Linear thought is a flaw.
As a dog, I like to cozy up on the sofa, pull up a glass of coffee and cookies and pretend to be human. I sometimes think that I wasted my time learning new tricks rather than playing outside.
PPP just released a battleground states poll. One question that caught my eye was which candidate was "more likely to cause a nuclear war". The results aren't surprising.
The way I read this poll, however, is that Donald's ceiling of GOP support stands at 81% (100% - 19%) and Hillary's Democratic ceiling is 92% (100% - 8%). Why? Because only an insane person would simultaneously say that Candidate A was more likely to cause a nuclear war and vote for Candidate A. Although it must be said that some of those Evangelicals are a little crazy with their constant desire to bring about the end of times.
Applying the same logic again, but against all voters, we can see that Donald's general election ceiling is 47% (100% - 53%) and Hillary's is 69% (100% - 31%). And in fact, there hasn't been a single 4-way poll showing Donald reaching 47%; his highest was 45%.
Bottom line: Unless a majority of Americans are crazy, there's no way Donald wins.
I picked up Trump Revealed from the library last week. I have only just begun to read it, but I thought I should relate some early, freaky things from the book about Donald's youth that has mostly escaped the news.
Page 33 -- A 5-6 year old Donald is caught throwing rocks into his neighbor's yard, directed at a young toddler, Dennis Burnham.
Page 34 -- Young Donald takes his younger brother's building blocks and glues them together, preventing his brother from playing with them again.
Page 34 -- In 2nd grade, young Donald gives his music teacher a black eye.
Page 34 -- A neighbor recounts how a young Donald jumped off his bike and "pummeled" a boy.
Page 35 -- That same music teacher who got a black eye from 2nd grade Donald, upon his death bed a few years ago, recalled that 10-year-old Donald, saying, "even then he was a little shit."
"I think that I've developed very, very good relationships over the last [pause] little while with the African-American community." -- Last little while. The honesty of that sentence is hilarious. How long have you been cultivating these relationships with African-Americans? The last little while.
"I am very underleveraged." -- Brags no one, ever, in investments. It's almost a hit against his cred for Donald to declare that he's "very underleveraged". When you go to the bank for a mortgage, you don't put 90% down, do you? Great value for the lender but terrible value for you!
"When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone's asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don't know, maybe, who knows?" -- What? That's quite the incomprehensible statement, don't you think? Delete his attempts to ameliorate, and you get this: "I said I don't know, maybe, who knows?" But what he actually said is, "Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly."
"Now, in all fairness to Secretary Clinton -- yes, is that OK? Good. I want you to be very happy. It's very important to me." -- If that's a priority for Donald, I'm pretty sure Hillary would be very happy if you quit. So, too, would the vast majority of people in the world.
" I think I should -- you go to her website, and you take a look at her website." -- Priceless promotion of your opponent's website! But look at that Freudian slip, when he initially started off suggesting that he needed to go to her website.
"How much? How much for my family?" -- Asked Donald as he interrupted Hillary while she explained how Donald's tax plan benefits his family. He never corrected her assertion that his tax plan would give him a $4B tax benefit, by the way.
"It's not negotiable, no." After offering to release his tax returns if Hillary released her emails, Holt asked Donald if that meant that releasing his tax returns were in fact negotiable. Worst. Negotiator. Ever.
"That makes me smart." -- On not paying income taxes for several years. Translation: You're all idiots for paying income taxes. What a braggadocious jerk! Speaking of braggadocious people...
"I have a tremendous income, and the reason I say that is not in a braggadocious way." -- English as a second language, yes? I cannot adequately describe how inept his language and communication skills are. Just push his buttons and he loses all ability to speak clearly.
"Hillary will tell you to go to her website and read all about how to defeat ISIS, which she could have defeated by never having it, you know, get going in the first place." -- You can't defeat something that never existed. Amusingly, his poor choice of words gives credence to her plan to defeat ISIS.
This is why I couldn't stop laughing during the first debate. He is a gaffe machine like no other in history.
BONUS QUOTE: When asked by Holt if he would accept the outcome if Hillary won, he rambled on: "The other day, we were deporting 800 people. And perhaps they passed the wrong button, they pressed the wrong button, or perhaps worse than that, it was corruption, but these people that we were going to deport for good reason ended up becoming citizens. Ended up becoming citizens. And it was 800. And now it turns out it might be 1,800, and they don't even know." Of course, that was completely unresponsive to Holt's basic question, but more than that, he completely got his story mixed up. That's so Donald.
I knew it would be a barn-stormer and actually predicted that Donald would bomb the first debate, but wow, that was epic. Except for Donald's campaign employees, everyone else including some of Donald's surrogates has concluded that Hillary won.
You'll have to go elsewhere to review the fact-checking scorecard because I was laughing so hard I couldn't type. However, here are some things worth noting:
Earlier today the Predictit market had a Hillary win priced at a low of $0.60; at the end of the debate, it was up to a high of $0.70. That's a huge swing for a single day.
To be fair, he could finish the season 11 - 3 if he somehow wins the PAC-12 South en route to a win at the PAC-12 Championship and a bowl win.
Positives: Offensive line keeps getting better and the running game was really good with Justin Davis in, and Sam Darnold looked sharp, especially with receivers making catches.
Negatives: Everything else? Three turnovers, seven penalties, and some very questionable coaching choices seem to highlight the one step forward one step backward plan at work here.
Are you worried about the polls? Don't be. The fluctuations you see are not correlative with Hillary going down and Donald going up, and vice versa. Voters who have picked a side are not crossing over because of a bad week or two; they've already made up their minds. The fluctuations we've seen lately, are actually dynamics of people changing their minds about whether they're undecided or otherwise supporting a third party candidate.
Notice how the number of undecided voters -- Point A -- shoots up just as Hillary's numbers plummet? Notice how Donald's numbers -- Point B -- collapse just as Gary Johnson's numbers + undecided voters suddenly increase?
In essence, both Hillary and Donald's numbers fluctuate within the scope of skeptical voters who need to either be persuaded or dissuaded. When Donald goes to a Black church to read off a bunch of index cards, he's feeding White Americans what they want to hear to make it okay to vote for someone who is ostensibly a racist.
As such, I give you today's theme:
Tell Me Lies
But I couldn't find a way
So I'll settle for one day
To believe in you
Tell me, tell me, tell me lies
Yes, voters want to be lied to, so that they can relieve their cognitive dissonance.
Thus, I give you today's related link: Who has been caught lying 70% of the time?
Worried about the election? Forget the polling roller-coaster, because the race has always been about the fast-changing demographics. Still worried? Take your mind off the election, then, and watch this. Because, it is Good Times!
A quote from Donald's campaign head, Kellyanne Conway: "It is ironic that he [GHWB] would vote for the wife of the man who knocked him out of the race, Bill Clinton defeated George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush 41, Erin, in 1992, for his reelection."
No, Kellyanne, it isn't ironic.
If that were the case, then Donald's campaign would be full of 'irony' with all of those former primary candidates and staff, working directly and indirectly for Donald's campaign.
Remember: Irony is when the outcome of your action is the opposite of your intention.
Today is FEC campaign finance report day -- the 20th of every month -- and after poring through it, here are five interesting tidbits:
Meredith McIver: Last month she appeared on the payroll with a $356.01 payroll expenditure line item, and just as suddenly as she appeared, in the August payroll she has disappeared. It's no wonder, of course, because the campaign had to pay her otherwise it would be a violation of federal election finance laws.
$till Behind: The campaign brought in $36.7M for August, but that's far behind the $52.3M Hillary's campaign brought in. This doesn't include the shared victory funds between the candidate and party, but even by that measure, Donald + GOP brought in just $90M while Hillary + Democrats brought in $143M. And that's really amusing when you consider the amount of time Donald spends on boasting about his personal wealth.
Accounting Trick?: After poring through three months of filings, I couldn't help notice that the campaign pays out, weekly, exactly $2,574.43 to Donald, his bodyguard, and Trump Tower Commercial LLC, each. At the same time, the campaign also credits Donald for a $2,574.43 in-kind donation. On the surface, it just looks silly that Donald would pay himself then credit the same amount back, but that his campaign would do this, seems to me that there must be some odd accounting trick going on here, particularly since he's paying his bodyguard the same amount at the same frequency. To add onto the oddity, the rest of the payroll is done bi-weekly. So why do that? Sure, campaigns pay a salary to the candidate, but why go weekly payroll for just three entities / people?
Expenses Jump: The campaign's expenditures jumped from $7.8M to $18.5M, half of which was spent on advertising. They're still spending a heck of a lot less than the Hillary campaign (she's spending roughly double that of Donald), and what it comes down to, is that Hillary's got a couple hundred workers involved in a massive ground game while Donald's got squat.
$till Charging More Rent: Like last month, Donald's campaign is still paying out the nose for rent at Trump's properties, now that Donald's raking in the dough from donors not named Donald J. Trump. I mean really, the more he sucks out of his own campaign, the less cash they have to do any campaigning or GOTV efforts, and that's fine by me!
BONUS:
Related to Donald's finances, WaPo's David Fahrenthold has been covering the Trump Foundation 'charity' and its history of making improper use of the foundation's monies to benefit Donald. I'm sure the IRS will be interested, now that someone else has found the evidence of illegal donations (26 USC § 4941 (d)(1)(E)) and laid out the trail to follow. You can read the IRS' guidelines, and count all the ways Donald has been illegally operating his Foundation for years, including that potential in-kind donation he made to Pam Bondi for underpricing (failing to meet the fair market value) the rental costs of using Mar-a-Lago for her fundraiser.
The man-boy is most definitely in trouble with the law.
Schedule: Say what you want, but the schedule is brutal up front. If you're just a mediocre team -- and on the surface this appears to be the case -- then you're going to look bad. Almost any other team in the FBS would probably have the same record as USC. Nonetheless, losing isn't the real issue here, because...
How You Lose Matters: Most people figured that USC would lose three out of those four games -- Alabama, Stanford, and Utah -- so no one should be upset. But people are upset, and it's because of the way USC lost two games. There was no response to Alabama, after the Tide figuratively punched the Trojans in the mouth, resulting in a historically bad loss for the Trojans. Against Stanford, you could see the mental toughness melt away on both sides of the ball as time wore on. In the first quarter, the Trojans defense pre-snap adjustments looked as if they knew what play was coming, making several plays in the backfield. By the second quarter, they looked as though they stopped communicating. Speaking of communication problems...
Offensive Line Woes: I just don't know how an offensive line that has played together for two straight years can be this bad. The Seattle Seahawks have an excuse: They keep changing out veteran players for the cheaper, low-draft and undrafted picks. What excuse do the Trojans have? 5 false starts in a game is a joke; Stanford isn't even close to being the loudest stadium in the PAC-12.
What Physicality?: The emphasis this season, we were told, would be on physicality; I see none. Against Utah State, they netted just 178 yards on the ground, averaging 4.0 yards per rush. Against Stanford, they were averaging 4.5 yards per rush but only ran the ball 26 times for a net of 117 yards. The dumbest move, by far, has been the elimination of the blocking fullback. We've already seen that the tight ends can't block for shit. Losing Soma Vainuku to graduation meant losing the real physical force behind the run game. I would rather have a blocking fullback than a non-blocking tight end. USC looks like a pretender out there without a blocking fullback. Which highlights the core complaint...
Identity Issues: Many people are wondering why this team doesn't have an 'identity', but in fact, they do. That reverse flea flicker showed that this team's identity is "The Grab Bag Offense". There is no way you would run that against a disciplined team like Stanford's. That stuff works against USC, not against Stanford. On the first series following halftime, USC ran four out of the five first plays, eventually scoring on the drive. In the very next series, they threw three times on their way to a 3-and-out. Why screw up the pattern that was successful? Then there's the start of the 4th quarter when Sam Darnold is sent in to hand the ball off on 4th down, instead of a run-option. It makes no sense whatsoever unless you're just grabbing plays out of the bag. That explains why...
Offense Much Worse Than Last Year: This year the offense is averaging 114 fewer yards per game than last year, ranked 114th in the FBS in total offense. If you took away the Utah State game, the scoring offense would be ranked dead last in the FBS. Even with Utah State taken into consideration, the Trojans offense is ranked 108th out of 128 teams in scoring. The defense hasn't changed from last year, still ranked 65th in total defense, but it is averaging 27 fewer yards this year. Obviously, the big problem here is on offense, even if the defense has its own woes, which can be summed up by...
Lack of Discipline: This isn't the first time we saw USC players fail to cover Christian McCaffrey. You just know that there was an emphasis during the week: Do not let McCaffrey run past you. Yet, once again we saw two defenders jump the short route while McCaffrey flew past them for an easy reception and score. That end-around to Michael Rector was successful because, as I complained about in the Alabama game, someone didn't hold the edge, and instead, flowed with the direction of the offensive line. So naturally, instead of fixing the problems we have...
Changing of the QBs: I can understand the need to change things up, but the quarterback hardly seems to be the problem here. The offensive line, first and foremost, is a big problem. The play-calling is the second, big problem that is stunting the offense. The play of the quarterback? I'd file that concern below the lack of blocking by the tight ends, the lack of receivers securing the ball with both hands, and the absence of a blocking fullback in the scheme. But here's where it gets really tricky for the head coach: If USC loses miserably against Utah, the coach will have invited a full-blown QB controversy and fed into the narrative that the coach doesn't know what he's doing, regardless of the reasons for the loss. It's similar to the bet placed by the administration when it hired the head coach right after the blowout win against UCLA, only to lose an ugly game to Stanford and lose in ridiculous fashion to Wisconsin. If you let Max sit in the pocket for a normal amount of time, he'll find the open receiver; if you can't slow a blitz or hit your blocks, not even Sam Darnold will escape an unblocked defensive end or tackle. Cam Newton is a very fast quarterback and he runs all the time, yet even he can't outrun an unblocked lineman. Speaking of waste of personnel...
Wasting Decoys Away: It is kind of stupid to waste Adoree Jackson's snap counts as a decoy as an X receiver on offense, you know? What would you do on defense, to counter his presence at the X receiver spot? Cover-two, of course! Line him up in the slot next to Juju and you've got a solid decoy that forces the defense to make bad decisions because the cover-2 pushes a slower linebacker to track the slot receiver. This is just one more reason why I have low confidence in the offensive play calling. All you need to look at to understand how this is affecting the personnnel is...
Juju Smith-Schuster: His stock is rapidly declining. Last year he was Cody Kessler's favorite target by far. This year, Darreus Rogers leads all with 153 yards in receptions and Smith-Schuster is second with 99 yards. Against Utah State, he gained just 56 yards. It's not that they're using him as decoy (as they do with Adoree Jackson on offense), but that they're just not throwing the ball his way and letting him go after the ball. But hey, there's a bright side in all this...
Adoree Jackson: He remains the highlight of the season, locking down the opponent's best receiver. Against Michael Rector, Jackson broke up one pass, intercepted another, and held Rector to 3 yards in receptions. Against Alabama, he held Calvin Ridley to just 9 yards. With his speed and athletic ability, he's not just a lockdown corner but a kick return threat, and is definitely headed towards the 1st round in the NFL draft -- the only question is whether he'll make top-5. So with alll this talent...
Best Available Fix: No, firing or forcing the head coach to resign won't make things better; in fact, it'll probably make them worse. The best available fix at the moment is for the team to hire a bunch of consultants to review game film and offer advice about changes that could be implemented right away. Often, coaches hate it when fans and the media offer unsolicited advice, and end up doubling-down on poor decisions. I think we're seeing that right now. Having consultants come in, eases the criticism by sourcing it from people with a lot of knowledge about the game.
9/11: This is one of those national tragedies that sticks with the country for forever. Everyone who was living at the time, remembers where they were when they heard the news. In effect, the entire nation suffered from PTSD for years, reliving the enduring memory of the nation standing still, unsure of what was going on, how widespread the attack was, and what was coming next. Most people donated money and / or blood to the Red Cross, collectively helping out in whatever meager way they could. I want people to understand that there was this one guy who did not donate a dime in the immediate aftermath: Donald Trump. In fact, he's subsequently profited from 9/11, at the expense of American taxpayers. Heck, I donated more money towards 9/11 in the days following the attacks, than Donald.
Gary Johnson: For some unknown reason, Gary Johnson believes that North Korea has no capacity to invade South Korea, and as a result, we should pull out our troops because their presence in the region is "making China go crazy." I think all those decades of consuming pot has gotten to his brain. He offers us proof to back up his conclusion: "South Korea is so far advanced, the economies are nowhere near comparable in scale." Apparently, besides not knowing what Aleppo is, Gary is also unaware that NK has been building up towards nuclear weapon capability while SK is relying on the US to create a barrier to invasion.
Polls: I'm not talking about the polls much. Why? Because nothing has really changed. Some outlets believe that the gap between Hillary and Donald has been cut, but the truth is that the national polls don't reflect how the race is really going. As I elaborated nearly 5 months ago in my way-too-early-electoral college map, the race hinges on changing demographics, and Donald has only worked to repel key demographics that could otherwise help him. According to WaPo / SurveyMonkey tracking, Hillary's support from black voters has gone from 89% prior to the conventions, to 92% after the conventions, and now sits at 93%. Something similar has occurred with the Hispanic vote. All of this implies that poll fluctuations are primarily controlled by how big the sample of white males is, rather than a change in mood.
Transparency: Apparently, these days if you're not upfront and immediately announce that you're having health problems, the press will look down on you. That's one of the signals the press has been sending over Hillary's late disclosure that she has pneumonia. In the spirit of the new rules of transparency, the past two days I've been battling allergies from dust after helping out a friend build a gravel path which involved moving several hundred pounds of the stuff, resulting in frequent sneezing and congestion. Also, some sore muscles were involved.
Donald's Tax Troubles: It seems fairly clear from WaPo's David Fahrenthold's tracking of Donald's charitable claims, that Donald has overvalued many of his 'contributions' and has used his charity for self-enrichment. That illegal donation to a Pam Bondi's SuperPAC is starting to look like just the tip of the iceberg of an empire built on lies. It's no wonder, therefore, that Donald says that his tax lawyer advised him not to release his records -- once made public, journalists will be able to essentially do the IRS's job for them.
NFL Week 1: Sadly, New England looks like it's still got enough talent without Gronk and Brady playing, to beat a really good Arizona team. After seeing the beating that Cam's head endured against Denver, we're going to learn a lot more about the NFL's true colors on the issue over concussions -- do they fine Denver players for targeting, do they fine Carolina for not putting Cam through the concussion protocol as is required? Seattle's offensive line still sucks, BTW.
USC Trojans Football: Apparently the tight ends still haven't learned how to block, and the offensive line, while better against Utah State, still likes to whiff on blocking assignments. The defense was strong but also consistent, all around -- no blown plays where receivers were left alone. The best you can say about the team, is that it got better from game one to game two; the worst that you can say about the team is that some players still haven't executed to the level that is required for the team to move forward.
Spotify Playlist: I sometimes accidentally forget that I'm listening to my Spotify classical music playlist, and think to myself, "Gosh, this classical radio has one great tune after another!" It's a true face-palm moment and one that I'm not ashamed to admit to. I need to make more of them, but they require so much leg work to build, you know?
The Expanse / Archer: I finished watching SyFy's The Expanse season one on DVD. The special effects are absolutely spectacular and the story is not too shabby, either. I rate it 4.5 stars for the plot twists and wonderful visuals that make you forget that you're watching a science-fiction show. At the same time, I've also been binging on Archer, which is absolutely awesome stuff, strictly for adults, but specifically for adults old enough to understand all of the pop-culture references.
Third Party Debate Inclusion: The way it's supposed to work is that journos are supposed to scrutinize the candidates and provide Americans with an understanding of not just third party groups but of their candidates, then, after their judgment in polls, are included in the debates. But journos have not done their duty and the people I talk to about these third parties and their candidates reveals a shocking lack of knowledge. We know more about Hillary's email server than we do about Jill Stein's economic plan (she doesn't have an actual plan aside from empty rhetoric). Had journos done their job properly, Gary Johnson would have never made it past the starting line, and Jill Stein's judgment could be reviewed by people who otherwise know nothing about her other than a lot of empty rhetoric. Which points me to the next item...
The Decline of Journalism: Think about it for a moment. Journalists have spent probably tens of thousands of hours collectively searching for illegal activities behind Hillary's ____ (fill in the blank), only to come up empty. Yet, they've barely paid attention to Donald who has openly stated that, in the past, he'd routinely donated to people in order to court favors from them. The guy told the entire world that he expected quid pro quo, but barely any time has been spent digging into his past! Which leads me to the next item...
Clinton Foundation vs Donald's Bondi Problem: It is false equivalence to compare the actions of Hillary as SoS, to what Donald and Pam Biondi have done, and it's incredibly simple to explain. The innuendo (the assertion that something looks bad) of the Clinton Foundation, offered up by the press, falls short of quid pro quo -- something I've explained before. What appears to have occurred between Donald's donation to Pam Bondi and the underpriced hosting of a fundraiser for her at his Mar-a-Lago, is quid pro quo. That is to say, it appears that Pam Bondi acted in an official capacity of her job to drop the investigation of Donald's university after receiving a substantial donation to her SuperPAC. BTW, if it matters any, I learned about quid pro quo when I sued my landlord at the age of 22 (I won).
There are just 62 days left until election day, which means that it's September and at the start of the month there are two things guaranteed: Unemployment numbers come out on the first Friday and campaigns release their previous month's FEC fundraising totals.
I was meaning to post this over the weekend, but Donald's campaign remained quiet on the fundraising front, that is, until yesterday, when he mentioned that he had to plug in some of his own money, and would release his monthly fundraising numbers on Wednesday.
Let me explain something about Donald's campaign. If they have nonexistent fundraising, they don't bother posting the numbers ahead of the FEC release on the 20th of the month (June and earlier). If they have a great month (in their minds) they rush it out (July 6, August 3). Hillary's campaign sticks to their schedule of releasing fundraising numbers on either the 2nd or 3rd day of the month.
You see where I'm going with this, don't you?
August Fundraising Totals:
Hillary = $143M
Donald = $90M
Today's theme: Money, money, money
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa!
After some time to cool down and rewatch the game, this is just a brief summary (I know that it doesn't look brief) of all the things USC did wrong in the first 23 minutes of the game when they were actually ahead, 3-0. After the first 23 minutes, it was just all downhill with a complete mental breakdown of nearly the entire team from the coaches to the players, unable to Fight On through the adversity.
Offensive Line
At the start of the game, the offensive linemen were so eager to push the defensive line, they were caught off-balance and the defensive linemen simply did a grab-and-pull as they ran past the linemen who fell down to the turf.
When the QB was sacked, it was because the linemen lost track of who they were supposed to be blocking. Case in point: The tackle blocking the same inside guy as the guard, giving the defensive end / jack a clear path to the quarterback.
Sometimes when they'd go into pass protection, they'd use their helmets to crash down on the d-line. Again, this meant that they were caught off-balance and so the defensive tackles would simply push the linemen down to the ground and jump over them.
At USC, chip blocking means no blocking.
Slow to block. I swear, they were running at 3/4 speed, because the linebackers and defensive linemen were beating the pulling tackles and guards to their spot.
Lack of discipline of the tackles to keep those hands off the ground meant that the defense could read the play all day long.
Quarterback
There was limited trust between the quarterback and receiver, where the quarterback sometimes waited for the receiver to get to his spot before throwing, rather than delivering the ball to the spot. To be fair, a few times the receiver stopped on a route.
No hard count, even after it was obvious that the defensive line was quicker off the ball than the offensive line.
Wanting to throw deep, and thus waiting too long, ensures a sack.
Tight Ends
When you see an Alabama player just blow right past the tight ends, you might as well not have a tight end in there; might as well put in two slot receivers and do a shallow crossing pattern with a pick.
In a sweep, you're not supposed to run back towards your own goal line while blocking; you're supposed to run down to the next block.
Since they don't know how to block, it also makes sense that they don't know how to get out of press coverage.
Wide Receivers
Stopping on routes is a bad idea when the defense is playing close to the line.
Not following through on blocks leads to the cornerback hitting the running back for a loss.
Apparently, they don't know how to beat press coverage -- something Alabama used frequently to stymie the timing of the receivers.
Running Backs
When blocking on a sweep, you're supposed to be ahead of the runner looking for a body to block, not slowing down.
Don't stutter step in the back field against a fast defense; you don't have time to wait to hit the line before the linebackers have crashed down and the linemen have gotten off their blocks.
Coaching
I guess no one has taught the players how to beat press coverage because few of them were open.
So, maybe you didn't teach them to beat the bump and run, but then not to use four wideouts to vertically stretch the bracketing by the cover-two safeties?
An entire summer of game planning in the back of their heads with two weeks of direct game planning, and they still couldn't figure out how to attack a defense whose weakness was the secondary? Heck, I watched their spring game multiple times and could tell you their strengths and weaknesses.
Speaking of a team that was unprepared, the big warning sign was using up all of your time outs before the end of the 1st quarter! Wow, how do you end up doing that?
But then, to have them commit multiple personal fouls including the stomp seen by every sports fanatic? Discipline starts from the top.
Defensive Backs
You can't stop on a play just because you pushed the receiver out of bounds. That tiny pause was enough to give the receiver a 5-yard gap and a free pass to catch a ball that was actually short.
Communication breakdown results in two players from the same side blitzing, leaving the wide receiver wide open. Same problem as last year.
Defensive Ends
Trust your teammates. You're supposed to hold your side of the edge; you're not supposed to beat the guy on the far side of the line to his spot. Against an option team, you're going to cost the team a lot of points by getting caught out of position.
So yeah, lots to fix.
There was one very bright spot, however: Adoree Jackson. Playing cornerback, he shut down Alabama's #1 receiver, Calvin Ridley, who had just two catches for 9 yards. ESPN's PAC-12 crew ignored this when handing out helmet stickers for week 1, but I'm sure NFL scouts took notice. First round pick, guaranteed.
For about 22 minutes, the game went exactly how I thought it might go -- an extremely tight defensive battle. Then they got punched in the face. Suddenly, the wheels just inexplicably came off.
Yep. That about sums it up.
I'm not going to describe the litany of issues, so let's just say the whole program fell far short of the honor of Troy and did not Fight On.
Just 66 days left and it does not appear that the Green Party will make it on the ballots of all 50 states and DC. If you're an independent candidate, the deadline has passed in all but 5 states.
On Wednesday Donald showed just how pathological his lying was, when he talked one way with the President of Mexico and the Mexican press, and another way once he was back across the border in Arizona.
Thus, today's theme: Lies lies lies yeah!
White ones and red ones
And some you can't disguise
Twisted truth and half the news
Can't hide it in your eyes
"This investigation ... does not reveal anything illegal."
It was hidden in Politico's story on taxpayer money used by ex-presidents, in this case, Bill Clinton. And why? Because of the "Clinton Rules":
Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets.
Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.
The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.
Everything is newsworthy because the Clintons are the equivalent of America's royal family.
Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit.
Nearly 30 years of investigations, millions of dollars spent, hundreds of stories spawned, and the only illegality found was Bill lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Literally, this is what Politico found: Bill earns a stipend from taxpayers as do all previous presidents, and he used it to set up his foundation and his email server. Holy shit, Batman, there's nothing wrong!
Last week, AP put out an attack story supposedly showing illegal activities at the Clinton Foundation. (I would point to that original AP story, but for reasons listed in the paragraph below, it would be a futile exercise.) Vox and others pointed out that they not only got the story wrong but that there was nothing illegal about what the AP reported.
Then something interesting happened. The link to the original story was now sending people to a completely different story, titled, "Politicos spar over ethics surrounding Clinton Foundation". Subtly, the AP also modified their reports, removing certain portions from the original.
Fortunately, Archive.org allows us to compare the linked story from August 23 and August 31.
Isn't it amazing what passes for journalism in America?
