The Perfect Season: Ode to the 0-16 Detroit Lions

The year was 1997. I was in the midst of my last semester of high school during the fall of that year, and the Indianapolis Colts were in the midst of a terrible season. They began their campaign losing 10 straight games. Everyone was predicting they would run the table in reverse. I was caught up in this backward euphoria, only to be disappointed as Indy beat the Packers to get win number 1. From that point on, I began every NFL year keeping track of potential heirs to the winless throne. There were certainly close calls - The 2000 Chargers began 0-11, last seasons Dolphins were a tantalizing 0-13, and most notable the 2001 Detroit Lions were 0-12. In fact, those Lions were the subject of late night punchlines throughout that run, which made 2008 all the more fitting. We can now be assured it was certain that the Lions franchise would be the one to complete the seemingly impossible task of losing EVERY game out of 16 game schedule. Remember, this isn't college ball. Presumably every NFL team can come out victorious against any other - see Giants vs Browns this year. The NFL expanded its schedule to 16 games in 1978 - the year I was born - and it took 30 years in the interim for the Detroit Lions to complete an imperfect season. We'll never remember off the top of our heads who this year's Super Bowl winner will be down the road, but what the Lions accomplished will be set in stone in everyone football fan's mind. It may never happen again this century...well, assuming the Lions get a decent quarterback in 2009.

NFL 5 Guys

Best political ads for 2008 election

First, for the magnanimous American hero John S McCain:




And for the winner, Mr Obama"



My favorite"

Dragon Man

Cheney Waits Until Last Minute Again To Buy Sept. 11 Gifts

Busy dealing with important paperwork and other vice presidential duties in recent weeks, Dick Cheney was forced to put off until the last minute a cherished annual tradition: gift-shopping for his favorite holiday,...

read more | digg story

Obama-Palin ticket

Firstly, we here at OotC salute John McCain's choice for his running mate. Sarah Palin exudes a fresh profile for the Bush party, one that can't be so conveniently linked with the current chief. Sarah will surely raise the confidence of the conservative voter who have found their new heroine. So in essence, she's Barack Obama to the GOP, just with less stature being second fiddle. Wouldn't it be fascinating to have the two tickets switch their VP's. That race would give us Obama/Palin against McCain/Biden. Now think about that for a second, the former is made up of two (relatively) young, attractive, vibrant, political unknowns. Obama and Palin both played basketball in their hey days, and have roots in the two far-away non-contiguous states. Conversely, McCain and Joe Biden are carbon copies of seemingly every duo that's held the White House since this country's inception, two senior citizen European-Americans with all the pizazz of a Kinkos.

Now America was or still is in need of unity and change - so what better combination than Obama and Palin. They would bridge all known ideological and political divides, and give every vote something to hang their hat on. Overlooking the inconceivability of all this, its amusing at least to take note of. Its times like these that I wish Obama was a conservative, in which this ticket could have transpired. Nonetheless, great to have Sarah Palin added to the campaign going forward!

The end of General Musharraf

Oct 12 1999 - Aug 18 2008. So shall read the political tombstone of another Pakistani head of state, one who led the nation as both head of its most powerful and revered military unit, as well as an all too brief civilian role. History is replete with examples of ill-chosen directives given by people in power - the proverbial invade Russia pratfall. In the case of President Musharraf, the most erroneous misstep involved the overreaching move to silence the sitting chief judicial figure in March 2007. This led to a series of boisterous public conventions involving lawyers and politicians across the land, exclaiming an utter betrayal of what they held most dear - an independent judiciary to give some semblance to a democratic state of affairs. From that point on, the General's track was derailed from completing another term as head of state, culminating in having to reconcile with his adversaries who then conspired together to separate Musharraf from his leading role.

He stood nearly nine years in power, longer than what any US president is legally allowed to carry, and to have it end with a resignation amidst national acrimony and economic doldrums was ordained. For, you see, in the annals of the country's history, this day closes yet another rueful chapter in this thing called Pakistan.

Vladimir Putin's clairvoyance

Osama bin Laden; attacks on New York and Washington; Islamic extremism - Reading an editorial containing the preceding subjects would be nothing out of the ordinary these days, rather par for the course in any discussion on the War on Terror. Now imagine these ideas being bandied about almost two years before September 11, 2001. In fact, they were penned in an op-ed by Russian leader Vladamir Putin, in November of 1999. Most extraordinary, Putin wrote the following cryptic scenario:

"....ordinary New Yorkers or Washingtonians, asleep in their homes. Then, in a flash, hundreds perish in explosions at the Watergate, or at an apartment complex on Manhattan's West Side. Thousands are injured, some horribly disfigured. Panic engulfs a neighborhood, then a nation."

His point of reference was the violence afflicted by Chechen separatists in the on-going conflict on Russian soil. For all the criticism thrown Putin's way by western media, this one editorial of his has validated his analysis on what it takes to combat extremism, a blueprint followed by his American comrade, George Bush, for the last 6 and a half years.

Obama's flag pin

Since May 14, Barack Obama has universally donned a flag pin on his lapel, an act his two rivals in the race have yet to ascribe to. There has even been an interesting machination in the versions that Obama has worn. Originally, the wavy version with a pole was chosen; this particular one is the most common among politicians and newscasters such as Lou Dobbs, Brit Hume and Jay Leno. On May 19, on a visit to South Dakota's Indian reservation, Obama switched to the Presidential rectangular flag. I applaud his campaign's strategy in employing the latter, which looks better, and more importantly, adorns the lapel of George W Bush, who himself made the switch just before taking his second term in January 2005. This puts Obama on an even viewing pane with the figure he hopes to succeed in less than 8 months from now.

Here are the visuals of Obama and Bush adorning their nation's symbol.

Obama's three seminal primary victories

Who would have imagined four months ago that the primary season would still be relevant leading up to the warm days of summer; now we're still provided around the clock television coverage on the super networks on every Tuesday or the next. The journey that Senator Obama has travailed deserves an inspection via the paper of record, whose grand headlines dictate the relevance of the day's news. Here below are the historical victories that have certainly clinched the nomination for the tall skinny young man who no one had ever heard of even 4 years ago. (To think, it could have been Mike Ditka of all people that would up stopped this train before it gained steam during those days in 2004.) My best wishes to the great states of Iowa, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

Bill O'Reilly swearing up a storm

Real Obama girls

Scenic Southern Suburbs

Barack Obama campaign photo album

A dose of Sinatra

Obama on stem cell research

Mike Tyson vs James Buster Douglas

February 11, 1990 Tokyo : Up to this moment in time, Mike Tyson had pulverized his opponents, some in a matter of seconds - his invincibility epitomized by not even once being knocked down in his previous 37 bouts...then, in the 10th round against one more obscure contestant, history unfolded:

The New York Times and General Musharraf

In light of this past month's universally chastised article regarding the sketchy wrong-doings of Senator John McCain, I've been compelled to construct my personal critique of The New York Times - specifically, its long-held antagonistic compositions on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in both its main pages and editorials - expressly its editorials as I shall attest to presently. The Times is arguably the most prominent and thus influential paper of record in the US, yet clearly it belies the notion of being objective most conspicuously with its constant and prevalent denunciation, even carping, of all things Bush. The most feckless illustration of this bias can be summoned by simply perusing the Times' editorials leading up to the invasion of Iraq, such as this one from February 2003 urging the UN to be forceful in disarming Saddam, and another actually touting the case for war. They followed the Bush doctrine when the public at large had starry eyes for a battle with Saddam. Now back to General Musharraf, whom the editorial page at The Times seems to have a bizarre obsession for judging by more than ONE HUNDRED entries spanning from the counter-coup of 1999 through its third writing of the new year this morning. Here is the listing of the postings. Except for the brief period following the Planes Operation of 2001, the editorials are universally vituperative toward this one leader, who they have opined on more than any other in the world save for Bush 43. I've personally written to The Times on multiple occasions questioning why they continually ascribe blame to Musharraf for the sorry state of affairs in a still third world country, who after all is in better economic shape following the corrupt two term regimes of the late Benazir and the now revived Nawaz Sharif, the latter being the designated suitor to ameliorate whatever affliction The Times believes Musharraf has caused these many years. When you study and glance over the many articles excoriating him for his supposed subverting of democracy in a state where militants are not only harbored, but are bred, how can you not conclude that a wretched bias persists. We all know that extremists existed in Pakistan years before 1999, being clandestinely cultivated by the United States during its Cold War engagement. My thinking on this is that Musharraf's ties to George Bush have earned him eternal ostracism in the eyes of The New York Times, for as the saying goes, you are judged by the company you keep, and how dare the president of Pakistan foment favorable ties with the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Perhaps he wouldn't have merited 10 editorials if he stayed disengaged until another Clinton had attained the reigns...The Times could finally revel in its political coverage then.

Encounter with John Edwards

In the midst of the most furious presidential election cycle in recent memory, I find most of my internal thoughts and outward discussions these days revolve around said topic. I spend my daylight hours at the local hospital parking scene - an assignment where ambitious people need not apply; however it does provide an opening into what real problems consist of as the constant parade of patients can attest. Today as I exited the building, I glanced around the corner and noticed a figure who I attribute my initial political interest in - the just-recently former candidate Senator John Edwards. He proved a larger than life image as he stood alone outside against the backdrop of the entrance, in comfortable jeans and blue shirt. I shook his hand and gave standard congratulatory remarks including the painfully obvious "Barack split the progressive vote". He asked me what my name was, and politely agreed to my fawning dissertations of his fate. He even thanked me at the end, smiling graciously the whole time. This was a genuine nobleman performance Mr. Edwards showed me. So it seems that when I selected the senator from North Carolina back in late 2003 as my favorite Presidential candidate, I clearly picked the man who would greet me no different than another of greater ambition, wealth and taste. I salute him for it!

Celebrity donors for Obama

On the eve of the utmost critical South Carolina primary, I thought it would be illuminating to post a list of well known Americans donating exclusively to the Barack Obama for President campaign, compiled from the excellent site newsmeat.com. The following people have contributed the maximum amount $2300:

• Jennifer Aniston
• Tyra Banks
• Halle Berry
• Zach Braff
• Richard A Clarke
• George Clooney
• Harry Connick Jr
• Cindy Crawford
• Babyface
• Michael Eisner
• Jamie Foxx
• Morgan Freeman
• Cuba Gooding Jr
• Grant Hill
• Bruce Hornsby
• Ron Howard
• Phil Jackson
• Samuel Jackson
• Michael Jordan
• Cedric Entertainer
• Julia Louis-Dreyfus
• Seth MacFarlane
• Natalie Maines
• Stephon Marbury
• Branford Marsalis
• Judge Mathis
• Eddie Murphy
• Craig Newmark (Craigslist)
• Leonard Nimoy
• Ed Norton
• Adrian Pasdar
• Tyler Perry
• Sidney Poitier
• Maury Povich
• Phylicia Rashad
• Paul Reiser
• Chris Rock
• Brooke Shields
• Emmitt Smith
• Jada Pinkett Smith
• Will Smith
• George Soros
• Isaiah Washington
• Forest Whitaker
• Gene Wilder
• Oprah Winfrey
• Jeffrey Wright
• George Zimmer (Mens Wearhouse)

Obama - Bloomberg Independent ticket 2008

There is increasing sentiment in the media that Senator Barack Obama's many policy proposals veer to the right, especially in comparison to that of his two main Democratic opponents. Added to that is the significant appeal he possesses outside of the Democratic party, which propelled his triumph in Iowa on January 3rd. This falls in line with the speeches Obama has given over the years, most prominently his keynote address at the DNC in July of 2004, in which he excitedly promulgated the insightful notion that "there is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is the United States of America." Barack Obama truly believes that we can bridge the gap that has polarized the political masses, a rift that has been swollen by our last two administrations, who have provided us seemingly endless scandals in their 4 terms. Obama's main rival in his quest for the nomination is undeniably an heir to the factional governing that's made conciliatory politics an archaic practice. The divide and conquer technique has become full blown in recent days, leading to a bizarre accusation that Obama is the playing a race card in defending attacks based on racial arguments, both implicitly and historically. Unfortunately, these methods have a disturbingly inevitable way of benefiting its proprietor, in this case the Clinton group, which has firm residence in the Democratic party command center. Barring a much needed awakening in the voting public to the underhanded Clinton strategy, it will succeed in taking the nomination. It is then that a new alliance can be built, a formidable entry that can carry itself to the White House in January 2009. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has began canvassing the country for a national run. He has the financial resources to promote his candidacy, but lacks the ground swell that pushes every winner to the finish line. That's where Senator Obama completes the blueprint. America will be strengthened with leadership that will not be concerned about winning the next election, rather one that seeks pragmatic solutions that benefits the majority of the people, those grouped in the center of the political gathering. I heartily endorse an independent ticket of Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg, and believe this is not only a winning choice, but one that will give us the most sound, appealing administration we've had for a long time.