SEC after 6 weeks

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned how upside-down the SEC East was after 4 weeks of play.

Now, it's 6 weeks into the 2010 season, and things aren't any clearer. And that's after Florida has lost two games in a row. And not just two in a row, but two conference games in a row.

In the SEC East, despite those two losses, if Florida wins out, they'll still win the East. Same thing with South Carolina and Vanderbilt. Just as it was two weeks ago.

Because of how the remaining conference schedule is laid out, if Florida wins out, they would win the tie-breaker with either South Carolina or Vanderbilt. But, with their current situation of having two conference losses, they'd need to win out in order to win the East.

South Carolina has an easier ride. Their next three games are Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Tennessee. The Gamecocks should win those three. They finish the conference hosting Arkansas and playing at Florida. They don't need to win all those to take the East. They could afford one loss in that mix, just as long as the loss isn't to either Florida or Vanderbilt.

Vanderbilt, as I mentioned, has the toughest schedule of the three. Their next four games are Georgia (away), South Carolina (home), Arkansas (away), and Florida (home). They finish at Kentucky and hosting Tennessee. If they beat both South Carolina and Florida, they could afford to lose one of those other games and still win the East. I don't expect them to, but, the funny thing is, they are still in position to win the East without help from anyone.

Not so with the other three teams in the East. If Georgia won out, they'd still need South Carolina to lose two conference games, and Vanderbilt to lose one in order to win the East. Any other scenario and UGA is out of the mix. Which means, they can be considered out of the mix.

And, as unlikely as UGA's situation is, Tennessee's and Kentucky's are even more unlikely.

But what about the West?

It's wide open. In fact, only Mississippi State and Arkansas would need help to win the West.

If Arkansas wins out, they's still need an Alabama loss to take the West. If Mississippi State wins out, they'd still need three losses by Auburn and LSU to sneak in.

But the other four teams control their destiny.

LSU, if they win out, takes the West. Same thing with Auburn. And Alabama, because of tie-breakers. And, believe it or not, Mississippi. Yes, the team that lost to Jacksonville State and Vanderbilt would win the SEC West if they won the rest of their conference games. But, seeing as how they still have Alabama (away), Arkansas (away), and Auburn (home) up next, with games at Tennessee and LSU still to come, capping it with cross-state rival Mississippi State, that seems pretty unlikely.

The fact is, all the contenders in the West have a rough schedule. Because they play each other.

The East is clearer. And makes more sense.

Except for the fact that Vandy is still in the mix.

If my guy is in the middle of the pack, am I still a conservative?

John Hawkins at Right Wing News posted results from a poll, asking for the candidates that conservative bloggers would be most likely to support.

I was a participant.

Yes, I know. Who knew that I was a conservative blogger? Conservative, sure. But a blogger? That's a stretch. At least, it'd be as stretch to consider me a serious blogger. Or a blogger whose opinion anyone would care about.

Still, I participated. And the results are here.

Who did I vote for? Haley Barbour.

Why? Well, the poll didn't ask that. But, Barbour is a conservative with experience and a successful track record. A longer track record than many of the others on the list.

My guy made the middle of the pack. Which means he's not the flavor of the day. Like Jindal. Or Palin. Or Christie.

I could vote for those. But, in all honesty, they don't have a long a track record as Barbour. And they aren't all as conservative as I'd like. Well, Palin might be, but Jindal or Christie aren't as far right as I'd like.

If Barbour ends up being the GOP nominee, I'd be thrilled. But, based on that poll, I'd be one of only a few. If one of the others end up being the GOP nominee, I could support them. At least, much more than whoever the Democrats end up nominating.

Tips for the new dad

Now that Frank J is a new dad -- which might imply he was an old dad, but I'm not suggesting that -- he might appreciate some tips.

Having once been a new dad myself, I remember how much I appreciated people offering my all kinds of advice on how to do this or that and what all I was doing wrong and how could any child expect to survive when subjected to someone with as little parenting skills as I ...

Ah, yes, I really appreciated all that. And those dads reading this can relate.

Well, Frank J's a new dad now, and he's gonna get all the help he can. Whether he likes it or not.

Allow me to start with some things I learned along the way, that might actually be useful if he was raising my children. No one told me these. I learned these by experience:

• When the baby cries, she's asking for Mama.
• If the baby appears to smile, and is looking at you, she's smiling.
• If the baby appears to smile, but is looking at some of your wife's family, it's just gas.
• If the baby spits up, she's wanting Mama.
• People will pay more attention to the baby than to you. That's because people are inherently evil.
• There will be other people around the hospital with babies. They had babies born around the same time as you. They're just trying to steal your thunder.
• Your wife will be tired. Pretend to care.
• The hospital will have cable, which means you will be able to see the playoff games.
• If the baby starts crying with the bases loaded, suggest to your wife that she show the baby around one of the other floors. Tell her she's being selfish is she doesn't.
• If the baby makes any sound, she's simply trying to say "Daddy." Don't correct her. There will be plenty of time for that later.
• If you smell some really horrible smell emanating from the diaper area, everything's fine; she's merely asking for Mama to hold her.

These are just some of the things I learned when I became a new dad, and I pass them along for what they're worth.

Perhaps others have some tips they'd like to share?

Dear Black Folks, Raise Your Standards, Love, Basil

There's a new poll out. And it shows that the president's approval rating isn't all that great.

Except among Blacks.

According to the latest Gallup Poll (tip: Los Angeles Times Top of the Ticket), 91% of Blacks approve of the job Obama is doing, compared to 36% for Whites.

What?

91%?

Really, Black Folks?

Sometimes, I just don't understand.

I grew up in southeast Georgia, where Blacks made up 40% of the population. We went to school together, played together, went to church together... But do I really understand Blacks?

Hell, I don't understand my sisters, so understanding Blacks? That may be too much to ask.

Still, I did learn early on that Blacks and Whites do some things differently.

Like playing the card game Tonk. Or playing checkers with Flying Kings. And, if you don't know what I'm talking about, then you don't know Black Folks. Or Black Folks in the south, anyway.

Little things like that made me aware that different people ... are different.

Now, it's not just different races that do things different. Wife's family, mostly from Alabama, for instance, has some really strange ways of playing Dominoes.

And that fits with what I learned early on: different people, whether of different races, different sexes, different locations, do and think things different from one another.

So, I suppose I'm not all that surprised that Blacks have a different opinion of Barack Obama's job performance.

But, a difference of 91% to 36% in Obama's approval rating? That's more than "playing checkers with Flying Kings" different.

I suspect there's a little bit of the whole "Black man done good" thing going on.

Only, here's the thing: he ain't doing all that good. And he ain't all that Black.

It's been a couple of years now. Time to get over that "proud of what that Black man done" thing when it comes to Obama.

Because, Obama is doing nothing positive for Blacks.

Think about this: If a politician from Georgia ran for president, what's the first thing people would think? I'll tell you: Jimmy Carter.

It'd be hard for someone from Georgia to get elected president. And this is nearly 30 years after Carter left office. Carter spoiled it for Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, and others who might have made decent presidents. And who knows how long it will be before any politician from Georgia could run for president and people not wonder if he'd be another Jimmy Carter?

What does that mean for Blacks? Barack Obama is the Black Jimmy Carter. Obama is screwing it up for other Blacks. He's doing a sucky job at president. Not because he's Black, but because he's an incompetent fool. Just like Jimmy Carter.

So, to my Black friends -- and to Blacks that aren't my friends -- that still think Obama is doing a good job: open your eyes.

And raise your standards.

---

More comments at IMAO

The Desert, a parable

You're in the desert.

It's hot, the sun's glare on the sand is blinding. When the wind whips up, the sand stings.

You're in the desert.

You weren't always in the desert. And you want to find your way out. But for the moment, you've accepted that you're in the desert.

You were thirsty earlier. You still are, but now, you're also hungry.

Up ahead, you see a figure in the distance. You blink, wipe the sand from your eyes to make sure you are seeing something, and not experiencing a mirage.

It's real.

You pick up the pace and head towards the figure.

Now, you see that it's not one figure, but two.

You're nearer now, clearly making out the two figures. Each is sitting at a table, with an assortment of items in front.

As you approach, each person smiles and rises, beckoning you closer.

You walk up, and with a parched voice, say the only two words you can manage to utter: "Water. Food."

The person on the right nods, and offers you two items from his table: dry white toast, and a cup of water.

The person on the left offers you a rock.

You look back at the dry white toast and cup of water, then at the rock.

You make your decision, drinking half the cup of water immediately, then devouring the toast, washing it down with the rest of the water.

"I've got more of the same," the person on the right says.

"I got rocks," the person on the left says.

You continue your trek through the desert, accompanied now by the person on the right with more dry white toast and water, and the person on the left with rocks.

As your thirst and hunger return, you accept the dry white toast and drink the water, ignoring the rocks.

But you keep looking. Somewhere, you know you'll find someone with better food ... and a map out of the desert.

And that is why I will vote for a Republican that I really don't want. That Republican is still a huckuva lot better than the Democrat, but not what I'm looking for. And, yes, I will keep looking.

Yay! An Angry Birds update! Oh, wait...

Went to the App Store for the iPad today ... and found this:



Yes, that's a announcement that an Angry Birds update.

So, I fired up iTunes, download the updates (two other apps had updates, too), and connected the iPad.

When the update synced, I fired up Angry Birds. Only to find it was a bug fix. The new levels mentioned were the levels I already had on the previous release.

I went from cloud nine to the ninth circle.

Okay, maybe it wasn't that big of an emotional swing. But I did start working on a sequel game: Angry Basil.

So now he'll tell Obama to go to Heck?

Paul LePage is the Republican candidate for governor of Maine. And, he's been leading in the polls. Most of them, anyway.

He made the news this week by saying he'd tell Barack Obama to "go to hell."

LePage said, "As your governor, you're going to be seeing a lot of me on the front page, saying 'Governor LePage tells Obama to go to hell.'"

But, apparently, that's a problem. Telling a socialist who is doing everything he can (whether through malevolence or incompetence) to damage the United States, I mean.

I suppose that, ignoring the person in the office and considering the office itself, then, yes, it's very disrespectful to say that about the president.

But, it certainly would be hard for me to decide who is most disrespectful the office of president:

• LePage, who would tell the president to "go to hell"
• Obama, who is the most unqualified, and has now passed Jimmy Carter as the most incompetent, person to hold the office
• The people that actually voted to elect Barack Obama

I'm torn between the last two. LePage, I suspect, was directing his comments to the person, not the office.

But, LePage screwed up. Not by saying he'd tell Obama to go to hell. I'd do that.

No, LePage has apologized for saying he'd say that.

He told The Associated Press that he regretted the words he chose Sunday but wasn't backing down from his criticism of the administration for what he described as free-spending, antibusiness policies.

I suppose he's saying he should have told Obama to go to Heck?

And that's a little disappointing to me. Because he's backing down.

If he didn't mean what he said, then, yes, he should apologize. But, I think he meant it. And he should man up and say "Yes, I meant exactly what I said. Anyone, even the president, that pushes such dangerous and destructive policies, can go to hell."

But, no, he didn't say that. He regretted his choice of words.

Which means he can be pushed around. He wouldn't fall in line with the Democrats like Libby Mitchell, the Democrat nominee for governor. She's the worse choice of the two.

But, while LePage is the better of the two, he's not what he could be. And that makes me mad as heck.