Monday, December 21, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Trying to stay on top of ongoing discussions on health care reform -- on a daily basis and just from the blogs linked up on the right-hand side -- is making my brain hurt! But this week, I heard on Thom Hartmann's radio show the strongest, most obvious explanation about this whole charade that so few in the MSM have even bothered to mention (no surprise): that it's been Obama's goal from the start to honor the deals he and his RahmE. struck with big pharma and big insurance. [Firedoglake has been on this, but no offense, if anything, the MSM would resent any progressive voice doing its job for them. Don't forget, the Senate Finance Committee bill was not the entire Senate's bill; the current Senate bill is not the entire end game either. The House bill is an afterthought, I guess, despite having stronger progressives there than in the dysfunctional prima donna forum.] Why does everyone talk and act as if the Senate deal is the only thing going? Read on...
I'm paraphrasing Thom Hartmann now: 'Obama got elected by a majority of American voters, but before he could focus on governing them, serving their needs, just maybe making their lives a little better, he made Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff, and they had to 1st bolster the chance at getting re-elected.' Back to Rollah: I'm not sure if Obama ever thought about pushing for the best plan ever, but my senses are frying from this ordeal, because we know the plan that's being settled on (compromised away) is nowhere near the best. Not in terms of controlling costs (anything to compete with private insurers a la single-payer, public option or Medicare buy-in?), and not in terms of making affordable care available to those who need it most. More Thom Hartmann (now 2:2 in money quotes, with better paraphrasing by me): "Obama is making the biggest political mistake of his life if he listens to Rahm Emanuel and thinks he can govern like Bill Clinton ... the system is broken, so Obama had 2 bets to make: 1st he could have used his political capital from the election to take on the system, tear it down, change it, really lead the country in a new direction as a new way of governing; or 2nd, to tinker at the margins and be happy, never trying anything bold. Obama placed the 2nd bet, and I think he is going to lose".
Also getting very little coverage: the basic moral imperative at stake here! Forget labels, party affiliation, LIEbermonkey vs. whoever (though, personally, I'm rooting for the lean, Dean, fighting machine). Something as broken as health care has to get fixed, period! That fix has to include some recognition that this country cannot survive without taking care of its sick and infirm. It can't always be about money, or fame. Every other industrialized place on Earth can do that, but we can't because the few are too powerful and greedy? We have to be civil if we are to make it in a civilized society. If we wait for war-profiteers or big whatever to suddenly get all moral and start acting like responsible corporate citizens, we're toast. Principal Ed Rooney in Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "between grief and nothing, I'll take grief". That's what progressives (the real reformers?) are being asked to support? crap that only gives us grief, but nothing in return!?! [Aside: 'progressive' should include anyone wanting to save lives by making health care affordable, a right not a privilege; profit is OK but not at the cost of human suffering, and not unless you're also helping improve the human condition, stuff like that].
Which brings us back to the newest addition to HIGHpocrisy's lexicon in the title of this entry. Had the WH reneged on its secret deals and come out vocally for what would be best for the majority of the voters who helped elect Obama in the 1st place, we doubt much of this circus would have happened at all. For the top domestic priority, the no-drama-Obama camp has been 1 giant drama-making machine. Why? Why play the victim card, they're so powerless to affect the change they promised, how could they exert any pressure over this process? Shorter Glenn Greenwald: Rahm to Obama in January, "Ya know, we couldn't get health care reform under my pal Clinton because he was trying too hard to impose his own mark on it; let's just sit this one out and hope Congress does its job of, like, legislating and all that". And while plenty of blame can rightly be directed to Emanuel "Can't", he wasn't elected President on a platform of hope and change. So instead, we get all this BS masquerading as hysteria, from just another politician saying whatever he wants to say in order to get anything passed, so he can call it reform, dupe most people into thinking he's with them, but against their corporate puppet-masters, and 'won't everyone's lives be better next year when it's time to vote again'. I.e., just trust him! Well, the Full Cynical goes beyond being disappointed and frustrated with Obama's lack of leadership. Some of the many side effects: LIEberpunk goes unpunished for his lack of any moral compass (Keith Olbermann called him a Senatorial prostitute); progressives are off the reservation; the most important voters to the Dem base (younger and minorities) won't turn out enough next year to keep the Dems in control (talk about disenfranchising!). So the status quo churns, or worse, the corporatist take-over spews the know-nothing party of No to an even faster plummet over the Cliffs of Insanity (Princess Bride reference). I guess the Full Cynical is something like the Full Monty, but you're bent over by some Wall St. banker or Aetna lobbyist, without even the common courtesy of a reach-around... Oh the humanity!
And thus we look to the emotional impact of the Full Cynical. To some of the defenders (not apologists) who dismiss the value of emotion and try to re-direct our attention on the long term ('Obama's had some wins, all of this reform effort is a work in progress, he's not Bush', we get it), Captain James T. Kirk and I have the same reply: "I need my pain", pain is what makes us human. And my pain, btw, is not even real pain, as compared to others'. [It should not have mattered how Obama got there. Once he won, and helped deliver down-ticket wins too, he could govern however he wanted.] My sadness kicks in at the level of what I wanted to believe would be: he would govern aggressively, right out of the chute, punch, not counter-punch or rope-a-dope. Be passionate, but carry the intellectual force and personality to aspire to transformational greatness (a la Jackie Robinson, see older post), and thus become a great President. Dang me for assigning too much short-term emotion to a long-term process. -- When you hire Rahm, Timmy, and Larry, but tune out Krugman and Stiglitz; when you fail to even investigate torture or war crimes, let alone perpetuate some of the worst policies of your predecessor; when you escalate wars instead of ending them; when your tinkering at the margins can't even achieve some of the most basic goals to keep your promises to the base, well it should be obvious that the Full Cynical tears the blinders off an even larger systemic problem. Yes, our 2-party political divide has morphed: progressives are formerly Democrats who want to work for social justice and move the country forward; buttloads of regular rightward-leaning Dems and moderate Republicans are in the muddled middle; and there's the nutbar right-wingers. We're not presuming to know the actual percentage of each group. But, we're all confined to operating within a corporatist oligarchy (me spell good, Beck). That Obama would continue grasping for that faint whiff of bipartisanship no one else can smell, is absurd. He knows damn well that the right will never agree to anything he tries to do.
So it is an emotional issue after all, affecting us humans, who are emotional creatures with our very survival. That is why we get upset over a perceived bail-out of an industry that (a) is not even hurting, and (b) is so viscerally reviled. That is why we can feel like Obama, in making and keeping his secret promises to the fat cats but breaking his ones to the rest of us, has let us down. If only there could be rational debate. We could see the back and forth, we could think, make informed decisions as if we had control over them and our lives. But to so many who only wanted their voices to be heard, not only are we feeling ignored, now we're being belittled by the same people we put our faith and trust in.
Ultimately, then, if Firedoglake, Daily Kos, Howard Dean and now Keith Olbermann all agree that the Senate version of 'reform' sucks, that it does more harm than good, then those are the voices that Rollah is OK hitching his wagon to before they sail away. [We love mixing metaphors]. We're not talking about giving up all reform! We are instead focusing on the fight that has to happen to make things better for the needs of the many [back to Star Trek]. And so, as this crazy year draws to a close, we at HIGHpocrisy say to all: "God bless us, everyone".
Monday, December 7, 2009
DID NOT mind seeing little Timmmaaayyy cry at the end of that 'Bama pounding he took; I have a friend who's a Gator, but just got sick of that act. But we digress. 5 Bowl games after but not on New Year's Day?!?! 5, really?!?!? Used to be, in the real America we grew up in, there were lots of Bowl games ON New Year's Day, including 5 that meant something: Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, and we'll even concede the Fiesta (not the Tostitos-owned). But now? The International, PapaJohns.com, Liberty, Alamo and GMAC bowls all come between 1/1 and 1/7/2010. Parity or purity? We don't see either.
Monday, November 30, 2009
But the Commander in Chief escalating yet another un-winnable war for some godforsaken reason? We'll never get that, not in a million years. Which, by the way, humanity doesn't have. And we're not the only ones in shock over this awfulness. J, should we throw in the towel, raise the white flag or take some other action that rhymes with "quit"?
And here's the thing: it would be just as easy, more popular and the actual right thing to do, to withdraw all troops and end all wars! So, when we see glass-half-full lists like this, we have to raise a sobering few of our own, to show what might have been if only hope had met up with audacity: war crimes investigations/prosecutions, Gitmo, state secrets, rendition, DOMA/DADT, not enough stimulus, bank bailouts... and some of those are just things Obama promised during the campaign! Oh, Batshade Queen, end times indeed.
Monday, November 9, 2009
- leaders are globalists; leaders know themselves; leaders are coaches; leaders influence others; leaders manage change; leaders are strategic; leaders must be managers, too; leaders hold themselves and others accountable ("accountability overrides all other attributes") (our emphasis).
How many of these apply to Obama the President right now?
Or, see if you recognize this exchange from Rob Reiner's The American President (1995!) in any or all of the current uncivil discourse, to then guess where this country is headed.
[If we could figure out how to upload video, this would be more powerful]
Sadly, HHHighpocrisy can run even deeper: the House of Representatives (misnomer of the century), led by a woman, passed an apparently very bad anti-choice amendment in its health care reform plan. Many Dems were on board. Obama's press sec'rety Gibbs punted 4 times in questioning today. So because Rahm was around in '94 when the Clintons supposedly tried to bully their plan through, he's convinced Obama to do the exact opposite, and leave no footprint this time around? Sorry, but a big-a$$ footprint is needed more than ever, especially from the most competent among us, and especially up the big a$$e$ of countless others. We all know Obama's leadership style by now, however, is that he's not the a$$-kicker/name-taker/power puncher we were looking for. Our own paranoia is that rope-a-dope might not be enough to turn this sinking ship around.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
And so are any jokes about the LIEberstooge, courtesy of a Taibbi colleague at True Slant.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
- the very, very clinically cynical says that his personal savior the big O, + fellow jew Rahmbo, are calling in their markers to have lil' joe take 1 for the team (the 'we can't break our secret deals' team); no public option for you, so might as well do the WH's bidding. Evil geniuses!
- the less overtly cynical says the guy was bought already; might as well do the industry's bidding. Not a coinkydink that most big insurers rest their greedy heads in his state.
- and the somewhat naive but still cynical-leaning says he's lied before, he'll lie again. It's not like he's going to get re-elected so what does he care?!
- with just a dash of attention-seeking tantrum thrown in to complete the brew: "Hey, did ya see how my esteemed colleague, the Senator from butt-munch, fared this week? Because now it's my turn! I had to stay quiet for months while so many others got to pitch their hissy fits, how do you think that made me feel? Wah-wah, not fair, wah-wah." Somebody give that guy a big binkie and plug his stinkin pie-hole.
On a broader and still funnier note, there could be LIEberspawn. HIGHpocrisy runneth over.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
[That's not to argue that Americans are savvy either; we are just big, dumb animals. Or that Rahm should be brokering serious issues at all; he shouldn't, because he already tried that in the 90's. Just saying]
Monday, October 12, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
But getting back to our roots for a moment, we award 2 HHs -- HHighpocrisy -- to Big Oil companies like Chevron whenever they run ads touting their concerns for the environment (or for people). I heard a radio ad from Chevron the other day, 'they're so green, so friendly', blah blah blah. I had a client who worked for Chevron; brilliant man. I have a friend who worked for a local Shell refinery. Can people be good and productive? People can. Can Big Oil concerned only with making money for their shareholders be good corporate citizens? Not so much.
Monday, September 14, 2009
We might disagree with a few of the points made therein, but the overall gist is close to what we are currently feeling, so we'll go with that. Why then, is Obama saying the same thing about the 'public option' post-speech, but the media reports on all of the caving from Dem leadership and the WH as if there won't be a public option? And if Rahm gets his way, does that mean Obama doesn't? So what does reform look like? Oh, how we wish we had the answers.
J adding, also from the NYT: "the first paragraph says it all...shameful!" But J, haven't you learned that only elitist, commie pinko lib'ruls read that paper and only when it's not perpetuating the lies that lead to war? Why can't you be more prideful in American ignorance? You wouldn't want your children to listen to a smart person about studying when they can read My Pet Goat instead. Welcome to the 21st Century!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Back to speech commentary:
On some level, this was about wanting a fighter. Hence the boxing metaphor. About believing he was different, but thinking I was getting the same. It definitely goes beyond health care. He still has his smarts, so I'll never know why he wasted so much time before, when he is a natural leader, thinking he could hang back and let the inmates run the asylum. Just as I'll never know why someone goes in to the WH one way, but somehow, once the doors close, he emerges seemingly beholden to the same special interests that he promised would not keep their stranglehold on politics. Obama said Wednesday morning that he might have made mistakes letting Congress try to act, all grown-up, like legislators or something. Ya think? I want to believe he will do what's right, and for the good of the country. That is the job to which he or any President is always elected: to make people's lives better. It is why Bush failed so miserably (among many other reasons). It is why I could see myself feeling this morning like that Boise State football player who taunted the Oregon running back but then got sucker-punched to the jaw. Go see, it's all over the web. But the other part of that dude's problem, which didn't make it to air, was that he was swinging at his own guys who were trying to get him off the field. He would have gone into the stands if not for his ass't coach, and some police, holding him back. That was what bothered me the most: fighting the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
And now for random eloquence:
The bigger picture here is this: all those people who worked so hard to help Obama get elected; all those young voters who engaged in politics and its discourse; they could have been even more disillusioned. They could have become cynics like me. And if they disengage, if they tune out for another generation, then more would be lost than Obama's presidency. True progress would be lost. The ability to cover 1/6th of the U.S. population with affordable health care would be lost. Hate and crazy would only advance.
So now that Obama has regained some mojo, where does that leave us? Maybe "Wall-E" or "Planet of the Apes" number of years from now, history will have 'decidered' (rendered judgment for those who don't speak W). And history will show that on this issue, fixing 1 of the main things broken in this country, we had a President who spoke like a President, like an adult even, to a room full of petulant children. I've looked at HuffPo, and the links on the right, to see if someone posted a more succinct blog of how I might capture all of this. Haven't found it yet. For me though, I saw the guy I voted for. He's so far above the intellect of all those who seek to hurt him, or have him fail. He never takes the bait; the other side can't help themselves, so they always end up looking even worse than they probably are. All the vile crap, and he just stands there and says, 'you want to keep acting this way, fine, go ahead. I'm not sinking to your level.' Obviously, if he did, the nutbars would trot out the angry black man card. Obama has that calm demeanor that I wish I could have. He's so composed, and the more hate the crazies spew at him, the more he brushes it off. Maybe that is the transformative power of his message? Even if I've been disappointed in a few of his policies, and this health reform has not become law yet, I still give him all the credit for standing there, taking it all in, and never flinching when the punches come right at him. He may never be the most powerful counter-puncher ever, but he has mastered the rope-a-dope. He may never win by knock-out or even TKO, but if he wins all of his major bouts, even by split decision, he still wins. Even if he doesn't go undefeated, he could still be a hall-of-famer. That would help.
Back to HIGHpocrisy soon (we're looking at you, MSM)!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Almost a year ago (Oct. '08), we posted an entry comparing Obama's resolve in the face of all things ugly to the courage of Jackie Robinson. And that was before Obama won! Robinson was a hall of fame athlete with a super-human personality to match. We'll know soon enough if the comparison was apt, because you can't be transformative if the talent never rises to defeat the tempest.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The other problem is that the MSM reports the batshade as de facto news. Arianna Huffington has lamented this repeatedly. Not every issue has 2 sides, there can actually be truth and fiction; right and wrong. Ratings, profit, ego, power, all are wrapped up in this neat little package. That's what an oligarchy does (I can spell-check, too); it's why fear-mongering has worked, because it's how you suppress the people from owning up to their responsibility as an informed citizenry.
Enough rambling and incoherence: next week, Obama will either have pulled off the baddest, mother-F^&k*n' rope-a-dope in history, or his entire agenda will be history. As we've said already, if he can't win this one -- with Dem. majorities, popularity and public opinion on his side, not to mention the right thing to do -- what can he win?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Sorry, one more, read it. Will he be a lover or a fighter?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
We might extend that claim to any of his big-ticket issues. We've said before how hard it is for the powerful to relinquish control and power to another. Especially, THE "other". But part of the problem at least for me, is that I wanted to believe Obama was more progressive. Basketball may have been his sport on the campaign trail, but since he took that oath, he seems to have run to the center faster than Usain Bolt. Or did he? Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow said on Real Time a couple weeks ago that she always thought Obama was a moderate. I didn't want to accept that. But Obama has not pushed for any war crimes investigations yet. He lost control of the debate on his own top priority of health care reform. His economic plans have been too timid for the likes of Paul Krugman. And yet, he's still the President! He's the smartest guy in the room, with a pit bull for a Chief of Staff (sans lipstick). I'm just not getting why Obama can't see what's needed here!?! What is the game plan? If he can't win this one, what can he win? It's still way too early in the game, but I really wish he'd take advice from a source in none other than his own hometown of Chicago, courtesy of Sean Connery's Jim Malone in The Untouchables (poetic license taken):
"You wanna know how to get [health care reform]? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. THAT's the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get [health care reform]..." Given the current climate, this could not be more apt. OK, Mr. President, now what are you prepared to do?
supplemental: J and I make a couple of extra points in comments, but keep reading Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. Obama began the whole reform process without his A game, i.e., the single-payer alternative. Never even made it into the gym. If he were really cocky enough to think he could push through the Plan B "public option" (or worse, take credit for any reform that passed), I could at least respect the effort, but still hate the result. We both sure "hope" he hasn't checked his senses at the door to 1600 Pennsylvania.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Well, here's an answer or two, courtesy of Rollah and Bill Maher: the health care debate can't just be labeled as Obama's plan. For one thing, there is no alternative. It's either fix what's broken, or we continue to decline as a country that does not care about the health of its citizens. Forget stupid-ass party affiliation also. Republicans are most likely to play the fear card, but congressional Dems have not exactly been on the path of the virtuous. No, the larger problem is as Bill Maher described it on his show last week. "Dummies talking to other dummies." Bill's been on fire this Summer; we strongly encourage you to watch, or read up via the internets: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/index.html
This country continues to be run by corporatists (read, older rich white guys), not the will of the people. They are the ones who are most afraid, of losing control and power. They turn that fear over to their constituents, however they can. [Two asides: (1) read Matt Taibbi's long article on Goldman Sachs in last month's Rolling Stone, that's some scary sh^&; and, (2) re Judge Sotomayor's confirmation: old, rich white guys can never claim reverse racism. They have always been the oppressor, never the victim. Ok, (3) add in Jeremy Scahill's account of Blackwater]
You can see where we're headed. As long as greed and selfishness prevail, this place will continue to tank. And the scariest part? Obama could ram anything he wants down Congress' throat. He's that smart, and they're that lame. But if it's not in him to get mean, get nasty, if he stays true to himself and always plays the nice guy, the bipartisan, touchy-feely, Mr. Kumbaya? Then we're all screwed; our kids, their kids, the planet. If you've never seen the movie, Wall-E, go rent it. That's not 700 years down the road if things don't turn around! That's a short trip down I-5 to Tomorrowland and Fantasyland all in 1 stop.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
"Countdown has used the 'Palin-tology' graphic before. Sounds remarkably close to paleontology, which is the point of course. If you believe what the soon-to-be former Mrs. Governor of AK believes, there would be no such thing as paleontology. Or, at the very least, she would have you believe that paleontologists, professional wrestlers and celebrity psychics are all cut from the same cloth. And speaking of her cloth... does she still believe that witches and demons walk among us and must be purged from our souls? Hi Memory Lane, it's me, Trip, wanna take a walk?
Sarah Palin supposedly thought it was fine that her aides ignored subpoenas during Trooper-gate. Remember she wanted to bill (did?) rape victims for their medical kits? Foreign policy experience meant seeing a sliver of Russia from her house. Obama's there now. Can she see him waving to her? Does she still think the Founding Fathers were omitting a few powers from the Constitution that only the Vice-President had or knew about 230 years later? Highpocrisy HOF'er on the issue of a woman's right to choose. Downright Bushian in her ability to remain unencumbered by syntax, grammar or the modern English language. You betcha! Quick brain teaser: which was the more rambling, incoherent episode between her VP debate or last Friday's press conference? Trick question, because the answer is, both were G-d's will.
Now it's time for J's blatant rip-off of a top 10 list of reasons why McCain picked her in the 1st place:
10 - Nobody else would
9 - Alaska is the only state where McGeezer didn't have a house
8 - Mcgramps wanted to see the Northern lights for real, not just in his nightmare 'Nam flashbacks
7 - Lost his bet with Phil Gramm that he couldn't find anyone worse than Dan Quayle
6 - Alternative to Viagra
5 - Thought "field dressing a moose" meant something else
4 - Hillary said no
3 - Promised Pat Buchanan he'd pick a running mate who could give him a woodie
2 - Found his intellectual soul-mate
1 - Hoping for a 3-way with Cindy"
Wind J up, watch him unleash the pent-up fury. He's baaaack, and he's brought hell with him.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
That roll of the eyes is a key part of the psychology of Paulsonism. The state is now being asked not just to call off its regulators or give tax breaks or funnel a few contracts to connected companies; it is intervening directly in the economy, for the sole purpose of preserving the influence of the megafirms. In essence, Paulson used the bailout to transform the government into a giant bureaucracy of entitled assholedom, one that would socialize "toxic" risks but keep both the profits and the management
of the bailed-out firms in private hands. Moreover, this whole process would be done in secret, away from the prying eyes of NASCAR dads, broke-ass liberals who read translations of French novels, subprime mortgage holders and other such financial losers.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
I'm no legal scholar, but I can parse a sentence. The 'country' was not in a state of armed conflict. We were attacked, but Yoo's boss sat and read a kiddie book for 7 minutes, and then told everyone soon thereafter to go shopping. What was the scale of violence compared to the 4250+ U.S. dead, thousands wounded, maybe hundreds of thousands Iraqi civilians dead, 2 million+ refugees since then? That's not teaching we can believe in. I can see Stanford bringing Rummy to the Farm, Condi was already there for a loooong time. But et tu, Boalt?
For more on that sorry excuse for a lawyer, read the Newsweek article, here.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
J, is that batshade enough for ya?
Update: thanks for commenting, J. As if to prove your point ...
Monday, February 9, 2009
Adding: Why can't someone just be honest about their dishonesty, as in, "You can't spell F#ck without U!" There, I said it.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Nah gah happen.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Well played, Mr. Neiwert. You just earned a spot on the J-LEB (J’s List of Enlightened Bloggers). The list is still young but highly exclusive. Heretofore you can call yourself a J-LEBrity.
J's unleashed his hounds, so he's right up there with "batshade" TM. When we combine these 2 newest catch-phrases, we're really on to what will surely be a cultural phenomenon: a "Batshade J-LEBrity".
Monday, January 26, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Note: while this may only be J's 2nd overall contribution, we are still expecting great things in 2009...
Friday, January 9, 2009
Okla. had to know they were not going to score their 50+ pts. average against that defense. Stoops had to know too, that he'd been pulling an 0-fer on recent BCS games. So what happens? Exhibit A: 1st and goal with this year's Heisman winner at QB, and they run 3 times to no effect. Instead of taking the points in a gimme FG, they try a 4th straight run. TO on downs. Exhibit B: 10 seconds left in the 1st half; another chance for gimme 3 pts., but this time, a passing play that gets deflected for an INT. Game over by halftime.
From the ol' Ghostbusters movie: 'when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!' When you have a chance to get 6 pts via 2 cheap field goals against the best D you've seen all year, you TAKE THE POINTS! QBs and defense win football games. Ya know what else wins? Scoring more than the other team. Okla. deserved to lose. That's the message I could convey with utter confidence. And since there is usually plenty of Highpocrisy in the sports world, we need to stay on top of it whenever possible. So, we will.
As an aside, I hope Bradford stays in school another year. Then my Lions can draft the OL from 'bama with the #1 pick; then KC takes Stafford, and so on. World order restored.