Is Aaron Rodgers that good at the late game Hail Mary pass? Or are defenses in that situation poorly designed or executed? Is there a better way to defend the Hail Mary? The occasional blind heave and catch can usually be chalked up to luck, but twice in the last two months the Packers have won or forced overtime with a long passing touchdown on the last play of regulation. Aaron Rodgers deserves credit for his scrambling ability and strong arm, but I think there is plenty of blame that can be placed on the defenses.

Whatever teams are currently doing to defend the Hail Mary pass is not working as well as it should. On both successful plays for the Packers, the defense looked to be parked in the endzone while the receivers were running into the endzone. This means the receiver is in between the defender and the ball, which is good for the offense and bad for the defense. In those situations, I’d like to see a few receivers playing defense and a scattered placement of defenders on the five yard line, the goal line and in the end zone instead of having all the defenders clustered in the middle of the end zone. Momentum and the flight of the ball tend to carry players backwards so the further back in the end zone a defender is when the ball is in the air, the less relevant he will be when the ball becomes catchable.

The Cardinals let the Packers get lucky. Larry Fitzgerald’s big play in overtime should not have been necessary. But either way they are onto the conference championship game where they will meet the Panthers as three point underdogs this Sunday. That line essentially means that Vegas sees these teams as evenly matched since home field advantage typically equates to three points.

The Panthers came out strong against the Seahawks last week and were able to hang on to a seven point victory despite not putting any points on the board in the second half. Cam Newton criticized the play calling in the second half, but given the fact that Carolina led by 31, taking chances on offense would have been ill advised.

I will be rooting for the Cardinals, but I can see this game going either way. If Arizona still had the honey badger, Tyrann Mathieu, I would give them the edge. I don’t usually notice defensive players but he always caught my eye whenever I watched the Cardinals. They have still played well since he went down for the season but this game will be their toughest challenge. I think the winner of this game will go on to win the Super Bowl. Vegas has the Panthers and the Patriots as co-favorites to be champs, but all teams odds’ are between 2-1 and 4-1 so no outcome is that unlikely.

The Patriots are three point favorites on the road against the Broncos. Although both games have a three point spread, the road team is favored in this game so the Pats are perceived to be a much stronger team than Denver. The Broncos did beat New England by six points when they played in Denver earlier this season, but that game went to overtime and Gronkowski got injured in the fourth quarter. The money being wagered is focused on much more than just previous results.

The biggest likely reason for New England’s favoritism is the difference in the public perception of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Brady is coming off a Super Bowl winning season and has put up solid numbers all year. Manning has battled injuries while putting up some of the worst numbers of his career. Peyton did lead his team to victory last week. And although the defense gets and deserves much of the credit, the receivers dropped eight catchable balls. Receiver drops made Peyton look worse than he was. If Denver can improve offensively, they might be good enough to squeak out two more wins and send Peyton off on a high note like Denver’s last great QB and current general manager, John Elway.

Last week I wrote my prediction of Arizona winning the Super Bowl over the winner of the Patriots/Chiefs game. I haven’t seen enough to make me switch horses midstream, so I will stick with my call of the Cardinals over New England. But my confidence level in that pick is very low. Any team could win any game and it would not surprise me. As a fan without a team, that’s the best I can hope for. And when the season finally ends, at least I won’t have to hear Joe Buck call games or Peyton Manning hum that damn Nationwide jingle anymore. Things are looking up!

Are You Not Entertained?!

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”
-Juvenal, Satire 10.77-81

I believe that beer and football can fairly accurately replace the term bread and circuses in the above quote. An endless supply of good beer and exciting football games might be just what I need to distract myself from the real world, but there is much time between Sundays, and my mind tends to wander.

The game of politics can be almost as interesting as football at times, and the implications are likely more important. Although that last statement may be an oversimplification. The outrage over the actions of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson as well as debates over public funding for stadiums and the threatened boycott by Missouri’s football team show that we cannot easily separate football and politics. Having said that, I’m all out of football talk so it’s on to politics.

On Sunday evening, the Democrats had their last debate before the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Martin O’Malley did fine, but he was generally marginalized in favor of the main event showdown between the top two candidates. Clinton and Sanders continued to somewhat distinguish themselves and their positions, with Clinton staking out more of a claim to pragmatism versus Bernie’s idealism.

I respect Bernie’s consistency and I like many of his policies and proposals, but he continues to turn me off by referring to wealthy citizens as some kind of singular entity. I have yet to hear him refer to billionaires as human beings or individuals. He seems to want me to believe that a billionaire class shares a singular set of goals that revolve around them getting wealthier at my expense. I appreciate his selfless concern for the economically disadvantaged, but I wish it didn’t constantly come with an apparent anger at those who are successful.

Entrepreneurs who develop products that enhance our lives and in the process create companies, jobs and wealth should be celebrated not vilified. The idea that wealthy individuals have excessive influence is one I am sympathetic to. But for me, Mr. Sanders’ rhetoric goes too far at times and it sounds as if he wants to ignore any thoughtful contributions to society that come from people who he feels make too much money.

I do not believe that billionaires all seek only to do whatever they can to increase their net wealth. They are rational and self-interested, to be sure, but they are also smart enough to realize that success cannot exist in a vacuum. Making more and more while those around you make less is an easy way to stoke the flames of discontent. The best way for one person to be successful is for as many people as possible to be successful. A rising tide lifts all ships.

When I read a statement or op-ed written by a billionaire, I usually find a person that genuinely wants America and the world to be as prosperous as possible. I don’t find an explicit or implicit will to become more affluent by making sure that others are less so…except maybe in the case of the Donald. Even the much maligned Koch brothers continue to express their opinions in thoughtful commentary that makes them sound more like human beings than the super-villains Mr. Sanders often makes them out to be. I don’t agree with many of the Koch brothers’ positions, but I prefer to believe that they are not inherently evil, they simply believe what they have publicly stated, that “a free society, consistent with classical liberalism and individual liberties, is the key to success for everyone.”

I noticed that Bernie’s website attacks the Koch brothers mostly by referring to Libertarian Party aims from 1980, when David was the candidate for vice president. To me that is more of a strawman and much easier to attack than an accurate portrayal of more nuanced political views that have obviously evolved over the last 36 years. I’d like a president that can work with all types of people with all types of views, a person that can find some common ground with other people in places of power. For me, Bernie is a little too willing to draw lines in the sand and demonize those that don’t stand on his side. I struggle to see how his style could lead to a successful presidency.

In the case of Clinton, I have seen her husband engage in partisan political rhetoric in front of the cameras and then work behind the scenes with opponents and detractors while president to:
-Cut taxes for 15 million low-income families and 90% of small businesses while raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers.
-Expand the earned income tax credit and implement the $500 child tax credit.
-Decrease federal spending as a percentage of the economy to its lowest level since the 1960’s.
-Convert the largest budget deficit in American history to our largest surplus.
-Pay down over $360 billion dollars in national debt in three years and put us on track to be debt free as a nation by 2009.

I know that Bill Clinton had the benefit of strong economic conditions that were beyond his control and projections of a debt free government by 2009 would likely be revised by multiple recessions. But he was able to build enough of a consensus to enact policies that made us better off instead of squandering the opportunity.

I see the Clintons as a political alliance. I don’t doubt that they care a great deal for each other, but I have read that Bill never promised fidelity and the marriage could also be seen as a necessary step to advance their goals and ideals. At the time, married men with families were much more likely to get elected and I think they viewed winning elections as the best way to positively influence public policy.

It may not always be pretty, but the Clintons do what they have to in order to stay politically relevant. It may be a mistake on my part, but I view Hillary’s candidacy as a continuation of the overall Clinton legacy and I think that legacy has easily made our nation and the world a better place.

Hillary will bend in order prevent her career from being broken by the fickle whims of the public or the media, but I believe her ideology will continue to evolve on a separate path. If true, that makes her hard to pin down based solely on policy statements, campaign speeches or debate performances. Maybe I’m just seeing what I want to see and trying too hard to make a case for a flawed candidate, but I think the most accurate statement from Hillary was in the October debate when Anderson Cooper asked her if she was a moderate or a progressive and she replied, “I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive that likes to get things done.”

I believe that statement to be true, and I believe Hillary to be our best chance at enacting realistic policies that advance the ideals of freedom, equality, human rights, and respect for the environment while preserving our national interests, continuing to underwrite global security forces and improving economic prosperity for everyone.

Bernie has ambitious goals, plans and rhetoric, but history shows me that large nations like our own do not easily take the big steps he is calling for. Instead, I see progress as painfully slow at times and a process that typically takes a series of baby steps. Bernie is too ideologically pure to play that game and while that is a big part of his appeal, it is also a big reason why I am hesitant to fully support him. If Bernie wins the nomination I don’t think he will win the Presidency, and if he happens to win the Presidency I don’t think he will be able to accomplish many of his stated goals. I think Hillary gives us a better shot at moving our government in a direction where Bernie wants it to go, just not at the pace he would prefer.

Bernie is right to be in favor of a single payer healthcare system and Hillary is right to essentially call him ignorant for continuing his insistence despite the reality that it is politically impossible. Democrats couldn’t get it done when they controlled the White House and both houses of congress. The only realistic way to improve the healthcare system in America is to expand and modify the Affordable Care Act. Despite its flaws, it has expanded healthcare coverage to millions of Americans. Scrapping it in hopes of passing something better would leave us with nothing and the attempt to leap forward would result in a slide backward.

I worry that trying to do everything perfectly will prevent us from doing some things a little better. Bernie’s rhetoric signals to me that he may let the better be the enemy of the best. I see nothing wrong with a small state Senator being so rigid, but I worry about that attitude if it is from the leader of the free world.

Well it looks as if I have written enough for now. I wanted to touch on other topics like the stock market tanking or the mysterious disappearance of five staff members from the Mighty Current publishing house which operates in Hong Kong and publishes and sells books banned in mainland China. But I’ll have to save it for the next one. I will leave you with a simple fact:

Before kale got popular a few years back, Sizzler was the largest purchaser of kale and used the vegetable solely as a garnish. That’s right, despite buying more kale than anyone else, the place known for its salad bar did not dare to serve it to actual customers because they knew how god-awful it was. It is time for red-blooded Americans to stand up to the Gwyneth Paltrows of the world and say enough with the damn kale! I know I’m not the only one who likes food that is actually edible instead of this gag-inducing garbage.