Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri...

I must not be very intelligent when it comes to matters of foreign diplomacy. Perhaps I should request a crash course in negotiating sensitive matters of national and international security from one of my good friends, who currently works for the U.S. State Department. Or is it the U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action! as their website says?

See, I tend to think that if a person or a country is going to negotiate in good faith using bargaining chips, then those chips should already be on the table before the negotiating session begins. I may very well be wrong about that. Like I said, I'm not an expert.

I did see this article on Yahoo! news this morning, in which the Russians claim to make a wonderful conciliatory gesture towards a more cooperative and peaceful approach with the new Obama Administration. Look at us! We promise we won't deploy nuclear-tipped missiles on the Polish border because George W. Bush is no longer in office! Especially since Obama has not ruled out the possibility of continuing Bush's plans for a missile defense shield in Europe (he only promised to consider the policy on its merits before deciding what to do), Russia's move seems to be fairly magnanimous.

However, check out when Moscow originally announced the deployment of their Iskander missiles: it was 5 Nov 08, the day after Obama was elected President. So, this whole announcement of a new era of cooperation, of extending an olive branch to the Obama Administration, is really just a ruse designed to make the Russians look good. They created the faux crisis a day after our Presidential election for the sole purpose of being able to use that bargaining chip now.

That must be how international diplomacy is really conducted.

Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh?... Good, then... well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine... Good... Well, it's good that you're fine and... and I'm fine... I agree with you, it's great to be fine... a-ha-ha-ha-ha...

Please Don't Let Me be Misunderstood

I really try to avoid creating multiple posts in one day, primarily because I'm worried that I won't have enough to write about on other days. However, I just saw this video clip from what appears to be a Republican response to Slate and just had to respond:



Now, I'm no political guru, but what Mark McKinnon says about President Bush not revealing his lighter side to the national media runs counter to everything we've been taught to believe about the press. I'm not talking about the presumed bias against anything Republican here; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh fill that void. No, it is this direct quote from McKinnon:

It’s really hard, and it’s increasingly hard with the proliferation of media, to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to. To get kind of behind the curtain and show the human side.

Wait, you're trying to make the claim that the reason why no one ever saw the softer side of Bush 43 is because of the proliferation of media? That there are too many sources from which we voters can get to know a candidate?

I don't think I've ever heard anything more patently false* than that. I know that these political insiders, spin doctors, and apparatchiks have their own agendas any time they open their mouths. Michael J. Fox had a wonderful TV show for a long time based on that one premise. But there should be a line drawn between simple spin or image control and outright falsehoods.

* Well, maybe that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they were looking for a warm water port, but that's beside the point.

Case in point: The current (and soon to be former) Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently undergoing impeachment hearings in the Illinois state Senate. He decided to boycott the proceedings, claiming a denial of his due process, and instead is waging the public perception war for his image by making personal appearances on 20/20, Good Morning America, and whatnot. That's his right, and certainly lots of people who have screwed up royally decided to take a similar path. Why admit any wrongdoing, when you can shed a few tears in front of Barbara Walters and get a few sympathetic people on your side? It's as American as apple pie, these days.

However, that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. Falsehoods are falsehoods, no matter how they are spun. Getting back to the original comment, doesn't McKinnon think there was a single TV show host who would have loved to bring Bush 43 on the set and present him in a favorable light? His statement is that not a single event like that was possible for the eight years of the Bush administration, and that is impossible to believe. Were the shots of Bush relaxing on his Crawford, TX ranch not enough to humanize the man? What about the stills of Bush riding his mountain bike?

No, the real culprit here is not the fact that too many media choices exist to showcase a candidate's sense of humor. For too long, politics have revolved around the ability to show candidates in more open settings. Think of Bill Clinton appearing on MTV to field the infamous "Boxers or briefs?" question, or of him appearing on The Tonight Show to play the sax for Jay Leno. The real danger is that those fluff pieces can drown out more serious discussions on policy stances or political agendas.

Ask yourself this question: what was the alternative before these media avenues existed? Political machines like Tammany Hall used to pick our candidates for us, didn't they? Behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, they did. Would we really want to head back to that style of process?

No, the real culprits for not knowing enough about a candidate are those spin meisters like McKinnon himself. As access to the candidates improved with radio and television this past century, those candidates best able to work with the new technologies benefited the most. Think of JFK in the first televised debate with Richard Nixon. Anyone listening to that debate thought Nixon won; those watching on TV had a vastly different impression. Heck, think of those candidates (including Obama) now blogging and using the Internet to spur grassroots organizations and fund-raising machines.

But as access has increased, so has the worry (again, on the part of the spin meisters like McKinnon) that their candidate will say or do something stupid while a camera or like device is recording. The only alternative? To severely restrict access to a candidate and heavily script every appearance, every utterance, to make sure the candidate remains on topic and on message, lest any words that could be used in a negative campaign ad be caught on tape.

The same is true in sports, as well. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, at one point of their lives, were happy, confident young men who delighted in telling their own story to the press. As they realized the power (and lucrative nature!) of marketing themselves, they clammed up to the point of only saying the most droll of sound bites. It's also why Jordan never took up a side for a politician, using the old line that "Republicans buy shoes, too."

So, the problem is not that there are too many media outlets "...to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to." The problem is that the candidates' or President's handlers won't allow him (or her) to speak for him- or herself while on the campaign trail or while in office. Just give credit where credit is due. You can't blame mass media for every ill in society, as tempting as that might be.

25 Things

There is a chain-mail type of note being passed around Facebook these days. No, not this type of chain mail... ...this type of chain mail, or chain letter. It asks anyone who has "been tagged" by another writer to then create a new note with 25 random things about themselves. It's similar to the old e-mails that people used to send with "personal interview" types of questions (you know the ones: "Paper or plastic? Boxers or briefs? Vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry? Etc., etc.), but is unique in that it is completely open-ended. People can, and do, write about any and all things that might describe themselves. Which does create a window into a person's thinking, character, and personality, after all.

The full set of instructions that accompanies the note is here:

Rules: Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.

My own wife was the person who tagged me on Facebook, and I'm still debating just how to answer her note. On one hand, I don't want to go overboard and list anything that anyone might find offensive. There's still a great deal of internal editing that happens, since you know that your friends on Facebook (which, in my case, also includes my current Pastor) are reading. No one wants to leave the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.

But then that means people are writing just the vanilla things about themselves that are socially acceptable for mass consumption. Maybe I do have artistic roots after all (thanks, Dad!), because I say, "Where's the fun in that?!" If you can't push the boundaries*, then why do it? In a completely open-ended personality quiz, don't you want to provide information that people don't already know about you? To provoke some thought about what it means to be alive these days? I think so.

* This is completely off-topic, but I wanted to throw this out there: Comedians live on that edge of social acceptability, and I think it's fascinating to see what happens as they get older. Eddie Murphy? No longer funny. Mel Brooks? No longer funny. Steve Martin? No longer funny. Robin Williams? No longer funny. If you think Chris Rock will still be funny in another 20-30 years, think again. Why is that premise universally true? When comedians are young, they are willing to take risks in unexpected ways. They often go for the shock value of a funny comment, and it's all about pushing the boundaries. In order to be truly funny, that's what it's all about. See "All in the Family" and Blazing Saddles (1974) for just two examples. As the comedian gets older, he or she is less willing to take those same risks, which is all part of our natural tendencies as humans to become more conservative or set in our ways as we get older. I'm not talking about conservative in a political sense; just that those mind-sets that formed our adult ways of thinking become more and more established until the person cannot think of changing to a new line of thinking. See Archie Bunker, above.

There are other ways of treating this "25 notes" thing, of course. You could strictly play it for laughs, being as ironic or sarcastic as you wish. I'm sure there are plenty of people on Facebook already doing so. You could try to be deep with your thoughts, striving to impress people with just how smart* you really are. You could approach this list using the "things I believe" framework popularized by Bull Durham (1988). Hell, you could probably rip off 25 notes derived purely from popular song lyrics or movie lines that you felt still described your personality in some way. I haven't seen anyone do that yet, and it would be fun to try that approach. Don't give the references away, and just see how many people pick up on the joke. Hmmm...

* To which I always think of Homer Simpson, in the episode where he gets into Springfield College, burning his high school GED certificate while singing, "I am so smart! S-M-R-T!!"

OK, now that I've gotten all of that out of the way, here are my 25 things:

1. I always overthink things too much. (Well, duh! What was your first clue?)
2. I always, always, always wanted to be a better athlete than I am. Still do. I fantasize that I could join the PGA Tour if I had the time and money to devote to training full-time. In reality, it ain't gonna happen. I just don't have the physical skills necessary, even just playing golf.
   
3. Even having said that, I still think I could have been a great race car driver, if given the chance early enough in life to hone those skills. In racing, the car does an awful lot of the work. It still takes great strength, hand-eye coordination, a seat-of-the-pants feel for what the car is doing, and lots and lots of practice on the driver's part, plus one other thing I discovered I have while racing go-karts in Thailand and Germany: the top drivers can control their emotions while running in traffic, which allows them to focus just on their own line in and out of the turns. I can do that. And yet, as fast as I was in the go-karts, there was always someone just a wee bit faster.
4. I feel like I missed my calling in life. I was tempted to put "sometimes" at the end of that sentence, but left it off.
5. When I was young (middle school-age), the first thought I had of what profession I would pursue when I was older was that of author/writer.
6. Then I fell in love with flying, and pursued that instead. Despite becoming airsick in planes smaller than commercial airliners. Despite all the travails I endured while a cadet at USAFA. Despite the Air Force drastically cutting back on its estimates for just how many pilots they needed at the time. It's probably amazing just how long I banged my head against that door after it was closed to me.
7. I annoy my wife any time we watch football together. My natural tendency, honed from years of watching football games with my family and with the guys in the Squadron Activity Room (SAR) at USAFA, is to talk to the TV non-stop during the games. About 95% of the time, the same words come out of my mouth about 1-2 seconds before they come out of the announcers' mouths. She no longer watches football with me.
   
8. The same typically applies when it comes to watching movies with my brother: we talk to the screen almost non-stop. The robots of "MST3K" are our heroes! I never had more fun in a single movie than when Bentley and I went to see Troy (2004) together. Fortunately, the theater was pretty well empty that night, or we would have been booted.
9. Did I mention I'm a geek? I never wore the nerd label very well, but I am more than happy to call myself "King of the Geeks" for some reason.
10. I always fret about work. I dislike work for work's sake, so I'm always looking for shortcuts when it comes to getting something done. I sometimes call myself lazy for that very reason.
11. I don't like my current career, but it pays the bills and gives me something to do. But because I'm in work that I don't like, I try to spend as little time doing it as possible. See note 10, above.
12. We've been told that we should love what we do for a living. One retired UIUC professor said he never spent less than 60 hours a week doing his work. Did he ever see his children as they were growing up? And if everyone does just what they love, then who would be the janitors in society? Actually, I adore the comic "Frazz" because it's about an elementary school janitor who has time to train for triathlons. Sure, he doesn't make much money, but he's happy interacting with the kids. Hmmm...
13. In college, I received similar guidance from my first calculus professor at THE Ohio State University. I went in for some extra help, since I was completely lost on logarithmic functions. His only advice was to do more homework. If I don't know what I'm doing, what's the point of doing more work wrongly? I withdrew from that class before I got an F.
14. Not to think too highly of myself, but I tended to get good grades in high school, which made me think I'm reasonably smart. High school physics, algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, biology -- all of those were fine and I did well in those classes. When I got to college, the freshman-level versions of those same topics completely kicked my ass. That's why I was a history major for my undergrad degree.
15. Just try getting a job with "Russian History" on your resume.
    
16. Oh, and in my senior-level history capstone course, when we read our essays out loud in front of the entire class, mine were about the worst. There were clearly much smarter people than I am who later went on to grad school in history. On Rhodes scholarships and the like. Pretty humbling stuff.
17. Did I mention I feel lost in my mid-life career path? There might be things I like about the work I do, but I have the feeling I'm on this path only because I can read and write. Literally. Oh, sure, I got my foot in the door with IT Systems Integration Management because I had an active security clearance at the time. I've learned quite a bit about IT systems and Project Management over time, even earning my PMP credential this past year. But sometimes I feel just completely lost. I'm trying to learn the relevant parts of the software development life cycle (SDLC) right now.
18. If I'm having a mid-life crisis, it started when I was 27. Where's my red convertible and hot blonde?
19. I do have to give props to my wife, who was gracious enough to say yes when I asked. Yes, the famous Winston Churchill quote "My most brilliant achievement was my ability to be able to persuade my wife to marry me" applies to me, too. I think it applies to darn near every man aware enough to realize it.
20. I didn't get married until I was about to turn 32. We didn't have children until I was 35. I never, ever realized what I was missing by not having children in my life. Sure, I loved being an uncle, but it's completely different. As frustrating as kids can be at times (and no one can make my kids cry faster than I can, to my eternal shame), they are such an incredible blessing to have in my life.
    
21. I secretly think that if I were separated from my kids for any reason, I might not be able to continue living. Hey, that would make a pretty good Post Secret postcard.
22. I really wish I were a better creative writer. There is this post from a computer scientist that just blows me away. I wish I had that kind of talent, but I'm just too literal. My brain doesn't work in more creative ways. I also use way too many words to describe anything, current post included.
    
23. I've never been a good story teller, but love to listen to those who are. Garrison Keillor comes to mind.
    
24. I should have at least one item related to gaming, shouldn't I? All my life, ever since the first Atari 2600, I've always loved finding ways to play games on computers and console boxes. Inevitably, I would spend way too much time playing a game, and then have to feel sick to my stomach that I couldn't devote the time needed to my schoolwork to get a better grade. That's still true today, but I'm desperately curbing my desire to buy a Wii and play games with my kids nonstop.
    
25. What else? Jesus saves; all others roll 4d6 for damage. If you don't get that reference, I'm not gonna explain it to you.
    

Now that I have these things written here, I'm tempted to pick up the list and transfer it over to Facebook. Larry Tesler is my hero! How many times have you heard those words? Not enough.

Russian Help on Afghanistan

No, the headline above is not a non-sequitur, as much as it may seem like one. It springs from this article I just read on Yahoo!'s news aggregation service.

Now, there are many ways of reading this fairly short news article from Reuters. On the surface, it appears like the incoming Obama administration is already fostering hope in renewed or strengthened relations with the international community. That could be one way of looking at it, since the U.S., NATO, and Russia had a bit of a falling-out after Russia's war with Georgia last summer. Perhaps Big Bad Vlad Putin and Russian President Dmitry* Medvedev felt like they could mend relations with the new Obama administration better than they could with the outgoing Bush administration.**

* I still can never think of a Russian President/Soviet Premier named Dmitry without thinking, of course, of Stanley Kubrik's all-time classic Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). Dmitri Kissoff... ha! Still makes me laugh! There are not many Peter Sellers roles that even begin to approach the hilarity of the three he had in this one movie.

** This, despite Bush's famous quote about meeting with Putin and seeing into his soul.

Another way of looking at the news is that Russia, perhaps, sees another opportunity to exert its influence in a region it has long coveted (unless coveted is too strong a word) during a time of leadership transition in the U.S. government. Russia's offer to "help" us in Afghanistan comes hard on the heels of Tuesday's Inauguration, you have to admit. This honestly could be Obama's first foreign-policy test, but it is too early to tell the true intent of the Russians here.

I loved this quote taken directly from the Reuters article:

"Let us hope the new U.S. administration will be more successful in the Afghan settlement than its predecessor," Medvedev told a news conference after talks with Uzbek President Islam Karimov.

Or did he mean, "...more successful than WE were in suppressing the Islamic Mujahideen resistance during our decade-long entanglement in Afghanistan"?!! Which raises a great deal of questions all on its own.

I was old enough to remember the nightly news covering the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when I was a child. I clearly remember President Jimmy Carter boycotting the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow in retalliation for the invasion, which then was repaid in kind by the Eastern Bloc countries boycotting the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, CA.

One thing I was never fully clear on, and I don't think the nightly news programs* ever answered on their own, was WHY the Soviets felt compelled to invade Afghanistan in the first place. It was pretty clear why the U.S. responded the way it did, and the movie they made starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts on Charlie Wilson's War (2007) provided a nice historical perspective, even if it wasn't 100% true. On this topic, the Wikipedia page provides some information related to the events leading up to the Soviet invasion, but it should not be trusted as a source for a deeper understanding of the Soviet rationale.

* The one we probably watched over any others at the time was Dan Rather on the CBS Nightly News, and oh, how long ago does that seem now! Who watches the evening news any more these days?

So, before I go off to the library in search of more scholarly tomes on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I thought I would post the question here: does anyone know which book(s) are the best one(s) on this topic? Wikipedia actually does a decent job of listing source material for the footnotes, all of which are found at the bottom of the page linked above. I could sift through those footnotes to find books on the topic, I suppose. Even then, you always want to be reading the right books, right?

All I know is this: the rationale for the Soviet invasion I remember as being provided at the time, that the Soviets were looking to secure a warm-water port outside their Black Sea fleet, is completely bogus.

Lie to Me - A Deceiver Remake?

Tonight marks the debut of a new show on Fox, "Lie to Me." At least, tonight, 21 Jan 09, Fox plans to show the pilot for a TV series called "Lie to Me", but IMDB is silent on whether they've filmed any episodes beyond the pilot. Fox's own website for new shows is strangely muted in how much detail it provides for "Lie to Me". However, the previews for this new show have been all over Fox's broadcasts, so I saw several during the NFL games last Sunday.

What I find most interesting about the new show is how similar the role for Tim Roth appears to another of his roles, that of James Walter Wayland in Deceiver (1997). For those readers unfamiliar with that movie, it came not long after Roth's star turns in such Quentin Tarantino films as Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), and Four Rooms (1995). That stretch capped an impressive run of roles for Roth that started with his playing of Gildenstern in that retelling of the classic Shakespeare story Hamlet, but from the point of view of the hired assassins, Rosencrantz & Gildenstern Are Dead (1990).

That movie was simply brilliant, and done by the same writer and director who later won Oscar for Shakespeare in Love (1998), Tom Stoppard. The fact that Shakespeare in Love was a retelling of the classic story of Romeo & Juliet from a different perspective totally gave it away as a Stoppard work. It was a nice movie, but totally didn't deserve Best Picture over Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan that year.

At any rate, Roth in Deceiver plays a wealthy alcoholic who may or may not have murdered a prostitute in the park. He was the last person who saw her alive, and so the Detectives investigating the murder naturally focus their attention on Wayland. Without spoiling the ending for anyone who has not yet seen the movie, let's just say that many of the same elements shown in the previews for "Lie to Me" are also demonstrated after the Detectives hook Wayland up to a lie detector machine. Chris Penn, another veteran of some of those same Tarantino movies, and Michael Rooker did great turns as the two Detectives in the movie.

I'll probably tune in to the pilot episode tonight, just to see Roth's performance in the new show. I'll be interested to see just how similar the new role is to his past role in Deceiver. Roth seems to be an actor with an affinity for such edgy roles, so I anticipate "Lie to Me" will be good, as long as the writing works for the hour-long show.

Best of Luck to the New POTUS

I think he'll need it in the immediate future! Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States (POTUS) today, and plenty of people have already served up their commentary on what his election means for our nation.

I did take the time to watch a live feed of Obama's speech during work today (Shhh! Don't tell my boss), along with several of my coworkers. Perhaps it was just too frigid for the attendees on the vast expanses of the Mall, most of whom had been standing around for hours in the cold, to warm up and applaud at appropriate times during Obama's speech. There seemed to be several instances where he deliberately paused, expecting a reaction from the crowd, only to be met with silence or simply muted clapping. Throughout the speech, there were no real roars of approval except, perhaps, when Obama pledged to get troops out of Iraq in so many words.

What is interesting is this comparison of today's speech to W's last Inaugural speech from 2005, courtesy of James Taranto's "Best of the Web" column in today's WSJ:

First, Obama's speech from today:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus--and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West--know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Here is George W. Bush, four years ago today:

From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The two speeches were not that dissimilar, and gave credence to the same founding principles that are what make America great. In my own humble opinion, Obama's speech was not hugely historic -- definitely not up to the standard set by JFK -- but it served as a reminder that Obama has plenty of challenges facing his administration.

Many people have also commented that words are cheap and that actions, not words, will carry the day. Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes. It will continue to be very interesting to see just how Obama will govern from the White House, now that he is the POTUS. I continue to have hope in the future, but let's see where the next few months and years take us as a nation.

Most telling will be what the U.S. response is after the next time terrorists attack our interests, be it an attack on U.S. Navy ships like the USS Cole, train bombings like in London or Madrid, or something else equally henious. It's probably not a question of if, but more like when something like that happens, how will Obama respond? Time will tell.

Who'd a Thunk It?

Any NFL fan by now already knows that this year's Super Bowl appears to favor the AFC just a teeny, tiny bit. When Arizona, the unlikeliest of Super Bowl contestants we've seen in a long while, takes on Pittsburgh at Raymond James Stadium in the city of Tampa, FL on 1 February, most people will expect a massacre. As the old saying goes, you sell tickets with offense (Arizona), but win championships with defense (the Steelers).

Ah, but there is a reason why they still play the game. In a single-elimination tournament like the NFL playoffs, any team can have a good day and upset any other team, as we saw last year with the NY Giants beating the supposedly unbeatable NE Patriots. It was one of the mighty Football Outsiders (Aaron Schatz), writing a column for the venerable Worldwide Leader in Sports, who declared the G-men "...one of the worst teams to reach the Super Bowl" last January. I wonder if he'll do a follow-up article on the Cardinals this year?

After all, the Cardinals had one of the lowest win-loss records (9-7) of the teams that made the playoffs, were miserable playing in the Eastern time zone until they upset Carolina at home two Sundays ago, and really didn't start playing even respectable defense until the playoffs. They lost to perhaps the best team to not make the playoffs, those pesky Patriots, 47-7 in a laffer* in week 16 of the regular season. No one predicted Arizona, the number four seed, would be in the NFC Championship game, much less in the Super Bowl, when the playoffs started three weeks ago.

* Should that be written "laugher"? Because that doesn't look right either.

And yet, here they are. In the Super Bowl. With at least a shot at beating the Super Bowl champions from the 2005 season, a team that still has many of the same players, meaning they have veteran leadership that knows how to handle the media intensity leading up to the Big Event.

Franchises making their first-ever appearance in the Super Bowl have not done well throughout the history of the event, winning just six times against 17 losses. Only once did two Super Bowl virgins meet, and that was the 1982 matchup of the 49ers and the Bengals ('82 was when the Super Bowl was played, at the end of the '81 NFL season).

The sportscasters covering yesterday's playoff game mentioned a little bit of Super Bowl trivia: according to them (and this was an unsanctioned trivia question, so no graphics appeared to support it), only four franchises have never made it to the Super Bowl, now that Arizona has made it to the Big Event. They ticked off the Detroit Lions, the NO Saints, the Cleveland Browns, and the Houston Texans. However, I think they missed a fifth franchise, the Jacksonvile Jaguars. As near as I can tell, those are the only franchises in the modern NFL that have never competed in the Super Bowl.

I also learned today that the Super Bowl shares some history with such events as the Las Vegas Marathon, the Montreux Jazz Festival, the Consumer Electronics Show, the Smithsonian Kite Festival, and the Tour de Bretagne Cycliste in cycling. What do they all have in common? They were all started in 1967.

Just a little trivia for your Monday reading pleasure.

Work-Life Balance is a Myth - Confirmed!

This entry from the WSJ's excellent Blog, The Juggle, proves it! Carol Bartz, the new CEO of Yahoo!, says so, and provided amplifying details in an interview she did with people at More magazine.

The sad thing is, Carol and More magazine focused solely on the work-life balance issues as experienced by women in the workplace. That's probably a result of More magazine's core audience, which I assume to be working women over the age of 40. I know I've never heard of it before today.

Not enough people either give credit to or think about the working men who experience the same types of work-life balance issues that I wrote about previously. Maybe our society still expects (or practically insists) its fathers be absentee Dads, slaves to the workplace in order to provide a solid home for our families. If a father requests consideration when it comes to work day hours, flexible leave schedules, or the use of the Family Leave Medical Act (FMLA), you can be sure that guy will get put on the "Daddy Track" at work, soon to be left behind promotion-wise by his peers.

It's a crying shame.

Lyrical Dissonance

Have you ever heard a song that sounds very upbeat, with a catchy melody, but when you pay attention to the words, it turns out to be a very sad or depressing song? That came to mind yesterday when, in a furtive attempt to cheer people up during the cold, depressing winter weather we're experiencing, the song leader at my Rotary club selected "You Are My Sunshine" as the song of the day.

If you aren't familiar with the lyrics, here is the main chorus:

You are my sunshine
My only sunshine
You make me happy
When skies are gray;
You'll never know, dear,
How much I love you.
Please don't take my sunshine away.

Most people are already familiar with that refrain. How many are familiar with the next verse, which goes like this:

The other nite, dear,
As I lay sleeping
I dreamed I held you in my arms.
When I awoke, dear,
I was mistaken
And I hung my head and cried.

And then there are other verses, which normally don't get included in the song. These were available online, and I assume some versions of the song include them:

I'll always love you
And make you happy
If you will only say the same
But if you leave me
To love another
You'll regret it all some day;

Chorus

You told me once, dear
You really loved me
And no one else could come between
But now you've left me
And love another
You have shattered all my dreams;

Chorus

Real cheery stuff, isn't it? At the time, I knew there was a musical term that described such a juxtaposition of upbeat music and downbeat lyrics, but I couldn't think of it. Today, I googled for the following search terms: "music term lyrics song don't match upbeat sad." In return, this website came back as the sixth hit for that search. So, not only do I now know that the correct terminology is lyrical dissonance, but I also have many, many examples of such lyrical dissonance provided by listeners around the Web.

I'll have to include the lyrics or a reference to "You Are My Sunshine," since that song has not made the list yet. There are some excellent examples of lyrical dissonance provided at that website, including many songs I wouldn't normally think of, but which make perfect sense after someone else suggests them.

However, in addition to the omission of "Sunshine," people left out perhaps the master of all songwriters when it comes to lyrical dissonance. I'm talking about none other than Declan Patrick McManus, AKA Elvis Costello. Almost every song he's written and/or sung, be it with his band The Attractions or in his solo career, has had some measure of lyrical dissonance. From early work such as "Alison" and "Radio, Radio" to later hits such as "Veronica" and "Every Day I Write the Book," Costello's songs often strike upbeat, cheery melodies... ...but the lyrics couldn't be darker.

Costello also covered "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" in excellent fashion, with an upbeat tempo. He also did a cover of Burt Bacharach's "I'll Never Fall in Love Again" for the Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me soundtrack, another example of what sounds like a beautiful little love song, but whose lyrics make it certain he'll never open up his heart to another.

I've been very impressed with this phenomenon every time I listen to an Elvis Costello song, but I wasn't motivated to learn the musical term behind it until yesterday's singing of "You Are My Sunshine." Funny how that works.

Random Thoughts for a Monday Morning

Thus far, I've resisted the temptation to run through a semi-organized list of random thoughts that flicker through my consciousness, attempting to keep each post centered on an easily discernable topic. Once I've progressed down this list, you'll see why.

• Over the weekend, I watched the original The Italian Job (1969) with Michael Caine in the lead role. I have seen the Marky Mark remake from 2003, but from what I remember, the similarities between the two movies begin and end with the bad/good guys using Minis to escape after a heist in Italy.
  
• The ending from the original Italian Job is one of the greatest WTF? moments in movie history, apparently. It's a good thing I didn't see the movie until very recently, because Caine only revealed in late 2008 the meaning behind the sudden end credits.
  
• The movie does have a good soundtrack, courtesy of Quincy Jones. And the "Self-Preservation Society" tune towards the end is very catchy, if a complete non-sequitur in the movie.
• The original has to be considered a comedy, and that the writers and actors played every scene for laughs, or else it doesn't make any sense. And, boy, have our opinions of what is or isn't funny changed since the late Sixties!
• The original Italian Job received a G - General Audiences rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and I know that the ratings system has changed over the years, but wow! When women were prancing about in their underwear, I couldn't believe it! G -- it's not just for Disney any more!
• My wife and I have been watching a TON of period costume dramas lately, including such fare as The Other Boleyn Girl (2008), Becoming Jane (2007), Lady Jane (the 1986 movie with Helena Bonham Carter and Cary Elwes), A Room With a View (1985), and the latest, Tess of the D'Urbervilles (2008), a Masterpiece Contemporary production from England. As kids, we used to groan and leave the room whenever our parents would turn on Masterpiece Theater on PBS. My tastes must be changing.
• Oh, and whether the mores of the time were captured in historical fiction like The Other Boleyn Girl, or just reflected by the fiction of the time like Tess, aren't we all better off now that women are no longer treated as Chattel? It's a bit scary to think that we are not that far removed from the time when a woman had no say in her marriage, when daughters were treated as pawns to be used to advance a family's social standing, and when a woman who was raped was blamed for losing her womanly "virtue."
• Going along with the movies mentioned above, we also saw The Magdalene Sisters (2002), in which young women in 1960s Ireland were subjected to dehumanizing cruelty if the Catholic nuns considered them to be "fallen women." Not that far removed at all, are we?
• And despite the fact that women received the unfettered right to vote (the 19th Amendment, in 1920) long before African-Americans did (the 24th Amendment, in 1962, which combined with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 eliminated the last blockages imposed after the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870), isn't it interesting that the 1960s and '70s shared the upheaval of both the Civil Rights movement and the sexual revolution?
• In many parts of the world, girls are still prevented from receiving an education. They are instead sold into sexual slavery in places like Thailand, and their wages get sent back to provide a living for their family. Several not-for-profits exist to prevent or stop this human trafficking; the one I like, because it was founded by two USAFA grads, is the Somaly Mam Foundation.
• Think about it, and get involved.
  
• Boy, the statistic of home field advantage enjoyed during the Divisional playoff round (where home teams were winning 76% of the time) was turned upside-down this weekend, wasn't it?! Exactly upside-down: home teams were 1-3 this weekend.
• Who would have predicted Arizona (the number four seed, the lowest ranked Division winner, 9-7 on the season by virtue of going 6-0 within their Division, 0-5 playing in the Eastern time zone during the regular season) would be hosting the NFC Championship game next weekend? I thought Carolina was the closest thing to a cold, hard, lead pipe lock (with all due apologies to Mike & Mike in the Mornings) left in the NFL playoffs.
• Hey, that's why they play the games.
• So, we're left with a formerly 9-6-1 Philly team that advanced into the playoffs by virtue of that one tie with Cincinnati (and at the time, all the talking heads described it as a loss for the Eagles, since it was against the cover-your-eyes-awful Bungles) going up against a Cardinals team that previously hadn't won a playoff game since the Truman administration. No, no one saw that coming.
• It's also interesting to note that Joe Flacco became the first rookie QB in NFL history to win two playoff games. Ever.
  
• Now that the Giants have been knocked off, at home, by the Eagles, the Super Bowl favorite has to shift to the Steelers **shudder** who at least proved they still know how to win at home after a bye week.
• Think the NFL head office and the NBC ad execs are shaking at the prospects of a Pittsburgh or Baltimore vs. Arizona or Philly Super Bowl? Nah, this is the Super Bowl we're talking about, not the World Series or NBA finals. The ratings are contestant-proof.
• In cycling news, Lance Armstrong is getting ready to compete for the first time in the Tour Down Under (20-25 Jan 09). He says he is back in competitive cycling again just to help raise awareness for his cancer-fighting foundation, but it will be interesting to see what happens once his famously competitive juices start flowing again.
• Sorry, I probably shouldn't put Lance Armstrong and "competitive juices" so closely together in one paragraph. I would venture that no single athlete has been more suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs while simultaneously passing every single drug screening test administered to him in all his years of competition. The man has successfully passed over what? 175? 200? drug tests without a single positive or false positive. There's something to be said for that. You still cannot prove a negative.
  
• Now that Armstrong has been reunited with Johann Bruyneel, the team manager for all of Lance's Tour de France-winning teams, it will be interesting to see what they do together. For one thing, Bruyneel's current team, Astana, was blocked from racing in leTour in 2008 due to doping suspicions surrounding the team. Will they even be allowed to race in France this year?
• One more thing on Armstrong: he is an expectant father! Again! And the news story says this baby was conceived naturally. Hmmm... apparently we can still refer to Lance as "ol' one nut Armstrong."
• I've always wondered if perhaps Armstrong receives injections for the medical purposes of replacing lost testosterone, but never have seen any mention of anything at all along those lines. Does a man who has lost a testicle for whatever reason have hormonal imbalances in his body? WebMD appears to be mostly silent on this topic.
• My wife and I also had a "The Big Bang Theory" (CBS sitcom) marathon on Friday and Saturday. That shows just how exciting married life with children can be, I guess. We had to get the DVDs from Netflix, since the show normally is on during the time we are busy with the 3B routine with the kids. Oh, and CBS doesn't make full episodes of its shows available on its website, unlike ABC and NBC. I wonder why not?
  
• Being able to watch the majority of a full season of a sitcom in just two nights is pretty cool, though. It provides more continuity, and certainly more instant gratification, than waiting for a show to come on once a week. We loved it!
• Oh, and "The Big Bang Theory" is a fun show! I'm a geek, I admit.
  
• After one episode, when two Chinese kids were shown in their room with the lights flickering (the lights were being controlled remotely by the nerds in the show; you have to have seen it), I just HAD to go online and find out what comic or superhero logo one of the kids was wearing. It was a red shirt, with a red spike in the middle of a yellow circle with two squared-off "wings" on either side. How on earth can a person search for a nameless logo online? My first guess was a Flash Gordon logo from the mid-'80s movie of the same name. Bzzzzt! Incorrect answer. I googled for the words "big bang theory red yellow logo t-shirt" and came up with this as the second hit.
• Ain't the Internet great?!
  
• Like I said, I'm a geek. But "The Greatest American Hero" was way ahead of its time. I have to think its variation of post-modern ironic humor would go over much better these days.
• I did have a dream last night where I was on the Moon, and discovered a race of big, rock people, much like what was featured in Galaxy Quest (1999). Yeah, I'm a geek. I remember thinking, "Why hasn't anyone discovered this before?" and coming to the conclusion that there are vast swaths of territory on the Moon we haven't explored. There's a thought for you.

That's it! That's the list. That will do it for this Monday.

Another College Football Season Finished, but Not Without Controversy

I'm sure that anyone with an interest in college football probably took the time to watch last night's BCS National Title Championship Game Sponsored by FedEx between Florida and Oklahoma University. It was perhaps not a pretty game, owing to the layoff between conference championship games and the last game of the BCS bowl season. Still, the game was interesting for many different reasons.

The first example is that last night's game pitted the past two Heisman Trophy (the award that annually goes to the player voters deem to be the best overall player in all of college football) winners, Tim Tebow of Florida (the 2007 Heisman winner) and Sam Bradford of OU (the 2008 Heisman winner). There have been many players who won the Heisman as underclassmen, certainly. I would venture that last night's game was the first to have two Heisman winners opposing each other* in a game with national title implications on the line.

* When Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush were playing Texas in the BCS Title game after the 2005 season (Leinart being the 2004 Heisman winner, and Bush being the 2005 Heisman winner), they were on the same side of the ball.

The announcers also made a comment that I took to be a real, "Well, duh!" statement during the game. They made sure to point out how Bradford was also named to the AP First Team All-American roster.* If a person has been voted as the best all-around player in all of college football, why wouldn't he be named to the First Team All-American squad?

* Tebow, by the way, was only named to the Third Team All-American list, with UT QB Colt McCoy being named to the Second Team list. Forget that he was the 2007 Heisman winner, and that he outplayed Bradford by a large margin in the BCS Title game itself.

Which then got me to thinking about whether there had been times in the past where the Heisman Trophy winner has not been voted First Team All-American. I know that the voters for each award are different, but as I started to do some research on the topic, I was blown away just at the sheer number of All-American lists put out every year. I'm not even going to touch on all the other awards out there in big-time college football, such as the Bronco Nagurski (awarded annually to the best defender), Chuck Bednarik (ditto), Dick Butkus (best LB), Outland Trophy (best lineman), Doak Walker (best RB), Lou Groza (best K), Ray Guy (best P), etc. etc.

In terms of All-American rosters alone, there are 12 different entities that annually select a team of All-American players, to wit: the Associated Press, the Football Writers Association of America, the American Football Coaches Association, the Walter Camp Foundation, the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, Pro Football Weekly, ESPN, CBS Sports, College Football News, Rivals.com, and Scout.com. Whew! I'm tired from typing all of that! Trying to choose just one All-American team to compare against the list of Heisman Trophy winners, I wanted to go with just the best known of all rosters, the annual AP list of All-Americans.

While it was easy to pull up a comprehensive list of Heisman Trophy winners from the www.heisman.com website, I had a much harder time finding resources on the Internet for the history of AP All-American teams. Finding historical records for AP All-Americans might be one of those traditional trek-to-the-library-and-pore-over-microfiche tasks. Normally, putting more search terms into a Google search helps to limit the results somewhat. When I googled for "first team ap all-american history", I received 102,000 hits. When I added the word "records" to the search string, that narrowed down the list somewhat, but only to 74,800 hits. Unfortunately, whenever a writer pens a story about someone from his or her school being named to the AP All-American team, he almost always includes the word "history" or "records" in the story itself. The end result was I couldn't find historical records of AP All-American teams, not even on the AP's own website.

Which brought me back to using the ol' standby, Wikipedia. I actually really like and generally trust the information I find available on Wikipedia, even though I know it is ripe for abuse by people who push a singular point of view. On balance (or should I say "by and large," in honor of Wall-E [2008]?), I feel the people behind Wikipedia do a very good job of moderating revisions to the point where it is no less accurate than any other encyclopedia out there. It's a reference, and any information on it should be treated like it's coming from any other reference: Trust but verify.

Sadly, on the Wikipedia page for College Football All-American Teams, they have data basically covering the modern Internet plus a few scattered years in history (1998-2008, plus 1970, 1931, 1925, and 1910). For comparison's sake with the list of Heisman winners, only those years since 1935 are relevant. Here are the Heisman winners for the years on which we do have AP All-American roster data:

• 1970 - Jim Plunkett, QB, Stanford
• 1998 - Ricky Williams, RB, Texas
• 1999 - Ron Dayne, RB, Wisconsin
• 2000 - Chris Weinke, QB, Florida State
• 2001 - Eric Crouch, QB, Nebraska
• 2002 - Carson Palmer, QB, USC
• 2003 - Jason White, QB, Oklahoma
• 2004 - Matt Leinart, QB, USC
• 2005 - Reggie Bush, RB, USC
• 2006 - Troy Smith, QB, Ohio State
• 2007 - Tim Tebow, QB, Florida
• 2008 - Sam Bradford, QB, OU

That's it, that's the list! Going through all the current years (1998-2008), it certainly appears that every single Heisman Trophy winner was named to the AP First Team All-American roster. In 2000, only AP named Chris Weinke to its list of All-Americans; all the other rating entities chose Josh Heupel, QB, OU over Weinke, which is interesting in and of itself.

Going back to 1970 reveals something different, however. Jim Plunkett, voted as the best player in all of college football that year, was named only to the AP Second Team of All-Americans. None other than Joe Theisman, QB, Notre Dame beat out Plunkett for First Team honors. Which meant the AP voters didn't think Plunkett was the best QB in college football, much less the best overall player that year. As Spock would say, "Fascinating!"

All of this gets right back to what's wrong with Big Time College Football and the BCS, naturally! Too many opinions are thrown around, and you know what they say about people's rear ends and opinions. Voters chose to elevate undefeated Utah up to the #2 spot in the final AP poll of the season, and 16 of those voters selected Utah as the #1 team in the country.

Utah head coach Kyle Whittingham even broke ranks on the USA Today coaches' poll, voting his own team #1 even though coaches are typically bound to vote for the winner of the BCS National Title Championship Game. As of yet, there is no word whether Whittingham will be disciplined for his action by the American Football Coaches Association, but the better question may be why only 61 coaches vote in the USA Today coaches' poll when there are 120 universities playing Division 1-A football?

In my own humble opinion, no one who is a fan of college football would lose interest in early- or mid-season games if the NCAA were to switch to a playoff system. No one would talk around the water cooler any less, and sportswriters still would provide their opinions at the same rate if we had a true champion in college football. Last time I checked, everyone LOVES March Madness, with the only gripes coming just after the Selection Show. People still love to debate who got dissed and/or who should be in the NCAA Tournament, and in that format, 65 teams earn the right to play for a national title in mens' college basketball. At least the outcome of the season is decided on the court, with every team having a chance to win. In Big Time (Division 1-A, or Bowl Subdivision) College Football, everything is subject to opinion. This year, many of the voters never saw Utah play a game until they destroyed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.

I think I'll go back to supporting my second alma mater, the College of William & Mary, who plays big time (albeit Division 1-AA, or Championship Subdivision) football. When they made the playoffs in 2004, it was terribly exciting going to the playoff game between the Tribe and James Madison, the eventual champ. Even as a grad student, I thoroughly enjoyed the playoff atmosphere. The Division 1-A guys could learn from that.

Out of the Mouths of Babes

No, not the babes like Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue babes. I'm talking about babes as in the old Art Linklater franchise (later adopted by many other funnymen, like Bill Cosby) "Kids Say the Darndest Things."

In the past two days, my three-year-old son has come up with some real doozies. I apologize if anyone reading this blog also read my Facebook posts over the past several days, since I also posted these stories there.

The first funny tidbit came when I was herding the kids upstairs yesterday evening for their "3B routine": bath, books, and bedtime. Matthew and I were negotiating over which toy he could carry upstairs, and I remarked that "I am not an unreasonable person." Matthew looked at me and said, "You're not a person. You're a Daddy."

The other tidbit he came up with yesterday actually happened on my wife's watch. She had the kiddos outside for a walk in the afternoon, before it got too dark or too cold outside. The Moon was up already, so she and Matthew were looking up at the Moon. Matthew came up with the idea of asking, "If that's the Moon, where is the Earth?" My wife replied, "You're standing on it." To which Matthew thought for a second, then said, "No, Mommy. That's the sidewalk."

The last little tidbit came from dinner tonight, and I was having flashbacks to either The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) or Reservoir Dogs (1992), whichever one the dear reader happens to be familiar with. For dinner, my very lovely wife fixed spiral sliced ham, collard greens, and cheese grits. Yummy! Matthew for some strange reason started referring to the cheese grits as Mr. White, the collards as Mr. Green, and the ham as Mr. Pink. ("Why do I gotta be Mr. Pink?") Trust me, he's never seen either movie, but it was funny nonetheless. He only wanted to eat Mr. Pink tonight.

Coming Soon to a Theater Near You: 3D Football!

Chances are, many people not reading this blog live somewhat near a movie theater belonging to the Carmike Cinemas chain. They aren't as widespread as the AMC movie theaters, but still cover quite a bit of the country. If you do, and if you want a really big, widescreen 3D view of the BCS National Title Championship Game between Oklahoma and Florida on Thursday evening, you're in luck!

People who follow the NFL probably took notice last month when the NFL demonstrated its 3D streaming of a live game between the miserable Oakland Raiders and the struggling San Diego Chargers in early December. At the time, the NFL was showing its proof-of-concept to only three movie theaters around the country to a very select few NFL high-up muckety muck types. The three theaters were in LA, Boston and NYC, and the invites were pretty exclusive. I know I didn't get one.

I do find it interesting that the NFL's proof-of-concept was clearly a trial version of the technology, with the associated burps and glitches expected of such not-yet-beta technology. And yet, Carmike is pressing forward with its live 3D broadcast of the BCS Championship Game to regular folks on over 1,300 screens across the country. It will be interesting to see if they have any of the same technical glitches that plagued the NFL broadcast at first, and if that sours people on the viewing experience.

Even more interesting will be whether enough regular people will shell out the Andrew Jacksons required to get in the door to make the event profitable for Carmike Cinemas. That price ($20 per ticket) is too rich for my blood, especially when I get the game for free over-the-air to my HDTV. It could be that Carmike is willing to take a loss on this early proof-of-concept nationwide to stoke the demand that would later prove much more profitable in the long run. Being first to market on a nationwide scale is nothing to sneeze at. Apparently, the NBA is also experimenting with 3D live broadcasts to movie theaters as a way of expanding its diminishing fan base.

All of which goes back to how movie theater chains are trying to reinvent themselves and deliver the types of content that will draw people back into their seats. People undoubtedly have seen the ads for live streamed performances from the (NY) Met(ropolitan Opera), which have been shown in movie theaters for the past year or so. Again, I'm not much of a fan of opera, but I find it fascinating that both movie theater chains and the Met think they could draw in more fans through the use of live streaming of previously very exclusive performances.

The main problem for movie theaters across the country, of course, is the rise of home theater and high definition TV setups in people's homes. The move from analog to digital high definition TV, while good for the TV manufacturers, has coincided with steep drop-offs in movie theater ticket sales by volume; rising movie ticket prices continue to mask the decline in tickets sold per showing. Ah, but who wants to really put up with people talking, texting, or otherwise being rude in the movie theater, with overpriced popcorn and other snack foods, in order to watch the latest mass-market tripe from Hollywood? It's far better, and more enjoyable, to stay at home and watch a slightly older movie on DVD in high definition with my own popcorn.

To completely bastardize the quote from Bull Durham (1988), if I've got a quadrophonic Blaupunkt, I don't need a curveball!

The Wacky, Wooly, Wildcard Weekend

What to make of the NFL Wildcard games this weekend? None of the favored teams everyone predicted to win actually won. Not that I pay much, if any, attention to the betting lines, mind you. I also didn't watch the talking heads on ESPN to see what they thought and which teams they predicted as this weekend's winners. I'm talking about my own estimations of the NFL teams playing this weekend, which regularly is one of the most unpredictable weekends of the NFL season.

In the AFC games, yesterday saw an 8-8 San Diego team taking on the 12-4 Indy Colts. Sure, both teams had been on a winning streak lately (the Chargers won their last four games just to make the playoffs, and the Colts won nine in a row after a shaky start to their season), but very few people expected San Diego to win, even playing at home. LaDanian Tomlinson, their star RB, was hurt and sidelined for the majority of the game. Norv Turner, the coach, has not proved his mettle in previous playoff games. For all the promise of Philip Rivers, he simply cannot compare to Peyton Manning at QB. Manning proved this year that he can will his team to win, despite the declining skills of his favorite WR, Marvin Harrison, and the inability of the Colt's offensive line to open holes for the Colts runners.

And yet, the Chargers proved victorious, winning in OT behind the superb running of their diminuitive RB, Darren Sproles. At times, the ability of the 5'6" Sproles to hide behind his blockers and shoot through the smallest of gaps in the Colts defense evoked the running of 5'7" Jaquizz Rodgers of Oregon State, when he shredded the USC defense in September.

In the other AFC game, a surprising 11-5 Baltimore team, playing with a rookie QB and a rookie head coach, soundly defeated an even more surprising 11-5 Miami team. Miami, of course, went from 1-15 just a year ago to winning their Division this year, despite strong performances by New England, NY Jets, and a fast start by the Buffalo Bills. The Ravens do have an incredible defense, and perhaps they found a way to bottle up the Wildcat offense run by Miami this year. Despite the similar records, Baltimore was the wildcard team, forced to win on the road in Miami to advance. This must have been another upset, as home teams usually get 7 points just for the home field advantage.

Over in the NFC, everyone had written off the Arizona Cardinals as DOA in the playoffs. At 9-7, they won a very weak NFC West Division despite being 2-3 in their last five games. They looked terrible on the road, going 3-5 on the season, yet they were 6-0 within their own Division. And yet, playing at home against an 11-5 Atlanta Falcons team that had been on a three-game winning streak, the Cardinals won fairly easily. They never seemed to be really threatened in their 30-24 victory, despite Atlanta's superior running game.

In the other NFC game today between the Eagles and Vikings, the Eagles at 9-6-1 once again used their crushing, ball-hawking (and TD-scoring!) defense to win 26-14 on the road. The Vikings were 10-6 going into this game, although they had to win their final game of the season in order to clinch a playoff spot and their Division. At one point, when the Vikings' QB, Tavaris Jackson, had one completion for his previous 11 attempts, it certainly seemed as though the Vikes' coach should have switched for another QB. Perhaps Gus Frerotte was still hurt, and perhaps the Vikes really had no better option than Jackson.

What we saw this weekend were mirrors in both Conferences: one home team (Division winner) with a weaker record beat a wildcard team with a stronger record, and one wildcard team beat the home team when the records were the same or very similar. The upsets, both at home and on the road, came when the presumably weaker NFC and AFC West Division-winners actually pulled out strong games against the favored wildcard teams, and when the other wildcard teams pulled off their upsets against Division winners.

Not being able to predict which teams were going to win this weekend causes much consternation for fantasy football players like me. Many of the playoff FFB-variety games involve picking one lineup of players for the entirety of the playoffs, so any time a player's real team loses, it knocks another person out of your fantasy lineup. Or, if you're like me, the Colts' loss knocked three players out of my lineup. In the NFL.com Playoff Challenge game I'm in currently, I do get a maximum of eight lineup changes I can make before the Super Bowl to remain competitive, but having to make six changes after the wildcard weekend (I also had several Falcons and Dolphins on my squad) pretty much dooms me to also-run status.

That remains the beauty of the NFL today, however. Parity means that virtually any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday. A team can rise from 1-15 to Division champ status in one season, even if that team can't win its playoff game. The Cardinals can actually win a playoff game for the first time in a generation. Anything seems possible at this point.

However, after the unpredictability of the wildcard weekend, the Division winners tend to assert themselves in the remaining games. Statistically speaking, wildcard matchups are the equivalent of a coin flip, with home teams winning only about 50% of the time. However, in the next round of the playoffs, home teams win about 70% of the time or better.* Arizona has to travel to Carolina, and the Eagles will travel to play the Giants. Expect the home teams to win both of those contests. Baltimore will travel to Tennessee, and San Diego has to play the Steelers in Pittsburgh, so both home teams have to be favored in those games, too. You can bet that my fantasy lineup will be modified to reflect the strengths of the Giants and the Titans, teams who have the best chance of making it to the Super Bowl. I really thought the Colts could perform a similar feat as the G-men did last year, winning the Super Bowl via the wildcard route, but they fell flat against San Diego.

* Update: TMQ on ESPN posted the win-loss record of home teams in the Divisional playoff round. It's 55-17 for home teams since the current playoff format was adopted in 1990, good for a 76.4% winning percentage, which is about as sure a thing as you can get in the NFL these days.

It's honestly hard to say which teams will make it all the way to the Super Bowl. Each team has its own weaknesses and strengths, and predicting which team will win it all is anyone's guess. Again, that's the beauty of the NFL playoffs. That's why they play the games, so the winner can be decided on the field.

Win or go home, as they say.

A Letter to Roger Goodell

Dear Roger,

I saw this news item just yesterday, so I missed the original announcement from the NFL. Apparently, people in your office are disappointed in the lackluster TV ratings for the NFL Pro Bowl, which is played annually in Hawaii the week after the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl, of course, regularly pulls some of the highest ratings in the United States (90+ million people watched last year's tilt between the NY Giants and the NE Patriots in the US alone), plus perhaps the largest worldwide audience for a live event. National news media covers the Super Bowl in great detail, and the ads for the Super Bowl are projected to sell for $3 Million for a 30-second spot this year.

So, it is understandable that staffers are concerned about the general disdain for the Pro Bowl. No one pays much attention to the game, and certainly no one much cares who plays in the game after the public votes for its favorite players and the sportswriters have had their turn discussing who should have been named to the NFC and AFC Pro Bowl teams. Every year, deserving players get overlooked for other players with higher marquee factor, and that will never change.

Ah, but how do you address the fact that no one wants to watch a meaningless all-star game that happens after the season finishes with the biggest one-day spectacle in all of sports?! MLB has similar issues with its all-star game, except baseball plays its game in the middle of its season. Bud Selig, your counterpart, decided he could spice things up a bit by giving home-field advantage in the World Series to the League that wins the "Summer Classic" every year. And every year since that decision, the American League has won the all-star game. Putting home field advantage at stake has not noticeably improved the ratings for the MLB all-star game, and it has only marginally affected the outcome of the World Series.

Given that the NFL will never move its Pro Bowl to the middle of the NFL season, what was your alternative? I have to say, moving the Pro Bowl to that Sunday in between the AFC and NFC Championship games and Super Sunday is a terrible idea. Why? Two words: Robert Freaking Edwards the Third.

Please forgive me if you are unaware of Mr. Edwards. He didn't play long in the NFL, although he had a very good rookie season playing for the Patriots in 1998. That year, he played in 16 games, started 15 games, ran the ball 291 times, rushed for 1,115 yds and nine TDs, and added another 35 catches for 331 YDs and three TDs. He was a monster in fantasy football terms, although I had another rookie on my fantasy team that year, Fred Taylor of the Jacksonville Jaguars. For comparison, Mr. Taylor played in 15 games, started 12 of them (after a season-ending injury to James Stewart), ran the ball 264 times, rushed for 1,223 YDs and 14 TDs, and added 44 catches for 421 YDs and three TDs. Until 2008, you would be hard-pressed to find another pair of rookie RBs who had such a big (Ginormous!) impact on the game of pro football.

Mr. Goodell, you might be asking yourself why this is relevant to your decision to play the Pro Bowl on the Sunday leading up to the Super Bowl. Let me give you another set of numbers for illustration. After their rookie seasons, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Edwards had vastly divergent NFL careers. Mr. Taylor, or "Fragile Fred" as he is known in fantasy circles, has had an up-and-down career, always productive when he's on the field, but hardly able to remain on it for a full season. He played 10 games in 1999, 13 in 2000, two games in 2001, two full seasons in 2002-3, 14 games in 2004, 11 in 2005, 15 games each in 2006-7, and 13 games in 2008. Still, he has 11,271 career rushing YDs, 62 career TDs, a very strong 4.6 YDs per carry average, 2,361 career receiving YDs, and eight career receiving TDs. Those might not be Hall of Fame numbers, but how many young men are able to play 11 seasons in the NFL, period?

Mr. Edwards certainly did not. After his sterling rookie season, Mr. Edwards played only one more abbreviated season, for the Miami Dolphins in 2002. He ended his career with only 311 attempts, 1,222 career rushing YDs, 10 career rushing TDs, a 3.9 YDs per carry average, 457 career receiving YDs, and only four receiving TDs.

So, the question remains: how or why was "Fragile Fred" able to remain in the NFL for so much longer than Robert Edwards III? After that 1998 season, Mr. Edwards was named to the Pro Bowl while Mr. Taylor was not*. Back in the day, the Pro Bowlers used to play several events in addition to the Pro Bowl game itself. One of those events was a sand football game for the rookie all-stars, and it was two-hand touch, I think. Great fun, right? It was fun for all involved until Mr. Edwards fell and twisted his knee during that sand football game. He was never the same since.

* Taylor was named to the AFC Pro Bowl squad after the 2007 season, so he does have the same number of Pro Bowl appearances as does Edwards.

I ask you, Mr. Goodell, this simple question: what will the NFL do, either in 2010 or whenever it happens, the first time a player from one of the two Super Bowl contestants gets injured during the meaningless Pro Bowl game? You cannot deny that such a possibility exists, and you cannot deny that such an injury would alter the competitive balance of the most important game of the NFL season. Would Super Bowl-bound teams place playing restrictions on their marquee players named to the Pro Bowl, further limiting the value of that all-star game? Would any team really accept the distraction from their game plan preparations in the week leading up to the Super Bowl, even if no one gets hurt? Would you place all the players in protective bubble-wrap uniforms to prevent injuries?

These are questions that you, Mr. Goodell, need to answer satisfactorily before the 2010 Pro Bowl and Super Bowl. I know you are disappointed that regular fans like myself consider the Pro Bowl to be meaningless. I'm sorry, but it is. It doesn't matter in the standings, and it only serves as a nice benefit for those players lucky enough to be named to the squads. A free trip to Hawaii is always a nice benefit, and now the NFL players won't even get that benefit.

Way to go, Mr. Goodell. May I call you Roger? You need to rethink this policy, Roger. Your office won't be able to survive the public outcry or insurance maelstrom should a star QB from a Super Bowl team get hurt in a meaningless game. Pro football is a violent sport. I'm sure you've noticed. It's only a matter of time before disaster strikes, and you need to have a darn good idea of how you plan to respond before it does.

Sincerely,
A Fan