will reportedly need a stiff drink.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. The Oscars were on Sunday night and I, for one, watched them from beginning to end. Then again I’m a nerd and get a kick out of that sort of thing.
Overall, the entertainment value was a little lacking (maybe a symptom of the recently settled writers’ strike), and noticeably absent were any pre-produced sketches, spoofs, etc. This was either a blessing or a curse, as these attempts at comedy can either border on brilliance or bomb in spectacular fashion. It’s odd that even without these, the ceremony was inexplicably long.
Highlight of the evening: Anything involving Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova (winners for best song with “Falling Slowly” from Once). These two were genuinely excited to be there, their performance of the song was transcendent, and John Stewart inviting Ms. Irglova back onto the stage to finish her acceptance speech was one of the night’s few endearing moments. Speaking of John Stewart, I’ll forever be a fan and he was once again a solid host (though at times his cynical wit must have been borderline offensive to industry insiders).
The other bright spots were the Coen brothers’ acceptance speeches (particularly the second). The brevity of their thank-yous highlighted their general disdain for the Hollywood machine, which is the very reason I’m a huge fan of the Coens.
Letdowns of the evening: Seriously, enough with the montages. Every single award came with a montage of past winners. And the PricewaterhouseCoopers “how we vote” segment…who honestly gives a shit?
The parade of montages, however, didn’t hold a candle to my aggravation during the pre-ceremony red carpet coverage (serves me right for watching that garbage). I could point out a number of minor irritants in this self-congratulatory vanity-fest, but I’ll focus on just one: Juno was an endearing little film created by a very unique, very talented, very entertaining group of individuals. Think of the interview possibilities: the eccentric Diablo Cody, the irreverent Ellen Page, the awkward Michael Cera, the sarcastic Jason Bateman, the up-and-coming director Jason Reitman. I would love to see any one of these people field a few softball questions from Ryan Seacrest. So why did I see 3 or 4 interviews with Jennifer Garner, hands down the most uninteresting person involved with the film (and arguably one of the most boring people in all of Hollywood)? Gross.
On a loosely affiliated side note, I rented Gone Baby Gone the other night and, though it pains me to say it (it was directed by one of my Hollywood nemeses and uber-acting hack Ben Affleck), I give this film the stamp of approval. Casey Affleck is a hell of an actor with a bright future, an incomprehensible fact when coupled with the magnificent suckitude of his big dumb brother. Who knows, maybe Ben has found his niche on the other side of the camera and will prove to be one of the industry’s great directors, meaning I’ll need to rethink my entire worldview.
Sigh…
Monday, February 18, 2008
This Week
I'll be busy in training most of the week, so it's unlikely that there will be a new post. Feel free to continue the conversation from last week.
Happy independence day, Kosovo!
Happy independence day, Kosovo!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Political Perspective
The recent fervor of the political marketplace has me thinking about this particular time and place in the whole of human history. As this candidate or that pleads his/her case, reads laundry lists of all that ails us and tells us who to blame, scares us into believing that anyone else in power will lead America to certain ruin, I find myself weighted by pessimism and a bleak vision of the future. Perhaps worse, I find myself believing them.
Allow me now to take a step back, regain perspective, and offer you all one of the more reassuring (or terrifying) political theories I have proposed to date: it’s a show, a façade, a vaudevillian farce by the powers that (wish to) be for the benefit of the masses (us).
In reality, it matters very little who is elected to the presidency in 2008. In the American political system no one individual can expect to redefine the landscape on the grand scale promised during campaign season. Hillary won’t get universal health care (she already tried once when Bill was in office and failed miserably). Barack won’t either. McCain won’t pass sweeping immigration legislation. Huckabee won’t forever abolish homosexual marriage (like Bush, he may only succeed in delaying the inevitable).
So why the election season circus? Why is the issue treated as a matter of life or death?
Because we need symbolic figures to take the reins, to assure us that under their watch we’ll be ok, that their respective policies will mend our wounds. We need them like a child needs a blanket (thanks to Fergie for ruining that metaphor) even though it’s become too threadbare to actually keep him warm (does extending the metaphor make it better?). They are our security, our comfort. Without our politicians we have no one to tell us what to fear and no one to protect us from these promised threats. Politicians are our anchors. Without them we are nothing more than individuals loosely affiliated by imagined borders indiscriminately blown by the whims of fate and chance.
But the truth is that America, like all great historical empires, is a product of the masses. We appoint leaders to act as representatives, but whatever control they maintain is an illusion, and whatever power they’re given can be stripped away as soon as the masses realize it’s theirs to take (think The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.).
For another perspective, think of the monumentally positive movements that long outlived their respective representatives: slavery was not reinstituted when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The Civil Rights Movement went on after Martin Luther King Jr.’s death.
The point is this: history and the masses elevate otherwise unexceptional men to “greatness,” but what we need to understand is that the masses (us) are the force that affects change, not the individuals we have appointed to represent us. What they do in DC is a stage show for the benefit of the news media. Change starts in communities, in neighborhoods, in schools and on the streets. The catalysts for change are disenfranchised yet inexplicably hopeful men and women who seek to alleviate suffering around them; men and women who posses a vague sense of having been cast aside by the very leaders they elected to be their voice, but still desire to positively impact humanity.
America’s economy will rise and fall. International opinion will change with the seasons. Wars will end and new wars will replace them. And America, like all empires, will one day fall. This is the cyclical nature of history, of time.
So what does this mean for the democratic process? Should we ignore it? Boycott it? Remain indifferent?
Not this year.
Throughout the nominating process I’ve been an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, but I wasn’t always able to explain my enthusiasm. I now can. Barack Obama is the one candidate who recognizes that a nation is a community on a large scale, existing only because of its citizens (all of them). America can be no more and can be no less. While the other candidates are splitting demographics, specifying their appeal to specific race, age or gender groups, Barack is staking his campaign on the wild theory that he can unite all to move towards a common good.
As I’ve said, none of the candidates are capable of fulfilling their campaign promises. But Barack Obama is capable of mobilizing the masses.
Thanks for reading.
Allow me now to take a step back, regain perspective, and offer you all one of the more reassuring (or terrifying) political theories I have proposed to date: it’s a show, a façade, a vaudevillian farce by the powers that (wish to) be for the benefit of the masses (us).
In reality, it matters very little who is elected to the presidency in 2008. In the American political system no one individual can expect to redefine the landscape on the grand scale promised during campaign season. Hillary won’t get universal health care (she already tried once when Bill was in office and failed miserably). Barack won’t either. McCain won’t pass sweeping immigration legislation. Huckabee won’t forever abolish homosexual marriage (like Bush, he may only succeed in delaying the inevitable).
So why the election season circus? Why is the issue treated as a matter of life or death?
Because we need symbolic figures to take the reins, to assure us that under their watch we’ll be ok, that their respective policies will mend our wounds. We need them like a child needs a blanket (thanks to Fergie for ruining that metaphor) even though it’s become too threadbare to actually keep him warm (does extending the metaphor make it better?). They are our security, our comfort. Without our politicians we have no one to tell us what to fear and no one to protect us from these promised threats. Politicians are our anchors. Without them we are nothing more than individuals loosely affiliated by imagined borders indiscriminately blown by the whims of fate and chance.
But the truth is that America, like all great historical empires, is a product of the masses. We appoint leaders to act as representatives, but whatever control they maintain is an illusion, and whatever power they’re given can be stripped away as soon as the masses realize it’s theirs to take (think The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.).
For another perspective, think of the monumentally positive movements that long outlived their respective representatives: slavery was not reinstituted when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The Civil Rights Movement went on after Martin Luther King Jr.’s death.
The point is this: history and the masses elevate otherwise unexceptional men to “greatness,” but what we need to understand is that the masses (us) are the force that affects change, not the individuals we have appointed to represent us. What they do in DC is a stage show for the benefit of the news media. Change starts in communities, in neighborhoods, in schools and on the streets. The catalysts for change are disenfranchised yet inexplicably hopeful men and women who seek to alleviate suffering around them; men and women who posses a vague sense of having been cast aside by the very leaders they elected to be their voice, but still desire to positively impact humanity.
America’s economy will rise and fall. International opinion will change with the seasons. Wars will end and new wars will replace them. And America, like all empires, will one day fall. This is the cyclical nature of history, of time.
So what does this mean for the democratic process? Should we ignore it? Boycott it? Remain indifferent?
Not this year.
Throughout the nominating process I’ve been an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, but I wasn’t always able to explain my enthusiasm. I now can. Barack Obama is the one candidate who recognizes that a nation is a community on a large scale, existing only because of its citizens (all of them). America can be no more and can be no less. While the other candidates are splitting demographics, specifying their appeal to specific race, age or gender groups, Barack is staking his campaign on the wild theory that he can unite all to move towards a common good.
As I’ve said, none of the candidates are capable of fulfilling their campaign promises. But Barack Obama is capable of mobilizing the masses.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
February Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month (Let’s Pretend December and January Never Happened)
About 2 months ago I announced the development of a new less-is-more (still highly theoretical) blog platform. The idea was that as I started a new job (presumably equating to less post-writing time), I’d be able to produce higher quality entertainment and analysis by writing longer articles less frequently. This has resulted in numerous reverberations on the make-up of Zizzle-Zot, etc.
Many of the changes were foreseen, some were hoped for but have yet to come to fruition (guest bloggers), some were completely unanticipated. Amongst the unfortunate victims of the blog cuts were a number of ongoing series (People of Note, Things I Care About (And Why)). These were series that I had every intention to continue, but the realities of once a week posting made them difficult to maintain (it’s tough to justify writing a week’s sole post on Ned Kelly).
But recently the gravest of all neglects was brought to my attention: Alas, I have failed to select a new Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month.
This omission has been met with unexpected outrage from our little community. Well, faithful readers, you have spoken; rest assured your calls do not go unheeded. This is still a blog for the people.
Congratulations Kevan “K-Han” Hanson on being named February’s Zizzle-Zot Reader of the month!
Though a devoted reader for some time, K-Han spent months under the radar because he didn’t comment as frequently as others. However, it was recently pointed out to me (by the also dedicated and comment averse Suzy Corcs) that the award is called “Reader of the Month,” not “Responder of the Month,” or “Commenter of the Month.” Point taken. Unfortunately I have no method to track exactly who is visiting Zizzle-Zot, etc. All I have are the numbers.
But K-Han more than proved his commitment after the last post, where you’ll notice that he authored 3 out of the first 4 comments. I then noticed that with K-Han on the job, the Zot-Counter soared past 5,600 visits. If we all had the devotion of K-Han, Zizzle-Zot, etc. would quickly become the most visited site on the www, surpassing even Google and TMZ.com, making us more influential than FOXNews in a room full of Baptists.
Thanks, K-Han, for your tireless efforts to assimilate the world to the Zizzle-Zot family.
Resistance is futile (Star Trek: The Next Generation reference. Anyone? The Borg? Come on, people).
Thanks for reading.
P.S. I’m sure I don’t even need to say this, but the Giants Super Bowl win makes me nauseous. And that Eli was named the MVP is just kicking a man while he’s down. I’ll give Manning credit for not losing the super bowl, but what were his stats? 150 yards, 2 TDs and one interception. What a monumental, memorable performance.
I’ll give credit to three factors:
1) The Giants defensive line. Michael Strahan, Osi Umenyiora and most impressive (at least in this game) Justin Tuck dominated the line of scrimmage for four quarters, stonewalling the running game and serving Brady with a pounding. These guys should have been co-MVPs.
2) The choke artistry of the Patriots offensive line. For 18 games these guys were flawless. During the regular season Brady never got touched. He had enough time in the pocket to knit a scarf before throwing the football. Then they get to the big game and look like a loosely affiliated consortium of flat-footed ninnies. The Giants D beat them repeatedly, and to make matters worse, Pro Bowler Matt Light was whistled for 2 false starts.
3) The great Bill Belichick was out-coached. All season long we’ve been hearing about the Patriots’ ability to make adjustments, to quickly respond to the defensive schemes of their opponents and pick apart their weaknesses. Could it be that this was all hype? Urban legend? The Patriots offense looked completely bewildered in the first half, trying to either force the run (which I’ll never understand because given their passing game) and finding themselves repeatedly stuffed, or having Brady drop back and get sacked. If Belichick is such a genius, why did it take him until the Patriots final drive to realize that quick passes over the middle were the key to moving the chains? Linebackers can’t cover Welker and Faulk, and why not have Moss and Stallworth run some routes over the middle to keep them guessing? I’m not even a football guy, but if I were playing this game in Madden ’08 I know what my plan would be.
I think the worst part about the Giants victory will be listening to a bunch of smug football analysts talk about how they were pointing out the Patriots’ apparent weaknesses all season. The same guys who a week ago anointed them the best team of all time will now be writing about aging linebackers or their inability to run the ball. Ugh.
Many of the changes were foreseen, some were hoped for but have yet to come to fruition (guest bloggers), some were completely unanticipated. Amongst the unfortunate victims of the blog cuts were a number of ongoing series (People of Note, Things I Care About (And Why)). These were series that I had every intention to continue, but the realities of once a week posting made them difficult to maintain (it’s tough to justify writing a week’s sole post on Ned Kelly).
But recently the gravest of all neglects was brought to my attention: Alas, I have failed to select a new Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month.
This omission has been met with unexpected outrage from our little community. Well, faithful readers, you have spoken; rest assured your calls do not go unheeded. This is still a blog for the people.
Congratulations Kevan “K-Han” Hanson on being named February’s Zizzle-Zot Reader of the month!
Though a devoted reader for some time, K-Han spent months under the radar because he didn’t comment as frequently as others. However, it was recently pointed out to me (by the also dedicated and comment averse Suzy Corcs) that the award is called “Reader of the Month,” not “Responder of the Month,” or “Commenter of the Month.” Point taken. Unfortunately I have no method to track exactly who is visiting Zizzle-Zot, etc. All I have are the numbers.
But K-Han more than proved his commitment after the last post, where you’ll notice that he authored 3 out of the first 4 comments. I then noticed that with K-Han on the job, the Zot-Counter soared past 5,600 visits. If we all had the devotion of K-Han, Zizzle-Zot, etc. would quickly become the most visited site on the www, surpassing even Google and TMZ.com, making us more influential than FOXNews in a room full of Baptists.
Thanks, K-Han, for your tireless efforts to assimilate the world to the Zizzle-Zot family.
Resistance is futile (Star Trek: The Next Generation reference. Anyone? The Borg? Come on, people).
Thanks for reading.
P.S. I’m sure I don’t even need to say this, but the Giants Super Bowl win makes me nauseous. And that Eli was named the MVP is just kicking a man while he’s down. I’ll give Manning credit for not losing the super bowl, but what were his stats? 150 yards, 2 TDs and one interception. What a monumental, memorable performance.
I’ll give credit to three factors:
1) The Giants defensive line. Michael Strahan, Osi Umenyiora and most impressive (at least in this game) Justin Tuck dominated the line of scrimmage for four quarters, stonewalling the running game and serving Brady with a pounding. These guys should have been co-MVPs.
2) The choke artistry of the Patriots offensive line. For 18 games these guys were flawless. During the regular season Brady never got touched. He had enough time in the pocket to knit a scarf before throwing the football. Then they get to the big game and look like a loosely affiliated consortium of flat-footed ninnies. The Giants D beat them repeatedly, and to make matters worse, Pro Bowler Matt Light was whistled for 2 false starts.
3) The great Bill Belichick was out-coached. All season long we’ve been hearing about the Patriots’ ability to make adjustments, to quickly respond to the defensive schemes of their opponents and pick apart their weaknesses. Could it be that this was all hype? Urban legend? The Patriots offense looked completely bewildered in the first half, trying to either force the run (which I’ll never understand because given their passing game) and finding themselves repeatedly stuffed, or having Brady drop back and get sacked. If Belichick is such a genius, why did it take him until the Patriots final drive to realize that quick passes over the middle were the key to moving the chains? Linebackers can’t cover Welker and Faulk, and why not have Moss and Stallworth run some routes over the middle to keep them guessing? I’m not even a football guy, but if I were playing this game in Madden ’08 I know what my plan would be.
I think the worst part about the Giants victory will be listening to a bunch of smug football analysts talk about how they were pointing out the Patriots’ apparent weaknesses all season. The same guys who a week ago anointed them the best team of all time will now be writing about aging linebackers or their inability to run the ball. Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
