10 Thoughts for November 17, 2015

10 thoughts, because it's been a few days since I posted a list of thoughts on my mind, and it's time to get them all out.

1. USC football: USC may have won, but they looked terrible. The first half was a replication of the previous game, noted by a series of comical errors. We saw defensive players lose track of their responsibilities, the offense appear befuddled against the worst defense in the division, and a special teams group that was *special*. And then, from the late 2nd quarter through the late fourth quarter, they went on a 24-0 run. If the players want Clay Helton to be hired permanently, they'll need to perform consistently and better. You can't do this against great teams and expect to win.
2. USC football, part II: When Robert Woods was a Trojan, he was a solid player and there was no doubt that he'd be drafted very high, even though he was a tad slower and undersized than what you'd want in a premier player. When Marqise Lee lined up opposite Woods, I thought that he would also be drafted very high, as he was a spectacular player, even if a bit undersized and prone to injury. When Nelson Agholor passed through, you could tell that he would be drafted high, even though he always had issues with the dropsies. With Juju Smith-Schuster, he's everything you want in a top-10 draft pick, and is easily the best receiver of them all; he's big, strong, great hands, tough as nails, and more than fast enough. Of all the receivers to come through USC in recent years, he's the one guy I look most forward to seeing in the NFL; the guy already looks the part of an NFL player.
3. Oregon football: No one expected the Ducks defense to win the day for Oregon, and yet when it counted most, they came up with the stop. With that gritty win on the road in Palo Alto, the Ducks are now 7-3. Next up: USC in Eugene -- both are 7-3, winning their last 4 games, and both have now defeated a top-10 team -- on Saturday, at 12:30 pm. The odds are in Oregon's favor, but here's the thing: Oregon's running the ball again, now 6th best in the nation, while USC's been on a rushing defense tear since Clay Helton's completely taken over as head coach, allowing just 84 yards per game, since. It's going to be an exciting game, I think.
4. Seattle Seahawks: The difference between a winning team and a losing team, is that in previous years, Russell Wilson was able to direct the team on a late 4th quarter drive to win the game, while this year he's failed in all but one game -- against Dallas. I'm not saying that it is his fault; dropped passes, still terrible offensive line play and lousy play-calling were all part of the problem in those late 4th quarter drives. The team is the same as it was in previous years, with the exception being execution in that late 4th quarter, and it seems it's largely a mental issue that started with the Super Bowl. Of course, we expected this offense to be better than prior years, with the inclusion of Jimmy Graham, but it's not working, and I keep pointing to the OC for that issue. They look like they're able to run on all cylinders about a quarter of the time, and that's about it.
5. Seattle Seahawks, part II: The lesser problem in Seattle, is that the cornerback opposite Richard Sherman is not in the same ballpark as the rest of the secondary; it wasn't Dion Bailey that was the problem in the early games, but DeShawn Shead and Cary Williams. No, Bailey was never a true replacement for Kam Chancellor, but Kam's presence hasn't been the difference between winning and losing -- they're just 4-3 with Kam back. In five games as a backup SS with the Jets, Bailey's defended two passes and is credited with half a sack. In that same period, Kam's had one interception, no sacks and one pass defended. Kam brings leadership and toughness, but Bailey's four years his junior and is just trying to get comfortable in a scheme. 
6. Politics of Terrorism: With the Paris attack, American politicians have angrily demanded that the US do more to combat terrorism. Their primary criticism is that the US needs to get deeply involved in Syria, in the fight against ISIS. These are the same people who did not want the US to bomb Syria in 2011, or refused to commit to boots on the ground, let alone push for a vote to go to war with Syria. With some nudging on Sunday's Meet the Press, Jeb! practically issued a policy laundry list of actions that had been under consideration by the Obama Administration years ago, back when politicians were noncommittal about specific plans. It turns out, terrorism is a tool of politicians, which is ironic, given that these same politicians are a bunch of tools.
7. Politics of Econ: Each political party has a different economic policy, and one is demonstrably worse than the other, but generally people don't understand the basics of Economics that would afford them the ability to judge policy differences, thus most people tend to place faith in their party, ahead of policy. I used to do that, ten years ago, before I decided to do a deep dive into Economics, and then I realized that nearly all of what came out of people's mouths were fabricated assumptions and politically-driven. When speaking to people on economic policy, the first sign that someone has bought into politically-driven policy, is the recitation of trite slogans. Nuance is the enemy of slogans.
8. Politics of Honesty: As Americans, we're taught the virtues of being honest, from the simple parable of young George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. Yet, unlike George's father who forgave his son, Americans choose to punish those who tell the truth, while rewarding liars. This reinforcing action ushers politicians to tell lies. I tell the truth, because I don't give a shit what people do in response, while in other instances I avoid telling the truth (not blunt) because some people are hurt by the truth; in politics these two are never the case. American politics are not the exception; everywhere you look, whether in Russia, France or China, politicians lie.
9. Sapiosexual: It's one of those new, amusing labels, in the vein of metrosexual. It does not describe one's sexuality, but rather, the sort of person that one is attracted to: intelligent people. Presumably, the higher one's self-confidence, the more comfortable one is with dating / marrying someone with a higher level of intelligence. Speaking of high self-confidence, what happens if someone suffers from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and believes that someone, who is actually profoundly dumb, is attractive -- is that a Fauxsapiosexual?
10. Benghazi: Republicans are planning a European vacation on the taxpayer's dime. I realize that the Dollar is nearing its all-time high against the Euro, but this is ridiculous. If they were concerned about fact-finding on Benghazi at US airbases in Europe, they would have visited those sites, three years ago, not in 2015, after hundreds of interviews. The GOP have already told us that Hillary laid a trap that the GOP stepped right into, during her interview, and yet they persist in doing stupid things.