The Browns are Still Obsessed with Quarterbacks

 

Deshaun Watson, P.J. Walker and Dorian Thompson Robinson.  None of them were good enough to turn a weak offense around. 

The Browns still don't get it.  They think that 

     a) the more money you pay a quarterback, the better they play.  So, if you pay a quarterback more than Patrick Mahomes, that quarterback must be even better than Mahomes.  So come on down, Deshaun Watson!

   b) The way you solve a quarterback controversy is to trade away the backup quarterback lest he make the front office look silly.  So, they got rid of Joe Flacco, because he proved the Watson deal was preposterous. Prior to that, they axed Case Keenum, Jacoby Brissett, and Josh Dobbs. We're getting ready to cut Jameis Winston, despite the fact that he proved himself to be vastly superior to Watson. All of these players are miles ahead of Dorian Thompson-Robinson, the Crown Prince and favorite of the Realm.  For that matter, they are also better than the current number one, Deshaun "Generational Talent" Watson.  

   c) Quarterbacks reach their prime in their rookie season.  How else can you justify drafting Dorian Thompson Robinson in Round 5, and promoting him to second string on Opening Day?  Good grief!  Once in a while there is a Russell Wilson who has success immediately after being drafted in a middle round, but this is very rare.  This writer does not hate DTR, but he probably needs 3 or 4 years to become an acceptable backup, just like Josh Dobbs rode the bench behind Big Ben Roethlisberger and Mason Rudolph.

   It's like this:  if you believe that the salary cap is real, than the object is to get the players who will contribute the most and cost the least. It's not that different from Fantasy Football. So, if you pay someone more than Mahomes, he must contribute more than Mahomes. If you are paying more than your opponents and fielding players who contribute less than their peers around the league, you are unlikely to have a winning team. You cannot pay $70 million dollars a  year for a lousy quarterback on a lousy offense for a lousy team, and then run out and outplay the Chiefs.  This is common sense.  

    A good team makes the QB look good.  Get five tough fat kids for the offensive line, two stud tight ends and two good running backs, and and average QB with average wide receivers can score points in the Stefanski offense.

  Joe Flacco was good enough to get into the playoffs, and once you're in you have at least some chance for a Ring.  Brissett, Keenum, Winston and Dobbs had a legit shot also, especially if the Browns had had six draft picks and $230 million dollars to build with. 

Look at the Steelers. With Russell Wilson at a quarterback and when T.J. was healthy, they were a playoff team.  They collapsed down the stretch because their defense was old and injured, but the point is they proved they could win with a low-cost quarterback. 

The Browns can't wait to throw money at ineffective big name quarterbacks, live in fear of their own backups. That's why they will pass on generational talents on defense in order to draft Shedeur Sanders, who Pro Football Focus ranks as the 43rd best prospect in the Draft.  But he plays Quarterback, so that's our guy!

Why the Polls Might be Flat Out Wrong

 

*********************************************************************************

Congratulations to President Trump!  Well, I blew my prediction about the polls (I think), or perhaps I overlooked the larger factor that Trump supporters were not cooperative with the pollsters either  (?!)

In any case, I believe in America no matter who the President, and the American people are resilient enough that we will be just fine, so life will continue, even for those who are disappointed in the outcome of the election.

I listened to an economist today recount how the stock market, after flopping under Bush, did great under Obama, continued to do well under Trump, and grew at the same rate under Biden.  There were only a few times when the stock market went down after a Presidential Election.  Very likely we will be okay. 

If you are worried about establishing hereditary control of the White House, recall that he was the one that opposed having the third Bush in the White House (thank God).  That sort of nonsense, plus the Democrats' sham primary system that allowed a man with Dementia to be their preferred candidate, is a real existential threat to Democracy.  

So perhaps you may be legitimately concerned about another four years of President Trump, but we have seen much worse (Jeb is available if you want him!). 

Rather than complain, I suggest we extend our congratulations and work together on the complex problems facing America. 

*********************************************************************

What if they had a Presidential poll and nobody came? 

Before answering that cryptic question, let me offer that America is still the greatest country in the world, and it will continue to be the greatest country in the world even if your favorite candidate does not make it. Those of you who are crying that America is doomed unless your candidate wins underestimate the strength of the American people and overestimate the strength of your candidate. Your candidate is not as good as you think, but either would be better than a man in early stage Dementia. This should be obvious. 

But my point today is that I question whether the polls are going to get it right. The reason is I hang up on the bastards when they call, and there might be other people like me that don't trust them.  I don't think we really need to know who is going to win, and we really just need vote our conscience.

In this election, I think there is a legitimate fear that if you get a call from a pollster, and you answer the wrong way, the result might be a lower credit score, or it might be more difficult to get a job in the future, or who knows what they might do to you if you answer incorrectly?  This is the Data Age, and we are rapidly learning it is also the Misuse of Data Age. Besides, how do we know the caller is really a pollster, and not some fringe group who will seek to harass members of the opposition later on?  

So, some voters may well lie about who they are going to vote for.  

Now let's ask, who would be least likely to lie to pollsters?  I'm not an expert social scientist, but my guess is that probably well-established suburbanites who lean Republican would feel comfortable in cooperating with pollsters. 

Who would be most likely to lie?  That would be young males from minority groups. And, well, pollsters are reporting unexpectedly high support from that demographic this year. To be sure, many feel let down by the Biden Administration, and really do feel that President Trump offers a logical alterative.  But is it possible that they might fear reprisals from a new Trump Administration, rightly or wrongly, and lie about who they support?  That is, young males from minorities may be disproportionately telling pollsters they are voting Republican. Similarly, fringy independents like myself might think the same way. That's my guess. 

They surely keep stats on the percentage of voters that refuse to cooperate, but I have not seen that reported in the press.  I suspect it will come out after the election.

In any case, we will survive November 5. We survived four years of being led by a man in the early stages of dementia, so stop saying America is doomed if they don't vote for your  candidate. It's hard for me to imagine that either candidate is going to be a step backwards. Come on! Calm down.  We'll be all right, and four years from now we will have the opportunity to peacefully elect someone else. 

Agatha All Along--Barely Watchable Witch

 

"Somewhere, there's got to be a plot on this road!?"  

"Umm...nope." 

What a crushing disappointment! Agatha All Along is the sequel to WandaVision, which was a work of genius. Wandavision involved the Scarlet Witch and the Vision participating in 1960s style sitcoms, and not really noticing anything was unusual about it. Gradually, however, they start to become aware that they may have ties to superheroes from the 21st century. Agatha keeps appearing in different situations and becomes a woman of mystery. I won't spoil it for you if you haven't seen it yet, but Wandavision was one of the most compelling Marvel works I've ever seen.  The Scarlet Witch was a relatively minor character in the Avengers movies early on, but in Wandavision she became a superstar. So I had to watch the sequel, Agatha All Along.

So my expectations were high for Agatha, who we met in WandaVision. The first show was rather good, but it went downhill fast. In Agatha All Along, for some reason Agatha has a different personality than she had when we last saw her in WandaVision. Well, okay... So she meets meets a mysterious young man who dabbles in witchcraft. He too changes his personality from one episode to the next, which is rather confusing. But in any case together they and some friends decide to make a special pilgrimage on the Witches' Road, based on a rumor that something good might await them at the end.  Nobody knows what the Road is or why it's there or what the reward is.  It's the same plot as the Wizard of Oz.

You know how baseball has unwritten rules of baseball? Well, there are unwritten rules of witchcraft, and the book is very thick. All the witches know about them, but they won't tell us about them. They have these stupid do's and don'ts and rules of etiquette about how to behave or you get zapped from some other realm, and nobody much questions it. 

The major problem with the show is that people change their personalities for no reason, week to week. Perhaps the writers thought this would be an interesting plot device, but it just makes the show hard to follow. Maybe they had multiple writers and they argued about how to portray the characters and so they compromised, and each got their chance for different episodes.  Who's in charge here, where are we going and who knows what is going on?  It's a mess

A basic problem with magic tales is that there are no rules. So, hypothetically, if you have the Wicked Witch of the West fight Agatha, they can zap each other with lightning bolts. "All zapped out, Agatha?" "Ha ha ha, you didn't know I had a magic scroll!" "Oh yeah?  Well, I have a magic amulet!" "So what? I have an enchanted sword!  Ta da!"  ....and so on. 

So you go on with the stupid battle till someone gets splashed with a bucket of water and melts.  But this is not a plot twist.  This is just making it up as you go along who has the last enchantment. We are just waiting on the whim of the screenwriters.  This is not creativity.  It is just formulaic and one dimensional. 

Or you  can always say, hey, everything is an illusion, this is not the real world, and have a character wake up and the world vanishes. This happens over and over. Oh, this isn't the real world, either!  Poof!  It another dream!  Nope, this isn't it, either!  Wash, rinse, repeat.  It is not clever. It's formulaic. Cop out!  Not a plot twist. 

This is why Agatha is boring, despite lavish sets, beautiful scenery, great camerawork and inspired acting performances. They couldn't quite overcome the mishmash of a script.  

Are you bored O, Goddess of Death?  How did she get that job, anyway, and why can't somebody else do the same things? Being vague is not the same as mysterious. 

Since the Two-Party System is Broken, Consider Supporting 3rd Party Candidates?

Randall Terry of the Constitution Party is a religious conservative; Chase Oliver of the Libertarian Party seeks to maximize personal liberty and decentralize authority of the federal government; and Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party is pro-environment and anti-war. 

Third parties are nearly extinct in America because that is one thing that Democrats and Republicans agree on:  they are a threat to the two party system and must be exterminated. It is an open conspiracy to pass increasingly steep barriers to make it difficult for candidates to appear on the ballot (not just President, but state and local representatives) and God help them fund a campaign if they do get on the ballot.  The odds are stacked against anyone who dares offer an alternative to our warring, bickering divided America. 

Where America really went wrong was taking away the Presidential debates from the neutral League of Women Voters and letting the Democrats and Republicans negotiate their own deals with the networks directly.  We don't have orderly debates anymore.  We have pre-match hoopla like the World Wrestling Entertainment. 

You say a vote for the Libertarians is just a vote for Trump. Or a vote for Jill Stein is just a vote for Kamala. Well, okay, so use your power of the vote to keep the third parties alive.  What, you're afraid that the Democrats or Republicans won't be on the ballot next time?  

Who actually does a better job of espousing conservative values, Trump or Chase Oliver?  Or, who actually does a better job of representing the liberal cause, Jill Stein or Kamala Harris?  And neither candidate speaks for the religious right like Randall Terry.  

Ross Perot was the last major independent Presidential candidate.  He might have won, except he quit and then un-quit.  Well, you can't do that.   He still got 19% of the vote, but lost his chance to change history. 

I'm not throwing away my vote by voting third party.  You're throwing away your vote if you continue to support confrontational, divisive party machine politics. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we need these Bozos (sorry if I have offended the clown community by comparing politicians to you).  But we are going to continue to have parties that ask us to hate our neighbors until we muster the strength to  THROW THE RASCALS OUT! BOTH OF THEM!!

 

Biden Makes Democrats Look Irrelevant in Lebanon

 

This Protestor may have a reasonably accurate assessment of the role of the US in Lebanon.

President Biden is making America increasingly irrelevant in the Middle East. Perhaps it is because our President comes from the Senate, the highest paid debating society in the world, and they tend to resolve problems by unlimited debate; i.e., no resolution.

This model has been tested in  Ukraine, where  the US have achieved a perfect stalemate, supporting President Zelensky but not giving him the weapons he needs to win. At the same time, branding President Putin a "War Criminal" assures that negotiating a settlement is impossible.   Biden apparently hopes to have a similar solution in Israel:  support Israel, but preserve Hamas, which is committed to fight Israel to the death. Brilliant, Mr. President. Perpetual death.     

So it is in Lebanon. There are a lot of things that I don't like about Israel, but in this situation a choice needs to be made.  Hamas, according to their party ideology, does not hate all Jews, but is totally committed to end Zionism (i.e., the Jewish presence in Palestine).  It is important to understand that Hamas does not speak for everyone in the Middle East or indeed everyone in Lebanon.  They are a political party, but they do support eradication of Israel as a political entity.

It is possible to be very supportive of the Palestinian cause, but, in the case of Hamas, there is a chose to be made.  The US has to support either Hamas or Israel. Either Israel will exist or it will not.  

By analogy, the idea that while driving towards Berlin, Truman should have called off General Eisenhower and had a cease-fire does not make much sense.  This is basically what we are asking Prime Minister Netanyahu to do. Give up while just before eliminating Hamas as a political entity.  Are you kidding?

Former President Trump, on the other hand, has offered a simpler solution. "Let Israel finish the job." It's horrible to contemplate, but this may be the quickest way to end the war. 

Again, the debating society hates victory and loves stalemate.  It takes courage to hold out for victory.  I'm not sure what Kamala would do. At the moment she is obligated to hold the party line, much to the detriment of her Brand.  It may cost her at the polls.  De Facto support of Hamas probably seems stupid to many Americans.  

What is the End Game in Ukraine? Victory, Nuclear War or Unending Conflict?

This article was originally written in 2022.  Has there been a negotiated outcome of the Ukraine war? No. It is rather clear that the Biden administration will come to a close without a resolution, exactly as forecast. Kamala might have a better shot at it because she at least did not refer to President Putin as a "war criminal," thereby making it impossible to negotiate. However, the Dems tend to love muddled stalement and perpetual warfare as a preferred "resolution."  Would a second Trump Administration negotiate a resolution overnight?  Probably not that fast, but it will probably happen because both sides are weary of conflict.  I believe Trump would get it done. You don't have to read the Art of the Deal to know that much....

America is spending $54 billion dollars to help Ukraine fight Russian aggression, according to the New York Times. There is no question that Vladimir Putin is an international Pariah, and that the Russians are the aggressors, and that the sympathies of America and most of the West are with Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  But what is the objective of the support America is providing?  Does anyone know?

President Biden has stated America's goal as follows:  "America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression."    

Okay!  We've got that.  But that doesn't end the war. Shouldn't the objective be to end the war somehow? 

Biden indicates that the war should be resolved at the negotiating table, but does not indicate when this should happen or who should win.  That is a slight problem, if we do not know who should win.  

The presumption might be that we are trying to help Ukraine achieve a military victory? The President has also said that he wants Putin to be considered a war criminal.

Further, he wants Putin to be put on trial. How exactly will peace be negotiated if one of the parties is put on trial for war crimes?  Of course he deserves it, but that is not the point. Does President Biden wish to end the war or not? Putin is a sore loser, and has threatened to use nuclear weapons rather than go quietly if the situation worsens. Now, why would Putin agree to some negotiated solution that includes him meekly going to trial as a war criminal?  

There cannot possibly be a negotiated end to the war unless it occurs after a nuclear holocaust as long as the Democrats remain in power. 

Anyway, Ukraine is not really winning the war, despite the spirited press bluster.  Yes, the Russian army is rather incompetent and blundering and has suffered enormous, embarrassing defeats. But they are holding their ground now. The Ukrainian counterattack has bogged down now, though you would not realize it from the constant optimistic jabber from the press, which reports only about the bravery of the Ukrainian people, and takeover of tiny villages. The basic map of battle lines has not changed much recently even though the press makes it sound like the Russians are being routed daily.    

Hence President Biden's objective is probably unending war, and he is succeeding. Ukrainian victory is not an option because that would goad Putin into the use of nuclear weapons. Biden enjoys making empty threats about Putin, but has no stomach for making good on those threats. 

Just as Biden is willing to cut fossil fuel production in America in order to pursue his green energy policies, he is no doubt thrilled to see Russia lose its ability to send fossil energy to Europe.  

Congress should realize that since America has no stomach to win the war, we need to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table by not pretending we will help them achieve military victory. However, it is doubtful whether Congress has any will of its own. Republicans have the main aim of blaming the President for the ills of the country; and Democrats wish to be the Party That is Better Than Trump.  

Now It's a Ballgame: Harris Vs Trump

 

Trust the Gamblers at Election Odds | Who Will Win The Presidency In 2024? (thelines.com). The Village Elliot is an amateur sports handicapper, and in sports terms, it now appears that it's anybody's ballgame, and we're not giving any better than 60-40, President Trump. In fact, I might bet on the new kid, Kamala Harris, even though she was not a first round draft pick.  The old guy, President Biden, had fallen to less than 20% at the end.  Not good.  In fact, I would have put it this way: it would have been far more probable that Trump could have lost the election with a last minute fumble than Biden win it with a last-minute Hail Mary.  

So how do we break down the election now that there is a new quarterback for the Blue Team?  Well, I've heard this over and over again from commentators on AM radio: "President Biden is the most terrible President in American history...the worst of all time, unbelievable, unprecedented."

Well so what about Vice President Kamala Harris? 

"Oh, she's even worse!" 

Well, both statements are very unlikely to be true.  I encountered the same thing in discussing the merits of the Trump Administration. You may not believe it, but 

I predicted his impeachment BEFORE he was even inaugurated, on January 17, 2017..  I suspected the unconventional Trump would butt heads with the establishment.  With all the whining about how horrible Trump is, I pointed out to my liberal friends at the time, if 19 Republicans would vote with the Democrats, Mike Pence could replace Trump. "Oh no! He's even worse!" was often often the reply. Well, how could Pence be worse than Trump, if Trump was really a historic anomaly worthy of impeachment? You might not agree with Mike Pence, but he at least had a strong sense of ethics. Does anyone still think he was a Trumplike insurrectionist after his courageous stand on January 6 when Trump supporters were chanting for his death? Whoever thought he was "worse than Trump" should be ashamed. At least he respects the will of the American voters. 

No, something is wrong with a major portion of the electorate if they think that each candidate is the worst in history and the next candidate is even worse. This is simply not possible. It is bad handicapping and faulty analysis.  This is like a cynical football analyst who takes one look at the quarterback and writes off the season. 

The truth is that neither Biden nor Trump are as formidable as they were in 2020. In 2020, Biden was the former Vice President under Obama, and Trump was the incumbent President, not yet tarnished by January 6 and the unsuccessful post-election crusade.  By now, Biden is known to have dementia (let's call it what it is) and Trump was permanently tarnished for his role in the post-election insurrection (let's call that what it is too).  

Trump, for his part, was a much better President than his opponents give him credit for.  Number of wars on his watch = 0.  He decreased carbon emissions despite avoiding direct legislation.  You may not like his border policy, but by now the Democrats have mostly adopted it.  The Covid vaccine was developed during his Administration, not Bidens (if it had come out a few months earlier my guess is many Democrats would have been anti-vaxers just because they hate all things Trump). But Trump's problem was not going home when the voters rejected him.  January 6 is hard for many Americans to overcome.  The fact that for a long time he was polling about even with a man with Dementia is a sign of great weakness, not resilience. 

Even though Kamala has significant problems in transferring campaign donations and negotiating ballot challenges at this late date, and the stigma of not having been tested in the primaries, she has to be stronger than a man with Dementia. 

I think she could win if she runs a centrist campaign that compromises with the Right on issues like immigration and energy. She could say, "Well, Republicans, can you pass a bill through both Houses of Congress for me to sign? If not, then there's nothing to talk about, is there? Nya nya!" Make Congress do their job rather than rule by Executive Orders (=Royal Decrees, which Americans are supposedly adverse to, but just love if they come from their darling political party).

Setting a record for donations on the first day is a signal that should impress the Trump campaign.  

Mind you, the Harris candidacy does not fix the fact that the Democrats did not allow us to vote in a real primary with real challengers. If they had, Biden would have been exposed and we would have had a real candidate.  For that reason, I personally am disinclined to support the corrupt two-party system. It is absurd that a party would even consider running a candidate with Dementia in the first place. 

Nevertheless, a candidate without a single vote in a Democratic Primary does have a chance against a Republican whose disregard for the American voter was shocking in the post-election attempted insurrection.  It's not that Harris is a great candidate. It's that President Trump is much weaker than most handicappers believe.