Monday, December 10, 2007

MORE quick hits. . .

at the plate: okay, maybe there is something to all this talk about a "blueprint" to beat the Pats. Actually, I'm going to prove that via a negative argument: if you don't shut down Randy Moss, you will lose to the Pats. Which of course doesn't mean that if you shut down Randy Moss that you will beat the Pats (witness the games against Philly and the Ravens)--it just means you've done step one of a 3-step process, which reads something like this: stop Moss; stop the rest of the receivers (Wes Welker is a particular thorn that needs to be dealt with), and then score some points. I find it ironic that, of all the teams in the league, I think my beloved but beleaguered Broncs would have as good a chance as any to knock off the Pats. Think of it: Bailey on Welker; Bly and Foxworth on Moss; and the other 8 do what they can to wreak havoc in the backfield. We'd at least have a chance--although that's definitely a week that fantasy owners would love to have Maroney on their team. Alas, I don't think there's any chance of this matchup coming to fruition this year.

on deck: at lunch today, one of my friends was "reviewing" American Gangster, which he saw over the weekend. He described Denzel Washington's character as "the bad guy", and Russell Crowe's character as "the hero". I chortled to myself when the following thought crossed my mind: I wonder if, in every corner of the country, that's how those two characters from that movie are described? The chortle turned to sadness when I answered my own question: no, that is NOT how the description would play out in every corner of the country; in fact, I'm not even willing to bet that such would be the conversation in a majority of the country. Sad, indeed.

in the hole: I'm starting to get concerned about Iowa. The more I see of Huckabee, the less impressed I am. Disclaimer: I'm a Fred guy. I know that he's been late to the ball literally every time, but that doesn't make me want to dance with him less (just disappointed is all--but I, like most conservatives, have been living with a whole lot of that for the last several years). But Huckabee is looking a little "comfortable" in Iowa, so I'm giving him more looks than I had up until a week ago. As I posted before: I don't like what I see. It's not just "accountability", either, although that is a tie-in to my biggest concern about him: I don't think this guy is ready for the main stage. His responses of late to the Dumond case and to his plan to improve our image in the world are just the tip of the iceberg; that I've heard, when he's not talking about his faith, he isn't saying anything I like. And I'm not ready to hand the nomination over to a guy like that OR a guy like Giuliani just yet--not that I wouldn't vote for either of them in the general, but I sure would like someone else on the ticket under the GOP banner. But I think it says something that IF the choice were between Hillary and Huckabee in 2008, I'd almost be more comfortable with the Dem candidate's foreign policy. . .at least how it is spoken so far. Ohhh, scary!

Which brings me to a pinch hitter: when, oh when, will a candidate stand up and say that the problem with the image of the US in the world isn't that they don't like us, it's that they don't respect us? Granted, it would be great if everybody "liked" us--but to be honest with you, I don't want to be friends with a good number of the countries out there. The voodoo dolls of yesteryear didn't make me lose sleep--but today, the baddies don't even feel a need to disguise their contempt for us anymore, and that has me concerned. If only one person would have the guts to answer a question about "how will you improve our international stature?" not with apologetics but rather with the following: "I think we keep being the leading country in the world on the side of freedom and respect of life, and wait for everyone else to catch up to us"--that man/woman would have my vote. I know, keep dreaming.

Clean-up: Such a tragedy in my home state of Colorado this weekend. Senseless carnage. . .nothing else but senseless. I find it SOOO WRONG that the heroine of the story had to have a gun on her while she went to worship that day. Thank heavens that she did, of course, but really--how wrong is that picture? Is this what we've become? I will closely watch for info on this murderer's past and wait and see if there were alarms that were missed and all the normal post-mortems, but thing I want you to keep in mind: today, in the wake of his ACTIONS, his MOTIVES hold no solace for those affected by the events. I wonder if--at some point in his past--if someone had placed a greater emphasis on dealing with his ACTIONS over trying to understand his MOTIVES, maybe this guy might have been put on a path that might have made yesterday play out differently in history. We'll never know for sure, of course. . .but I just wonder.


Blogger Michael said...

to quote "The West Wing": they'll like us WHEN WE WIN!!

2:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home