January 2010 Archives

Three things about this latest misdirected e-mail: (1) April 18th is also my birthday. (2) Because of this, I know that April 18th is on a Sunday this year. Get your shit together, people. (3) Is it wise to plan a 90th birthday get together a few months in advance? It seems like this has a higher likelihood of not happening than a normal party, what with death and all.

Two legal cases. Two Super Bowl ads. One fucked up decision by CBS.

Case #1:

A Kansas jury, in an almost unbelievable display of intelligence and comprehension, has convicted Scott Roeder of murder in the killing of Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller was one of only a handful of doctors in the US who performed late-term abortions. Roeder (who it feels like somewhat of an understatement at this point to call an anti-abortion activist) walked up behind Dr. Tiller in the foyer of his church before Sunday services, and shot him point blank in the back of the head.

(Quick sidebar: There exists a provision in Kansas law by which someone may be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder if the killer has an "unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force". Roeder's lawyers unsuccessfully attempted to use this provision to get the severity of his sentence downgraded. Isn't this an incredibly persuasive argument? Here's what I mean: if you truly believe that a fetus is equal to a baby as Roeder clearly does, then in his eyes, Dr. Tiller was murdering babies every day. If somebody actually was murdering babies every day, would those circumstances not justify deadly force? All this is not to mean that Roeder should have been acquitted of murder, but rather that Kansas is, collectively, fucking retarded for having such a law in the first place.)

Ad #1:

Florida quarterback Tim Tebow will star in an anti-abortion ad with his mother. While pregnant, Tebow's mom considered having an abortion before, I dunno, probably praying or some shit. 

Status: Accepted by CBS

Case #2:

The Federal Appeals Court is currently deliberating a constitutional challenge to Prop 8, the controversial California law that banned same sex marriage in that state. Arguing for the pro-gay marriage side are David Boies and Theodore Olsen, the two lawyers who argued on opposite sides before the Supreme Court of the Bush v. Gore gas. Arguing for the anti-gay marriage side are, I presume, a bunch of horrible bigots who should just kill themselves.

Ad #2:
  

Its not because of Katrina. Its not because the city is close to Houston. Its nothing you would guess. No, its because of this:

...would have been a better name if Apple was launching a line of women's hygiene products...

...looks like Apple's version of a digital picture frame...

...had better be less awkward to use than Steve Jobs looks holding the thing...

...is as disappointing and unappealing as the iPhone was revolutionary and boner inducing.

I'm not, by nature, a LOLer. I smirk, I smile, I'll occasionally chuckle, but LOLing is an atypical way for me to express enjoyment of a TV show. (It is to Suzi's great ire that I watch 30 Rock, a show that she hates the way Larry Platt hates sagging pants, without laughing. "If this stupid show is so fucking funny, why aren't you laughing? WHY AREN'T YOU LAUGHING??" she screams.) So it was with great surprise that I found myself LOLing like a motherfucker while watching an Archer marathon last Wednesday night on FX.

Archer is an animated sitcom from the creators of SeaLab 2020 and other things nerds like. Despite its spy trappings, it is ultimately a workplace comedy, punctuated by intense (but brief) acts of violence. In this case, the workplace is ISIS, the International Secret Intelligence Service. The title character, Sterling Archer, is a master spy in the James Bond mold, if the mold had been left in a hot car on a Sunday afternoon. That is to say, he is warped.

The pilot lays these concepts out in a brilliant bit of plotting: Archer, having padding his expense reports with money spent not on work related items but rather gambling and hookers, has to break into the ISIS mainframe to cover up the mess.

The show is, in the best tradition of The Simpsons and South Park, equal parts literate and profane. Consider: ISIS, the organization for which Archer works, was worshiped by the Greeks as the ideal mother. The head of ISIS is actually Archer's mother and is a woman for whom (as the end of this clip shows) Archer clearly has complicated - and yucky - sexual feelings about.

Guess what...only three more NFL games left this season...well four if you include the Pro Bowl, but I'm probably not going to analyze that game.  Looking back at last weekend we again found three of the four games as boring blowouts.  These playoffs have really been uninteresting.  Maybe this week will be better.  But before we go into this week, let's take a look at the standings:

Jesse: 12 (3-1 last week)
Jim: 11 (3-1 last week)
The Suze: 9 (2-2 last week)
Daytrader: 6 (2-2 last week)
Rose: 6 (3-1 last week)
Greg: 4 (2-2 last week)

With four points at stake for each correct pick this week, who knows what will happen!  OK...now for this weekend's games.


New York Jets vs. Indianapolis Colts (-7.5)
Well the Jets shocked the world last weekend by beating the Chargers.  Being a nine point underdog definitely helped with people betting on them, but I don't think most people thought that they would actually get the victory.  While the Jets did play their game, the Chargers really helped out.  Three missed field goals (two of them very makeable) and a very bad coaching decision to on-side kick with a timeout and the two-minute warning left really helped the Chargers lose the game.  Now I don't want to take anything away from the Jets because they did play their type of a game, but I think that if San Diego makes one of those field goals the Jets probably lose.

Switching to the Colts, they shut down the Ravens last week.  Only allowing three points to a team that blew out the Patriots the week before is something to say about the Colts' defense.  And I don't need to say much about the offense.  Peyton Manning looks unstoppable right now.

So now we look to this game.  The Jets run the ball better and play better defense than the Ravens, but the Colts' offense is better than the Chargers' offense.  Looking at last week, it would seem that the Colts would have the advantage.  But the Jets' defense has been able to change and adapt to each offense they've played.  But the Colts should have a little revenge factor here.  If they didn't pull their starters in that Week 16 game against the Jets, they probably would have won, most likely would still be unbeaten (assuming they kept their starters in against Buffalo too), and more importantly the Jets wouldn't be in the playoffs.  I personally like both of these teams and will root for the winner in the Superbowl, but I think the Colts have just too much firepower.  If the Jets were playing anyone else besides Peyton Manning I probably would go with the Jets, but Manning is just too good and I think the Colts will be able to put up points.


Minnesota Vikings vs. New Orleans Saints (-3.0)
Wow, the Vikings brought the Cowboys back down to earth last week.  The Minnesota defensive line got to Tony Romo and basically showed all teams that Romo cannot handle consistent pressure.  I think teams are going to look at that for next year.  But back to the Vikings, not only did their defense do the job, Brett Favre did his job and was perfect.  Just look at that first touchdown pass to Sidney Rice.  Favre threw it over 40 yards and Rice didn't even have to move his arms and the ball just appeared in his hands, who was in full stride!  And the Vikings sent a message by pouring it on at the end by throwing a 4th down touchdown pass with less than two minutes to go up by 24.

Moving to the Saints, I didn't expect their performance last week.  I was on the Cardinals' bandwagon.  But New Orleans just came out and took it to Arizona, after the Cardinals scored a touchdown on the first play from scrimmage.  Reggie Bush had his breakout game last week, with a rushing touchdown and a punt return for a touchdown.  Their defense played well enough to stop a Cardinals' offense that looked to be unstoppable.

But for this game things will be different.  The Vikings are on the road where they are only 4-4 this season.  The real question for me will be can the Vikings' defense get pressure on Drew Brees.  And I'm not sure.  Two of their starting defensive linemen are injured, and even though they both will probably play, I doubt they'll be 100%.  If they can't get to Brees, I see the Saints being able to throw on the Minnesota secondary.  And that might open up the Saints' running game.  If New Orleans can win time of possession I think they should get the win.  But what about the Vikings' offense and Mr. Favre?  Some people are a little worried that Favre will have a poor game, but I'm not one of them.  Favre will be playing very close to where he grew up, and it will be an emotional game.  And he ALWAYS plays his best in these type of emotional games.  Here is the key for me.  Can Adrian Peterson run the ball?  If he can I like the Vikings.  As much as I would like to see a Favre-Manning Superbowl, I think that Favre will lose another NFC Championship Game, and I'm taking the Saints.

So you thought that the time for top 10 lists of the preceding decade were over? You wish. Jim and I are going to work through the past decade like an overweight kid running laps in gym class: nice and slow. And yes, we will likely be out of breath by the end. Also by the end, it'll be time to start our assessment of the next decade, so that should work out great!

I made the even picks, Jim the odd ones. In number (although in a couple of cases, the strange ones as well). I suppose these are all going to have to be foreign attacks because, just like Rudy Guliani said, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush."

#10: The bombing of the USS Cole

Picking a favorite terrorist attack is picking a favorite child, in that I think they should all be aborted. But when we look back on the aughts, terrorism - its occurrence, and our response to it - will be at least as important as anything Paris Hilton or Britney Spears did.

The event that really ushered in the era of terrorism was not 9/11, but actually 10/12. That was the date of the bombing of the USS Cole, when terrorists pulled up next to the ship on a tiny boat filled with over 1,000 pounds of explosives and punched a hole in the hull. If 9/11 was when terrorism finally hit the big time, then the attack on the USS Cole was when terrorism was still playing in clubs and making demo tapes, hoping for that big break.

Here are the rules for the "This Old House" drinking game*.

Take a sip whenever:

1) A contractor says "Kevin".
2) The homeowners are pressed into manual labor.
3) Kevin does actual work.
4) Somebody has a horrible Boston accent.
5) Tom uses a ridiculous power tool (e.g. a portable power slot cutter)
6) Tom looks down over his glasses while pushing a piece of wood through a saw.

Drink half whenever:

1) Some household doodad or other is declared as "energy efficient."
2) The show kills time by taking you somewhere off-site.
3) You see somebody under the age of 40.
4) A contractor has an awesome mustache.

Finish your drink whenever:

1) You see a black person.
2) You see an Asian person.

*If you actually start watching This Old House, you'll look back on this game and say, "Wow, this is hilarious!" You will! Srs.

How am I doing? Fine, I guess. Some sketchy ass dude just walked into the bathroom and started talking to me, even though I've never seen him before in my life and he looks like the kind of nerd who was still bad in school. You know how there are nerds that wear glasses and pants that are too short and get straight A's and eventually make big money in Silicone Valley, and then there are nerds that wear dark clothes and don't bathe and have no friends, but also go on to become failures in life after high school? That kind of nerd. And I'm generally anti-social as a rule, but even if I was going to go out on a limb and make your acquaintance, which I won't because you're a sketchy gross nerd, I would probably  wait until at least one of us isn't holding their own dick. That's how I'm doing. What the fuck.

After yesterday's football results, three players remain out of 16 in the $50 buy-in suicide pool Suzi and I are participating in this year. Two of them are me and Suzi. The third is Suzi's boss, Colin. The rules of the pool are simple: you must pick a winning team to stay in it each week, and you cannot pick a team twice. Last man standing wins, with 2nd and 3rd place prizes also given out. The pool of teams which could be selected from was reset for the playoffs.

I claimed to Suzi that there was an optimal, clearly correct course of action to be taken. She resisted, saying that the facts were not all in yet. What follows is a wordy, esoteric, and ultimately pointless exercise in calculating the odds and value of each possible selection and outcome. However, there will be tables. So that's something to look forward to.

Well the Wild Card week of the NFL Playoffs consisted of three duds and an instant classic.  I don't know if that then qualifies it as a "good" football weekend, but that Packers-Cardinals game was fun.  Hopefully this week will have more competitive games, and historically the Divisional Round does have the best match-ups.

But before we get into analyzing this week's games, I want to update the standings for the Unofficial Playoff Pick 'Em League that I'm keeping track of.

Jesse: 3
The Suze: 3
Jim: 2
Daytrader: 2
Rose: 0
Greg: 0

Now, this week you get 2 points for every correct pick (against the spread) so if you didn't send me your picks you can still get in the action by sending them to adzler514@gmail.com.  As you can see, everyone else is still tied with Rose and Greg.

OK, now to the analysis!


Arizona Cardinals vs. New Orleans Saints (-7.0)
In case you were wondering, the over/under on this game is 57.  And I would take the over in a heartbeat.  These are arguably the best two offenses left in the playoffs, and maybe not so arguably the worst two defenses left.  In my mind, I pretty much equate these two offenses.  They both have a quarterback that can throw the ball and receivers that can catch the ball.  I give the Cardinals a slight edge in the receiver category, but the Saints get an edge in the running category.  But do you think that these teams will even try to run the ball?  As I mentioned, the defenses are both pretty lame, so it comes down to intangibles for me.  The Saints have the home field advantage, but the Cardinals have the experience advantage.  The last game that the Saints won was a 26-23 win over the Falcons on December 13th.  That's a long time to go without a win.  The Cardinals are flawed, especially on defense, but the Saints are overrated.  I see this game being close, so that alone tells me to pick the Cardinals against the spread, but I see Arizona winning this game, so I'm definitely taking the Cardinals.  Quick fact: Since the NFL went to this 6 team conference playoff structure in 1990, no NFC #1 seed lost their first game since the Cowboys lost to the Giants in 2007.  The Giants lost as the #1 seed last season.  Might the new trend continue???


Baltimore Ravens vs. Indianapolis Colts (-7.0)
The Colts have lost their last THREE home playoff games when they've had a Bye in the Wild Card Round.  That's pretty incredible.  The Colts have won more regular season games in the 2000s decade than any other team in any other decade in NFL history, yet they have only one Superbowl title.  I guess you could call them the Atlanta Braves of the '90s, although Atlanta did lose FOUR times in the World Series that decade.  But the playoffs have been a struggle for the Colts.  Some argue that it's because they never play out their games during the end of the regular season since they have everything clinched.  I'm not so sure about that.  The past two years they've been knocked out by the Chargers, a team that is built to beat them.  I don't think that Baltimore is that kind of team.  The Ravens can obviously run the ball, and that will eat up the clock and keep the Colt offense on the sideline.  But the Ravens cannot win this game through the air, which means that the Ravens cannot fall behind.  And I'm not sure that the Ravens' defense can stop Peyton Manning.  The loss of Wes Welker was a huge deal for the Patriots last week, and Tom Brady didn't have anyone to throw the ball to.  The Colts have a deep and talented receiving corp.  I can't see the Ravens stopping the Colts.  I think that this game might be the only blowout of the weekend as the Colts cruise.


Dallas Cowboys vs. Minnesota Vikings (-3.0)
Well this match-up isn't as good as Packers-Vikings would have been, but it's damn close.  The "red hot" Cowboys head to Minnesota and take on their old nemesis from the '90s Brett Favre.   Just how much is left in Favre's tank?  That's the question for this game.  He looked great against a lame duck Giants team during the last week of the season, but before that...yuck-o.  This game is going to be won in the trenches.  Offensive line versus defensive line.  These two teams might be the two best balanced offensive and defensive teams left in the playoffs, which means that the winner has a good shot of representing the NFC in the Superbowl.  So that means that the winner is going to be the team that wins the all important (and often forgotten) Special Teams battle.  A kickoff or punt return for a touchdown.  Maybe the punter that is better at playing the field position game.  Perhaps a long field goal.  Things just look too even everywhere else.  Two gun-slinger quarterbacks...two good running games...two good receiving corps...two defenses that can get to the quarterback.  I don't know enough about these team's Special Teams to make a confident pick, but I like Dallas in this game.  Wouldn't it just make sense for Dallas to win and Arizona to win and then have the NFC Championship Game played in Jerryworld?  Of course it would.


New York Jets vs. San Diego Chargers (-9.0)
Did you know that if the Ravens win and the Jets win, the last game ever played at Giants Stadium would be the AFC Championship Game?  Wouldn't that be something?  Anyway, that would require the Ravens to win (which I don't think is going to happen) and the Jets to win (which you'll have to read on to find out what I think).  The Jets just shut down the Bengals last week, and should have won by more if Braylon Edwards catches that long touchdown pass.  But San Diego is on an ELEVEN game winning streak!  WFT!  Phillip Rivers is poised to win his first Superbowl this season, joining him with Eli Manning and Ben Roethlesberger (who has two), basically cementing that 2004 draft quarterback class as one of the best in NFL history.  But speaking of 2004, let's not forget that the Jets went into San Diego in the Wild Card round of the playoffs and beat the Chargers, albeit with Drew Brees at quarterback.  Now, I know that Mark Sanchez is a rookie quarterback, but last year as a rookie Joe Flacco of the Ravens won his first two playoff games, so it can be done.  The Jets' defense is for real, and although Thomas Jones is a little banged up at running back, have you seen Shonn Greene.  And let's not forget kicker AND last week's punter Jay Feely.  I know that he's a kicker, but he's a damn good football player.  If the Jets can run the ball and control the time of possession, they might gave a chance to win.  Regardless of winning though, I think the Jets will keep it close enough to cover, although if they get down big early, it'll only get worse if they need to rely on Sanchez to throw all over the place.  We might see a new playoff interception record by the Chargers' defense.

After presenting my (negative, hostile) thoughts on the first level of a video game earlier this week, I was told that I should not judge it because I had not played the whole game, and had also not played the sequel. With that it mind, I will now pass judgment on the third season of Chuck after the first three episodes.

American television is set up to reward shows that can run indefinitely, which often requires an incredible amount of wheel spinning (call this the House Effect). Chuck as a show improved so greatly going into season two because it developed an incredible sense of forward momentum. There were opportunities for wheel spinning, but these were just tossed aside. And the ending of the season set the show up to go literally anywhere it wanted.

So color me disappointed that by the end of the second episode Chuck is back working at the Buy More, back to staring longingly at Sarah who secretly has feelings for him but they can't express it, back to basically the same old shit. Season three has hit the reset button harder than a nerd about to lose his video game football winning streak. I guess I expected better.

I'm not easily offended or upset. I'm not bragging when I say this. In fact, some might see it as a personality flaw, or a sign of social maladjustment. Whatever. Point is, when something does manage to offend me, its kind of a big deal. At least to me.

I've played war video games before. I've played video games where you killed people before. Shit, I just finished a game with the word "Assassin" in the title, where I spent a solid 50 hours of my Christmas vacation sneaking up behind guards and then stabbing them in the back of the neck and giggling as the blood spurted out. But that was just a game.

I started playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 last night. I think it crosses a big line. I think it crosses a million big lines. Let's follow the pattern:

The US invades Iraq in the early 90s, the Gulf War. The invasion starts at night; the early news footage is nothing more than lights streaking across a dark sky. Press conferences are held showing videos of smart bombs zooming in on targets without context. War, essentially, begins to look like a video game.

The advances in video game consoles make more and more realistic games possible. One of the new genres is the ultra-realistic war game. It starts with historic recreations of World War II (the only good war ever(tm)) but eventually works its way to titles like Operation Desert Storm. The war that looked like a video game now is a video game.

Advances in war technology replace pilots and tanks with drones piloted from halfway around the world. Piloting a drone is virtually indistinguishable from playing a video game - except the bombs you drop land on real people. The video game of war has now become actual war.

Meanwhile, the country wages wars that have no consequence to the average citizen. There is no draft; instead, we have a volunteer army made up many brave men and women, but also of too many that turned to the army because there was nowhere else to turn for opportunity. We pay for the war with debt while cutting taxes. Nothing is sacrificed. How can we be expected to judge the impact or justness of a war when to us it is nothing?

And now the final step. The very first level of Modern Warfare 2 takes place in the front lines in Afghanistan. I'm in an army unit that gets ambushed in a town by insurgents. Its very realistic - up until the part where I die. Or I accidentally kill another marine. Or I accidentally kill a civilian. I'm bad at the game, so I do all these things alot. But there are no consequences: I just get sent back to my last checkpoint. I'm playing a video game depicting a war that is actually going on now, where real people are dying, where we should be having a very serious and difficult discussion about the justness of the whole thing, and... what?

This is what we do for fun during wartime. We let the poor and the crazy do our fighting for us while we stay at home playing video game propaganda. It kind of made me hate myself for ordering the goddamn thing.

And where is all of this leading? Where else but here:

Who knew YouTube was such a hotbed for political insight? The video I posted of Jerry Jones and George W. celebrating a Cowboys touchdown Saturday night has elevated the political discourse in ways I could only dream. Here's a sampling of reaction to the video, which I said "made me want to vomit":

Say whatever you want about Bush,

At least he was damn sure to call a terrorist a terrorist

Unlike this clown that want to give them constitutional rights and a lawyer

The crowd enthusiastically cheered Bush when he appeared in the box.

When you have a Muslim radical in the White House leading our nation down the drain I guess Bush looks a lot better.

I'm glad it did you liberal puke! GO COWBOYS! Conservatives 2010!!!

You know the ACORN Lawyer Obama was rooting for that dog murdering thug Michael Vick and that choke artist Mcnabb*. In Obama's words...TYPICAL black people.

And in the interest of fairness and balance:

Some good ol' Illuminati , Skull & Bones shit right here, they probably were up there doing f'ing lines together!

Jerry invited Bush after he found out that Satan and Hannibal Lecter were busy.

*I might not agree with this guy's politics, but he's right: McNabb played this game with a turkey leg lodged in his esophagus.

The video quality is not very good, but you are watching billionaire Jerry Jones high-fiving former president George W. Bush in the owner's box of Cowboys Stadium after one of the many touchdowns scored against the Eagles in tonight's game. I challenge anyone to watch these two horrible people happy and celebrating while simultaneously keeping their lunch down.

I don't know why people send me stuff. But they do. Yesterday my e-mail box was inundated with PDFs and other files from someone named Bob Rasmussen. He seems to be doing some sort of contract work or something. I don't know. I didn't actually read any of the PDFs. But I am obligated to share.

You know what really grinds my gears? When the gym fills up with fatties right after New Year's. Now, everytime I go to exercise after work in the tiny gym at the condo clubhouse, I have to wait for the treadmill while some 250 pound resolutee uses it. To walk.

Hey, you know what's great for walking? EVERYWHERE. You don't need a treadmill to walk. When you are running, a treadmill helps you hit your distance goals, set your pace, and is easier on your joints. But walking? That's what the ENTIRE WORLD is for, you fat bastard.

And if you'd ever been in a gym before, you'd know that it is common fucking decency to keep your time on the treadmill to 30 minutes or less. If you're going to be walking for an hour, why don't you walk to the store and buy a vegetable or two? Kill two birds with one stone, and then don't eat them this time.

At least I can look on the bright side, and know that after another week or two, you'll give up and climb back into the bag of potato chips you came from.

So even though the NFL Regular Season is over, it doesn't mean that I can't make incorrect playoff predictions and embarrass myself further on this blog.  In our Yahoo Pick 'Em league, we started with 12 teams.  After a week or two, two teams basically stopped picking, thus leaving 10 teams remaining.  Out of those 10 teams, I finished in 8th place.  Which sucks!  On further review, if we did NOT use Confidence Points, I would have finished 10th.  My win-loss record was the worst.  But since I wrote a weekly blog (most weeks) and told everyone my picks I influenced everyone else to pick the opposite and then they won.  Other people would have done bad also if I didn't disclose my picks, at least that's what I tell myself to make me feel better.

Anyway, there are four games this weekend.  Interestingly, three of the four are rematches of games played LAST WEEK!  And two of those three are in the same location!  Also, if the Ravens would have lost last week to the Raiders, all FOUR games would have been rematches, since the Texans would have gotten in and then played the Patriots.  I doubt that's ever happened before.  I doubt that even these three match-ups have ever happened a week later before either.  Just a piece of meaningless NFL trivia that I find interesting.  OK...to the incorrect picks!


New York Jets vs. Cincinnati Bengals (-2.5)
People (Texan fans) can say that the Jets backed into the playoffs, and in reality, they did.  I firmly believe that if the Colts didn't pull their starters out against the Jets a few weeks ago then the Colts would have won that game.  I completely disagree with the Colts taking them out in the first place, but that's not the Jets' fault.  If the Texans, Steelers, Broncos, and any other team complaining would have WON a game earlier in the season, this would all be a moot point.   (Texans: Lost to the Jets in Mark Sanchez's first NFL start, Steelers: Lost at home to Oakland and on the road to at the time 1-win Cleveland, Broncos: Home losses to both Oakland and Kansas City, and a road loss to the Redskins.)  So I'm sick of the "backing in" complaint.  Plus, last week the Jets would have beaten the Bengals regardless of who was playing for Cincy, and their starters did play a good portion of the game.  So that brings us to this week.  The Jets DESTROYED the Bengals in New York just a few days ago, but this one is in Cincinnati.  Now I'm sure that the Bengals will sell this game out, but they've had a tough time selling out this season, and that's with a WINNING TEAM!  If the Jets can play defense like they did last week and run the ball, they'll control the clock and win the game.  I'm sorry Bengals, a 37-0 whoopin' last week cannot be ignored, regardless of who was playing.  My bold prediction from last week comes true as the New York Jets win a playoff game.


Philadelphia Eagles vs. Dallas Cowboys (-4.0)
Where were the Eagles last weekend!?  With a chance to get the #2 seed in the NFC, giving them a home game next week and a BYE this week, the Eagles lay an egg (hehe) in Dallas, inflating the egos of a football team that has no reason to have such a big ego.  Might I remind everyone that the Dallas Cowboys haven't won a playoff game since 1996!  And I have to say that history is NOT on the Cowboys' side.  Not only because of that stat, but might I remind people about two years ago, when the Giants, who were swept by the Cowboys in their 2 Regular Season games, went to Big D and beat the #1 seed Cowboys in the Divisional Round.  And not only that, but this is an Eagles team that has gone to FIVE NFC Championship Games, including last season's game.  Philly has the experience and Dallas does not.  I cannot expect the Eagles to play as bad as they did last week.  They are notorious for having 3 or 4 dud games a season.  (Losing in Oakland and getting blown out by New Orleans at home, granted that was when Kevin Kolb was the quarterback.)  As much as I hate rooting for either of these teams, I know that if the Eagles win, they'll lose in the NFC Championship Game (or to the Patriots in the Superbowl) so I like the Philadelphia Eagles to figure things out against Dallas and get it done.


Baltimore Ravens vs. New England Patriots (-3.5)
This is a little interesting game now isn't it.  Six days ago if you told me that the Ravens would travel to New England and asked me to pick the winner I would say "Patriots" without hesitating.  But now, Wes Welker is injured, and there should be no complaining about why he was in the game.  He was in the game because he's a football player and he "plays to win the games".  He didn't even get hit on that play, so no crying Patriots fans.  So even though I don't have a problem with the way he was injured or the reason why he was in the game, it is a fact that he will NOT be in this game.  And that greatly affects the Patriots pass attack.  However, might I drop a name to all of the saddened Pats fans.  Kevin Faulk.  Kevin Faulk is the exact same player as Wes Welker.  Good hands, scrappy player, gets first downs.  And even though Randy Moss will probably get a lot more attention, the Patriots won those three Superbowls without a true #1 receiver in my opinion, which is why I believe that Tom Brady is deserving of the credit he gets.  I know that Baltimore went to Miami and Tennessee last year and beat them in the playoffs, but I can't see the Ravens going to New England, where the Patriots are undefeated this season, and winning this game.  So I'm sticking with my hypothetical prediction of six days ago and picking the New England Patriots.


Green Bay Packers vs. Arizona Cardinals (-1.0)
I find it a little ridiculous that the Packers are the underdog in this game.  The Packers dismantled the Cardinals last week, and even though they had nothing to play for (and is why they took out a good deal of their starters not far into the game) they should have had a better performance.  Green Bay looks unstoppable right now.  Their passing offense is clicking.  Their running attack is starting to catch its stride.  Their defense is playing like one of the best in the league.  A lot of people are jumping on this bandwagon.  And why shouldn't they?  Their path to the Superbowl would go through Arizona, New Orleans, and Minnesota, all teams that have taken several steps backwards in the recent months.  And I like Green Bay to travel deep into the playoffs, IF they win in the desert.  And I'm not so sure about that.  I bring up the playoff experience again.  The Cardinals went to the Superbowl last year, and lost by the second best play in Superbowl history in my opinion.  (That Santonio Holmes catch does NOT beat out the Manning-Tyree combo in Superbowl XLII.  I've seen TD catches on the sideline like that before, Mike Wallace had one to beat the Packers earlier this season and Greg Lewis caught one for Minnesota to beat the 49ers earlier this season too.  I've NEVER seen anything like that Manning-Tyree hook up.  The combination of Manning escaping the rush and Tyree catching the ball with his helmet and with Rodney Harrison draped all over him...incredible!  What are we supposed to be talking about?)  I think this is going to be a close game, and I just have a feeling that the Arizona Cardinals are going to win this game, just like they won every playoff game last year when everyone else thought that they would lose.

["Dear Prudence" is published every Thursday on Slate.com. For the original article, click here.]

Dear Prudence,
I'm a new teacher at a private tutoring firm. We give one-on-one lessons to kids ages 13 to 18. I've twice had the experience of sitting at a table with a male student and seeing the student "adjust" himself. Both times, the student actually put his hand down his pants. The first time, I was so shocked I couldn't hide the expression on my face, and the 17-year-old asked what was wrong. I told him firmly but kindly that it was not appropriate to do that in public and that if he was ever uncomfortable, he should use the bathroom. The second time was with a 14-year-old student. I tried not to say anything, but then he started typing on my computer, so I had to say, "It's not appropriate to put your hands down your pants in public." He protested, "Well, it itches!" I replied that scratching there in public, especially going inside the pants, was still inappropriate. When he left, I broke out the Lysol and germ wipes. Did I handle this in an acceptable manner? What should I do if it happens again? And shouldn't teenage boys already know not to do this?

--Desperate for a Public Service Announcement to Teenage Boys

Because I both want to literally and figuratively run on a treadmill at the same time, I sometimes watch the Food Network while I'm at the gym. A few weeks ago, Guy Fieri was preparing his Christmas meal, and his dessert was an ice cream sandwich made with vanilla ice cream and ginger snap cookies.

(Sidebar: On Guy Fieri's cooking show, he has not one, but two refrigerators. Both of them are painted with racing stripes. In the background, the entire time, there was video of a guy doing that thing where you skydive with a snowboard. I think its called doucheboarding. The show should change its name to "WTF? with Guy Fieri.")

Guy Fieri's wankery aside, those ginger snap ice cream sammies looked delicious. MUST HAVE. I made them. Here's how you can. And just in time for all your holiday get togethers*.

Ingredients:

• 9.5 ounces all-purpose flour
• 1.5 teaspoons baking soda
• 1 tablespoon ground ginger
• 0.5 teaspoon ground cardamom
• 0.5 teaspoon ground clove
• 0.5 teaspoon kosher salt
• 7 ounces dark brown sugar
• 5 ounces unsalted butter, room temperature
• 3 ounces molasses (by weight, bitches)
• 1 large egg, room temperature
• 2 one-pint containers of vanilla ice cream
• Some regular sugar, fill a little bowl with it
  

*if you happen to have get togethers for Groundhog Day.

Tier 5: The No-Shows

12. Panthro (aka Brad): 47 points, 0 weeks won
11. Gomer (aka Dustin): 359 points, 0 weeks won

Fraternity brothers who apparently got bored with the NFL. Brad picked Week 1, and then got distracted by, I'm going to go ahead and guess Japanese tentacle porn. SOMEBODY GET HIM A BLANKET! Dustin picked through  Week 7, and then he, too, disappeared.

Tier 4: The Professors of Fail

10. Plaxico's Gun Holster (aka Jesse, aka me): 908 points, 0 weeks won
9. Particle Men (aka Rick): 926 points, 1 week won
8. Stock Brokers (aka Daytrader): 930 points, 1 week won

This group represents, by my estimation, 18+ years of higher education. Apparently none of it involved picking winners in football games. At least student loan holders don't break your thumbs if you miss a payment!

Tier 3: I'll Still Respect You In The Morning

7. I heart football (aka Sister Rose): 945 points, 0 weeks won
6. JaMichael (aka Yaworm): 955 points, 1 week won
5. Plaxico's Sweatpants (aka Fat Tony): 965 points, 2 weeks won

This group didn't quite make it to a .500 record on their picks, but didn't poop all over themselves either. Plus, I think one of them might have been using a random number generator.

Tier 2: The 1000+ Point Club

4. Punt Party (aka Greg): 1,022 points, 3 weeks won
3. Michael Vick's Rape Stand (aka the Suze): 1,053 points, 4 weeks won
2. MinicooperChickGoPats (aka Selma): 1,115 points, 3 weeks won

I can't believe that neither Selma or the Suze won this. Selma visited for a week before Thanksgiving, and that's when I found out that she did actual research for this! Unfortunately, part of that research included reading Daytrader's picks column, which likely held her back from the ultimate prize.

The Suze won the most weeks AND had the most correct overall picks, going 138-115. She was hampered by her Week 15 performance, in which she correctly picked 4 games that she neglected to put any points on. However, even that would not have been enough to overcome the insurmountable lead of...

Tier 1: The Champion

1. Brett Farve is the Antichrist (aka Jim): 1,132 points, 2 weeks won

That's right, ladies and gentlemen: the winner of our NFL pick league does not know how to spell Brett Favre's last name. Truly, this is the sport of kings.

Believe it or not this is the last week of the regular season.  It seems like the NFL season started yesterday.  Remember when the Giants started 5-0.  And who can forget when Mark Sanchez and the Jets beat the Patriots.  And speaking of the Patriots, remember that 4th and 2 play against the Colts.  And what about that crazy tipped ball in Week One to give the Broncos that win over the Bengals.  But alas, the regular season has come to an end and my Giants are out of the playoffs.  Now I can finally watch the games and enjoy them.

OK...to the picks.  This week is probably the hardest to predict since some teams just don't care anymore, others don't play their starters, and well I just can't predict any games right.  But here's my last stab in the dark.  I'm taking TEN underdogs btw.


Indianapolis Colts vs. Buffalo Bills (-8.5)
Only in Week 17 would you see a spread like this.  The Colts ended their season last week.  Yeah, I know they're 14-1, but no Superbowl this year.  This team doesn't know how to restart itself after it starts resting their starters.  I imagine that they aren't going to play anyone meaningful, so that's a big advantage to Buffalo.  But the real question is are the Bills' first teamers better than the Colts' second teamers.  I say yes, but not by 8.5 points.  I like the Colts to cover.
Confidence Points: 2


Jacksonville Jaguars vs. Cleveland Browns (-1.5)
Cleveland has been playing better recently, but Jacksonville is still in the AFC playoff hunt.  I think the Jaguars should at least be a one point favorite.  I'll take the team that still has something to fight for and go with the Jags.
Confidence Points: 6


Chicago Bears (-3.0) vs. Detroit Lions
A game that has no meaning.  But Chicago played the Vikings tough last week, tough enough to win.  The Lions don't have anything going well for them.  Chicago is going to play and that means that three points should be an easy cover.  I like the Bears.
Confidence Points: 16


San Fransisco 49ers (-7.0) vs. St. Louis Rams
I've tried to fight for this Rams team, but they are pretty hopeless.  The 49ers are a team that I feel is going to improve next season.  And I think that helps them in this game.  Sorry St. Louis but I'm done hoping that you can cover these spreads.  Go with San Fran.
Confidence Points: 11


Pittsburgh Steelers (-3.0) vs. Miami Dolphins
Can the Champs stay alive and make it into the playoffs?  Actually, both of these teams have an outside chance.  Pittsburgh's chance is slightly better than the Dolphins, but Miami is at home.  And the Steelers have done this to themselves.  I don't think that either team will make the playoffs even if they DO win, but I think Miami has the better chance of winning this game.
Confidence Points: 3


New York Giants vs. Minnesota Vikings (-9.0)
The Giants were embarrassed last week at home against the Panthers.  But to be fair, almost no one saw that one coming.  And I admit that I didn't see the Vikings losing to the Bears last week.  The Vikings are definitely playing to win to give themselves a shot at the #2 seed in the playoffs, but I don't like Favre.  He's breaking down.  Minnesota might win this game, but I don't think (perhaps hope is the better word) by more than a touchdown, so I'm going with the Giants to put up a fight.
Confidence Points: 10


Atlanta Falcons (-2.5) vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Another meaningless game in the standings, but not so to the Bucs in my opinion.  They've been playing better and BEAT the Saints in New Orleans last week who weren't resting their starters.  I have a good feeling about this team.  Watch out for Tampa next season and watch them win at home today.
Confidence Points: 9


New Orleans Saints vs. Carolina Panthers (Off(0))
Fact: New Orleans is on a two game losing streak, their only two losses of the season.  Fact: New Orleans has nothing to play for.  Fact: The Panthers beat the Giants last week without their best offensive player.  Fact: The Panthers would be in the playoffs if they never started Jake Delhomme.  Fact: The Panthers will win this game.
Confidence Points: 12


New England Patriots vs. Houston Texans (-8.0)
The Pats will either be the #3 or #4 seed in the AFC, which doesn't really matter since no one will have any idea who the #5 or #6 seed will be until the end of the day.  The Texans could be one of those Wild Card teams.  They need some help with the win, but it's not impossible.  But haven't we seen this from Houston before?  I like the Patriots to cover, if not just outright win.
Confidence Points: 4


Philadelphia Eagles vs. Dallas Cowboys (-3.0)
Ugh...who to root for as a Giants' fan.  It would have been nice for the Giants to have won last week so I could root for the Eagles.  I really don't like either team, but if you put a gun to my head and told me to root for one in this case I would choose Philly.  But I'm not really rooting for anyone.  Anyway, the Cowboys can thank the Giants for that loss last week which has allowed them to lose this game and still get in.  Does anyone think that the Cowboys are going to win this?  Haven't we seen this all before?  Dallas has lost their last 7 regular season games.  Why should this be any different?  Fly Eagles, fly.
Confidence Points: 8


Kansas City Chiefs vs. Denver Broncos (-13.0)
I don't actually know why, but I can see no reason why Josh McDaniels would bench Brandon Marshall?  He's their best player, and the Broncos need to win AND get a little help to get into the playoffs.  Josh McDaniels is not Bill Belichick, no matter how much he thinks he is.  This is a Bronco's team that lost at home to the Raiders WITH Marshall.  Thirteen points is too much for me.  I like the Chiefs.
Confidence Points: 7


Baltimore Ravens (-10.5) vs. Oakland Raiders
It's simple for Baltimore.  Win and you're in.  Oakland beats good teams and lose to bad teams.  But I don't see it happening here.  10.5 are a lot of points, but I think the Ravens will get it done and get into the playoffs.
Confidence Points: 14


Green Bay Packers vs. Arizona Cardinals (-3.5)
The Packers have a Wild Card spot and the Cardinals could get #2, 3, or 4 seed.  What's interesting is that these two teams could potentially meet next week in the Wild Card round.  In fact, that makes the most sense to me.  So I expect that this is going to be a pretty routine game.  I think that the Cardinals have more to play for with the possibility of getting that #2 seed, so I'll take Arizona.
Confidence Points: 13


Washington Redskins vs. San Diego Chargers (-4.0)
Seriously, the Chargers are only four point favorites?!  WOW!  I think that the Chargers will play their starters and I think the Redskins are just a defeated team.  Gotta go with the Chargers here.
Confidence Points: 15


Tennessee Titans (-4.0) vs. Seattle Seahawks
Another meaningless game.  I think Seattle will play well at home and that Vince Young will kill himself in the off season.  That was pretty tasteless.  Oh well.
Confidence Points: 1


Cincinnati Bengals vs. New York Jets (-10.0)
Well will the Bengals play their starters?  If they do I think that they'll win.  If they don't, the Jets will probably win, but not by ten points.  If the Jets get into the playoffs most people will say that they didn't deserve it.  They probably wouldn't have beaten the Colts last week with Peyton Manning, but that's how the cookie crumbles.  Bold prediction alert: If the Jets make the playoffs they will win at least one playoff game.  With all that being said, I'll take the Bengals.
Confidence Points: 5