Super Bowl Prediction: Carolina Versus Denver (By The Numbers)

I am endeavoring to construct a predictive model like every other basement-dwelling football nerd in the United States, and the current one seems to be working competently. My model is based solely upon numbers and therefore cannot take into account intangibles such as key injuries, emotion, outside factors, or stupid coaching decisions (more on this in a moment). I first constructed the model prior to the Alabama-Notre Dame BCS championship game in 2013. The college model works differently than the pro model because the statistics have to be recalculated with the garbage games (e.g. FCS opponents and Kansas if you're in the Big Twelve) removed to give a clearer picture. That model pointed to an Alabama blowout of Notre Dame, which is precisely what happened. I used the model again for the Ohio State-Alabama semi-final Sugar Bowl game, and unlike the pundits on television, the model pointed towards a toss-up that favored Alabama (Ohio State won the game primarily due to Alabama's inability to stop the Buckeye offense). I first used this model last year for the Super Bowl, and it pointed towards a Seattle win over New England, 28-24. Keep in mind that although the score was correct but the winner wrong, no statistical model can calculate or take into account variables like a coach calling an insanely stupid play with the game on the line. Basically, it predicted a 4-point Seattle win and had they done what they should have (hint: handoff to Lynch), the final score of Seattle by three would have certainly been close. I used the model again for the NCAA football playoff, and it predicted an Alabama win over Michigan State by a count of 31-10. So certain was I that I'd be accused of rigging the model in favor of my own team that I added a touchdown for Michigan State and predicted a 14-point Alabama win.

Perhaps I should have stuck with the model.

I then used it to determine that Alabama would beat Clemson by ten points in the national championship game. The Tide led by 12 with a minute remaining before giving up a garbage-time touchdown to Clemson, so the model is still vindicated. Hence, I'm going to use it for the Super Bowl.

WARNING: Do not go and bet on one team or the other simply because this model has worked before. No statistical model can allot for all of the factors. If Cam Newton gets hurt on the fifth play from scrimmage (this is also known as the Colt McCoy clause), all bets are off. But let's look at the overall evaluation and see if we can draw a rational conclusion.

OFFENSE

The first thing that stands out about Carolina, of course, is their offense as led by league MVP Cam Newton. The Panthers have the most lethal offense in the NFL, averaging 32.2 points per game against a schedule that won 44.1% of their games. And while it was common to bash Carolina as running up numbers against pedestrian competition, they have hit full throttle since November 8th. In the last ten games, Carolina has topped 33 points seven times, had another game where they scored 31, and had two contests where they were held below their average, a 27-point win over the Titans and an absolutely mind-boggling 13 points against the Atlanta Falcons in their only loss of the season. If you hold as I do that football is as simple run, stop the run, and win the turnover battle, Carolina is #2 in the league in rushing. At first glance, you wonder how this is even possible. Their leading rusher only obtained 989 yards in 13 games, but Cam Newton added another 636 yards on his own. Although Carolina is almost exactly 50/50 in run plays/pass plays, they get a lot more out of their running game despite a completion percentage of nearly 61% from the quarterback.

Denver's offense is more pass-oriented in play calling but more balanced in outcome. Denver passes the ball three of every five plays, and that average would probably be higher if Peyton Manning had not been injured for several games late in the year. How balanced? Denver has the #17 rushing offense, #17 passing offense, and is 18th in the league in offensive ppg with 22.1. They have played a minimally more difficult schedule than Carolina although such things mean very little in the parity of the NFL as opposed to the wide talent gap in college football. Carolina, in fact, has played seven rushing offenses better than Denver and beaten them all. They've played ten offenses that scored more ppg than Denver and beaten all of them as well. The flip side, of course, is that Denver's offense was 5.1 ppg worse when Manning was out than in games he played. Thus, one may reasonably conclude that Denver's offensive rating with Manning healthy in all sixteen games would (if extrapolated) lift their offense from 18th to 10th in ppg. On the other hand, Oswiler did score more points against the Patriots in his win than Manning did. In short, Manning is worth an extra touchdown plus experience.

Consider this: in all but one game this year, Carolina has scored or exceeded the average ppg surrendered by the opposing defense. The one exception? Their loss to Atlanta in week 15. Put another way, Carolina scores points regardless of how good the opposing defense is. The one defense Carolina faced better than Denver was Seattle, whom they played twice. And Carolina ripped the Seahawks defense that gave up an average of 17.6 ppg for 27 and 31 points (although I'll grant one touchdown was a defensive TD). Denver, on the other hand, has only exceeded the points allowed by the opposing defense nine times in eighteen contests.

One other observation is that Carolina has won games by virtually all means possible. They've blown teams out early, fallen behind by two touchdowns and roared back, and blown big leads and recovered just in time to win. Denver has been more like the resilient team that sticks with their game plan and adjusts as necessary.

DEFENSE

The first thing that grabs your attention when watching Denver is the speed of their defense, particularly their run defense. Denver, in fact, has the best rushing defense in the NFL, surrendering a paltry 81.4 yards per game. This means the game matches strength against strength. You would think that their passing defense would therefore be somewhat weaker, but if anything, their pass defense (3rd in the league) is just as good. The weakness of Carolina's defense, in fact, is the passing defense that surrenders 239.1 yards per game. But there's also a catch (if you'll pardon the pun) when you consider who has beaten Denver this year: Indianapolis, Kansas City, Oakland, and Pittsburgh. Only the Chiefs have a better passing defense than Carolina, meaning that three passing defenses worse than the Panthers have beaten the Broncos. Of course, that, too comes with a caveat: only Indianapolis beat Peyton Manning, and he was injured during that game. The other three losses were all under quarterback Brock Oswiler and Manning's defeat of Kansas City might be considered to offset their passing defense against Oswiler as well.

But all statistics contain both truth and misleading notions. Sure, Carolina's pass defense numbers are not overly impressive but then you remember that three of their sixteen games came against Drew Brees (two games totaling 574 yards) and Aaron Rodgers (another 331 yards). Subtract those totals from Carolina's year and the Panthers move from 16th to 5th in passing defense. And then remember that despite all those passing yards, the Panthers still won all three games. Furthermore, how many of those yards are because teams are so far behind early that they're reduced to one-dimensional passing?

Denver's fourth-ranked overall defense allows 18.3 ppg while Carolina's sixth-ranked defense allows 19.3 ppg. Denver held 14 of their 18 opponents this year below their normal average offensive output while Carolina did so in 13 contests. Denver's defense gets a slight edge because of the stronger competition.

TURNOVERS

While Carolina takes the offense (although closer with Manning playing) and Denver takes the defense, it is the turnovers that vastly separate the two teams in ways that boggle the mind. Neither team fumbles the ball much: Carolina averages less than one fumble per game and Denver averages one. Carolina averages 1.1 turnovers per game while Denver average 1.8. The hard statistic that favors Carolina is that Denver throws twice as many interceptions per contest as Carolina does, and Manning is particularly susceptible to the pick.

But if there is one eye-popping statistic buried beneath all of the numbers, it is this: Carolina averages 9.25 points per game from turnovers. In other words, if Denver played only offense the entire game and Cam Newton never took the field except via a turnover, Carolina would on average score nine points solely due to their defense forcing a turnover and capitalizing. Denver, on the other hand, would score 4.9 ppg via the turnover but give up 6.25 per game - a minus of 1.35 points. Even when Carolina loses the ball via turnover, they only surrender an average of two points per game. Thus, Carolina is at +7.25 while Denver is at -1.35. This fact alone means that all things being equal, Carolina starts the game with an average advantage of 8.6 points.

PENALTIES
Carolina gets flagged for 6.2 penalties per game and loses 53 yards via the flag. Denver gets flagged for 7 penalties per game and loses 64 yards. This is a net of two first downs in favor of Carolina, one via the yardage difference and one via the number.

PREDICTION
Most of the numbers favor Carolina and most likely in a game that gets out of hand. If you take the mean of the average Carolina offensive ppg and the Denver defense and allow for a slight difference in strength of schedule but an even greater difference in expected output, Carolina is very likely to exceed the 18.3 ppg Denver normally surrenders and probably by a wide margin. Denver, on the other hand, is likely to lose the turnover battle and be fortunate to get to the 21 points they would average. The one positive in Denver's favor (aside from their stout defense) is that their passing offense combined with Carolina's second-half woes throughout the season mean that even a huge halftime lead is not an automatic win for the Panthers. My prediction based on the numbers is listed in the 'expected range,' and I'm picking Carolina by eight. The statistical model suggests:

EXTREME RANGE: Carolina 33 Denver 14
EXPECTED RANGE: Carolina 28 Denver 20
UPSET RANGE: Denver 27 Carolina 24

CAVEATS

As noted earlier, intangibles are part of the game. Maybe Peyton Manning comes out with a little extra fire in what figures to be his last game in the NFL. Maybe Cam Newton freezes on the big stage (given his prior accomplishments, this would really surprise me). Maybe Denver gets two quick turnovers for two quick scores and holds on in a close game. A prediction is just that - a prediction and nothing more. So don't email me about what an idiot I am if Denver does happen to win, particularly since I will be pulling for the Broncos anyway. But this is what the numbers suggest.

How I Lost One Hundred Pounds In Less Than Three Hundred Days

I never thought I could have a weight problem. Skinny kids whose bones can be seen through the skin at 127 pounds the day they graduate high school (29 May 1987) have the opposite of a weight problem. I had severe stress and intestinal issues when I was in high school, having been evaluated for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis and ultimately seeing a psychologist and taking stress classes. I got through four years of college and only gained nine pounds, all of it the first semester when for the first time in my life I could eat any time I wished. I got through a 12 1/2-year military career without ever getting put on the weight management program. And then I got lazy.

Do you want to know how to GAIN one hundred pounds? It's VERY easy. Here's what you do: just gain one pound every paycheck (if your job pays you every two weeks) for four years. That's about 106 paychecks and will give you one hundred extra pounds on your frame. Too many nights of leaving the lab at nine pm and then grabbing a high carb dinner at Pizza Hut, Denny's, or other places known for processed food (like McDonald's new burger, the McCPR!) - and limiting my exercise to the pulling up of twelve Diet Cokes a day to my lips and one sit-up per day (once when I got out of bed and once when I lay back down) gradually pushed my weight up and up. Attending seminary and taking 12 hours a semester, working 40 hours a week and managing a household took a severe toll on me. I didn't have time to exercise, and I was always eating on the go.

THE PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT

In October 2013, I was invited with three other individuals to appear on the CBS television program "60 Minutes." This was presumably due to my sarcastic personality on the phone with UCI (who really knows why?) and because I was one of the few people in the world diagnosed as possessing a highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM or hyperthymesia). I had a dilemma - should I really go? I was not posting many Facebook pictures of myself (not current ones) because they all embarrassed me. I hedged about going because I was well aware of the nagging thought, "My God, everyone I went to high school, college, and the military with is going to see I've ballooned into a blimp." I seriously considered not going, but how often do you get a chance to be on a show viewed by millions for a special talent? I was already making plans to lose weight as this video shows (go to 11:11 and high comedy ensues), but a dream without a plan is just a wish. It got worse when the show aired (January 12, 2014) and I was the only "new" person with HSAM whose picture was not on the board behind Lesley Stahl. I even began wondering if they had edited me out of the show (which wouldn't have been difficult since I was on the front row). But the show aired and life continued on. I was a bit bothered by our lack of air time (and make no mistake, I contemplated whether my appearance had something to do with it as you had three photogenic and attractive individuals and a Chris Farley clone), but it was still a thrill to have met three admittedly thin people who "speak the same language" as I do.

THE SCARE

I'd just completed a trip to Minnesota at the request of a Minnesota-born friend (who was still in California). Because flights were cheap, I hopped a Southwest to Minneapolis, rented a car, drove down to Iowa and back up to the Twin Cities where I took in a Twins game, spent the night in Northbrook and then wound up taking a tour of the St Louis Canal and lip of Lake Superior in Duluth, Minnesota. I even texted one of the HSAMers from out in the lake just for fun. It was Thursday, June 5, 2014 around 9 pm as my plane descended into Love Field, Dallas, Texas. All of a sudden, my head was overcome with the absolute worst pain I'd ever had in my life. I seriously thought I was having a stroke or aneurysm. The pain increased and got worse and worse, and I kept waiting for my head to explode off of my neck. I had a dozen thoughts at that moment,not the least being that nobody on the plane knew me, and nobody at home knew I had even gone to Minnesota. What if I died and nobody could claim me? Or worse, who was going to take care of me if I did survive? Suddenly, the pain eased and revealed itself to be nothing more than sinuses. I got off in the extreme heat (Duluth temperature was 46 degrees at 11 am) pouring sweat and drove home. A few days later, I listened to the video as I was preparing to copy it, and I was appalled at what I heard. On every video shot I made, you could hear me audibly gasping for air. My experience in the hospital as in life told me I had severe problems because the only people I had ever known who breathed that way had emphysema or were grossly overweight. I had also been extremely uncomfortable as the seat belt barely - and I mean barely - fit.

These realizations led me to spending a few days trying to figure what plan was going to work. I finally decided that two things were going to be necessary to lose weight: 1) accountability; and 2) investment. People tend to do better in things where they have money invested that they stand to lose. And as far as accountability goes, nobody likes getting caught lying or being a hypocrite.

FRUSTRATION

Part of what had kept me from losing weight - to be honest with you - was the negativism of people. I'd be told that I would lose weight if I'd switch out food A for food B. But then somebody else would tell me that food B was "high" in something I was getting too much of. It boiled to a head when talking to my Minnesota-born friend (Sue, who has a Master's in kinesiology) about the Duluth trip and blew up by saying, "No matter what I eat, somebody has something negative to say about it. So I just eat whatever I want since nobody seems to be able to tell me anything I should eat."But Sue was also encouraging by saying, "Even at your age, you can lose that 100 pounds in one calendar year. I KNOW you can, it's just a matter of doing what's right."

SLIM4LIFE

I had watched the Slim4Life commercials for several months on Dallas television. I was aware that losing 100 pounds might come with a side effect, namely, gaining it all back because it was lost the "wrong way" (e.g. a crash diet, chemotherapy, my head exploding). But I also was having to admit that I simply had never really had to consider healthy choices and nutrition. After gorging on yet another Pizza Inn buffet, I got in the car to leave. I noticed the weight-loss clinic - the Lewisville Slim4Life location - was only about 25 yards from the pizza place where I'd spent much of the past year. I was in a lot of pain physically. Every joint in my body hurt, and I still have a bruised sternum from my tight fit in the MRI machine at UCI (the same morning as the "60 Minutes" interview). I walked in and in an almost desperate plea told the counselor behind the counter, "I need help." I filled out the preliminary paperwork and waited for a consult. The most telling moment came when the questionnaire specifically asked, "Why do you think you have a weight problem?" My answer was as to the point as an alcoholic taking responsibility: "Too many calories going in, not enough going out." The counselor chuckled at the answer and said, "You're gonna do just fine." The plan was set up and the weight loss phase began.

SO HOW DID YOU LOSE ALL THAT WEIGHT?

On June 12, I paid an entry fee of about $700. This fee enabled me to "purchase" 28 weeks of weight loss at a guarantee loss of 3 pounds per week if the plan was followed to the letter. $100 of that fee was the purchase of a year-long "maintenance" program, where I come in once a week to be weighed and to keep the numbers close to the goal. I was told, "You have three days to enjoy anything you want. Eat all of the junk you can stand because you're not going to get it for a long time." So for three days I threw back all the hamburgers, pizza, pasta, sausage, and Rotel cheese dip I could consume. On Sunday, June 15, I began the active weight loss phase with a specially designed diet: 2-3 pounds of ground beef minimum each day, unlimited raw or green vegetables, 2 eggs per day, one orange per day, and at least 1/2 teaspoon or Morton's light salt.

On Tuesday, June 17, I went back in for a one-hour classroom session, and it was here that I learned the "catch" to the whole thing: it consisted of rather pricey supplements and powder snacks that were required for you to lose the promised three pounds a week. It laid out precisely how much my plan was going to cost to lost 114 pounds (the set goal): $4,875 (plus the $700 I had already spent). Admittedly, I felt a tad bit hoodwinked at this point. They did, however, promise me that I could purchase ALL of the promised supplements THIS DAY ONLY for "only" $3400 (as if the average person has this laying around in the bank). I could have gotten mad as this was a slick sales job. But the first positive news was that I had already - in only two days - unloaded eight pounds. I had two choices at this point, either count the $700 lost or dig in for the long haul. I decided to dig in and make it happen but to purchase only the supplements I really "needed." But another fact of life was that I sat down and calculated how much money I had spent on food the previous six months. And the moment I came up with that particular number, I realized that since I was going NOT be spending in the neighborhood of $900 a month eating out (yes - that number is correct.....$900 times six months is $5400.....), I could afford the $4875 plus $700....only $100 more than I was already spending and LOSE 114 pounds. So I would spend the same money but LOSE weight rather than gain it.

Made sense to me.

For the first six weeks, I went in to weigh every single day. In fact, the only thing that stopped my daily weigh-ins was the week-long break I took to attend my brother's wedding in Rhode Island in early August. In that first six weeks, I lost forty pounds, even making an impression on one of my "60 Minutes" co-stars. I began noticing my clothes were falling off of me, and I had to go buy "transitional" clothes. The weight continued to come off at about four pounds a week. On September 18, I drove to see friends in Mississippi and when Brett finally shook the sleep out of his eyes and let me in the house, he said, "Damn, son, you've lost a TON of weight, haven't you?" At that point, I had been on the program for only three months and unloaded almost seventy pounds.

And the rest brings us to now. But.....

OKAY, SO HOW DID YOU LOSE THAT WEIGHT?

Below is a basic copy of the Slim4Life diet as shown online. Here is a typical day for me, including which supplements when:

Wake Up: daily vitamin, Boost (Ginseng) with 16 oz water

Breakfast:
Two eggs, cooked any way
One slice of 40 cal wheat bread
One serving of fruit

Supplements: 2 metabolism boosters, one carb breaker, 3 essential fatty acids, 2 water pills taken 30 minutes after meal

Snack:
One serving of fruit, one protein shake

Lunch:
2 servings vegetables (one raw, one cooked)
One serving protein
One serving of starch (40 cal bread, Akram cracker, 2 Melba toasts)

Snack:
Second protein shake

Dinner:
2 servings vegetables
One serving protein

(The second starch if you have not yet had it)

Snack:
Slim4Life candy bar (your dessert for doing a fine job that day)

Optional: a second boost but only before six pm

Monthly supplement costs:
Metabolism Booster: $150
Carb Breakers: $40
Essential Fatty Acids: $80
Water Pills: $30
Boost (Ginseng): $50 if you take one a day, $100 if you take two
Protein Shake Snacks: $150
Candy Bars: $65

BUT THAT COSTS SO MUCH!!!

First of all, I would point out that you can lose the weight WITHOUT the supplements, it just takes a little longer. The supplements speed up metabolism. The ONLY things you are REQUIRED to purchase from Slim4Life are the protein shake snacks, and you can buy those online without ever going into the store. The Ginseng helps break any caffeine addictions you may have almost overnight. Secondly, once you figure out how much you're spending that got you overweight, you simply apply a portion of that money towards weight loss. Come to think of it - since you're eating "right" - you apply ALL of the same money you already spent but you lose weight instead.

And finally, if you don't lose weight, you are going to be spending that money on diabetic supplies, statins, blood pressure medications, and deductibles for hospital visits. Therefore I'd say that most of you can afford the plan despite some rather hard-looking numbers. At this point, the choice is up to you. I'm simply telling you how I did it, and the following photos show my progress:

• Proteins: 2 Servings/day
  Beefs (only twice a week/never 2 dappys in a row)
  - Arm Roast... 4oz
  - Chuck Roast... 4oz
  - Rump Roast... 4oz
  - Ground Sirloin... 4oz
  - Club Steak... 4oz
  - Flank Steak... 4oz
  - Round Steak... 4oz
  - Sirloin Steak... 4oz
  - T-Bone Steak... 4oz
  - Lamb Loin... 4oz
  - Ground Turkey... 4oz
  
  Veal
  - Cutlet... 5oz
  - Rump... 5oz
  - Chop... 5oz
  
  Poultry
  - Chicken Breast... 6oz
  - Turkey Breast... 5oz
  - Ground Turkey Breast... 5oz
  
  Liver
  - Beef Liver... 4oz
  - Calf Liver... 4oz
  - Chicken Liver... 3oz
  
  Fish
  - Striped Bass... 5oz
  - Cod... 6oz
  - Flounder... 6oz
  - Haddock... 6oz
  - Halibut (steamed)... 5oz
  - Lake Perch... 5oz
  - Fresh Tuna... 5oz
  - Mahi-mahi... 5oz
  - Lobster... 5oz
  - Shrimp (fresh)... 5oz
  - Sole... 5oz
  - Whitefish... 5oz
  - Orange Roughy... 6oz
  - Scrod... 6oz
  - Red Snapper... 5oz
  - Grouper... 5oz
  - Yellow Tail... 5oz
  - Bluefish... 6oz
  - 2 x wk *Swordfish... 5oz
  - 2 x wk *Crab (steamed)... 5oz
  - 2 x wk *Salmon Steak... 4oz
  - 2 x wk *Scallops... 4oz
  - 1 x wk *Tuna (water packed)... 4oz
  
  Dairy and Eggs
  - 3 x wk Cottage Cheese 1 % Fat... 5oz
  - 1 Lg Egg & Cottage Cheese... 4oz
  - Eggs... 2 Lg.
• Liquids:
  Fresh Water... 10 8oz/day (required)
  Tea of Coffee... 2 cups daily
  Diet Pop (no colas)... 2 12oz cans
  or
  Crystal Light... 2 glasses
  Herb Tea... no limit
  Parsley Tea... as needed
  Decaffeinated Coffee... no limit
  Thermoboost... 2 8oz glasses per day
• Vegetables: 4 servings/day (1 cup raw - 1/2 cup cooked)
  Asparagus... 1 cup
  Bean Sprouts... 1 cup
  Broccoli... 1 cup
  Cabbage... 1 cup
  Cauliflower... 1 cup
  Celery... 1 cup
  Chard... 1 cup
  Cucumbers... 1/2 med
  Egg Plant... 1 cup
  Green Onions... 5 small
  Lettuce or Endive... 1 cup
  Mushrooms... 1 cup
  Mustard Greens... 1 cup
  Okra... 1 cup
  Peppers (green, red)... 1/2 med
  Radishes... 10 med
  Rhubarb... 1 stalk
  Spinach or Kale... 1 cup
  Squash (summer)... 1 cup
  String Beans (was, green or yellow)... 1 cup
  Tomatoes... 1 small
  Turnip Sprouts/Greens... 1 cup
  Zucchini... 1 cup
• Fruits: 2 servings/day (do not eat after 6 pm/fresh or frozen fruit, not canned)
  Grapes (green)... 10 reg
  Apple... 1 small
  Apricot... 3 med
  Blueberries... 1/4 cup
  Cantaloupe... 1/8 lg
  Cherries... 9 med
  Grapefruit... 1/2 small
  Lemon... 1 small
  Orange... 1 small
  Peach... 1 small
  Pineapple... 3/4 cup
  Prunes... 2 med
  Raspberries... 1/4 cup
  Strawberries... 12 small
  Tangerine... 1 small
  Watermelon... 1 cup diced
• Starches: 2 servings/day
  Diet Bread 940 calories)... 1 slice
  Melba Toast (unseasoned)... 2 slices
  Bread Stick (Diet Stella D 'Oro)... 1 lg stick
  Akmak Cracker... 1/2 sheet
  Rice Cake (unsalted)... 1 cake per day
  Millers Bran... 2 tbsp
  Kavli Crispy Bread, thin... 1 wafer
  Corn Tortillas (6" dia.)... 1/2 tortilla
  Ryvta Cracker... 1/2 of 1 pack (3 x per week combined)
  Baked Potato... 1/2 small (3 x per week combined)
  Brown Rice... 1/4 cup cooked (3 x per week combined)
• Fats: 1 serving per day (apply after cooking)
  Diet Margarine... 1 tsp
  Promise Lite... 1 tsp
  Promise Ultra... 1 tsp
  Fleishman's Lite or diet mayonnaise... 1 tsp

Portions listed a raw weights unless stated.

You must also have 1/4 to 1/2 tsp of Morton's Lite Salt per day. You may also use 1 tbsp of mustard as a condiment per day.

You may prepare all foods by steaming, boiling, roasting, broiling, baking, pan frying, microwaving, or grilling. Do not use fat, lard, etc. Pam original, no butter, is allowed.

Limit artificial sweeteners (Equal, Sweet N' Low, Splenda) to 2 to 3 packs per day.

Allowed seasonings: Morton's Light Salt (1/4 to 1/2 tsp), pepper, garlic, fresh herbs and spices, apple cider vinegar and tarragon vinegar, Mrs. Dash, juice of one lemon per day. No regular salt or condiments.

Salad Dressings: 2 tbsp daily of Fat Free salad dressing.

Ted Nahas, Buckeye Jackweed, Doesn't Know Diddly About College Football

The unfortunate peril of the Internet is the fact that any complete moron with an account can post - literally - anything he or she wishes. And nothing brings out the idiots like arguments over college football. A few nights ago, Ohio State ended their long drought of bowl losses to the SEC by beating Alabama, 42-35, in the Sugar Bowl and clinching a spot in the national championship game against Oregon. The Buckeyes were well-coached and played well. Unfortunately, this win has brought out some of the dumbest argumentation known to man courtesy of some members of Buckeye Nation. Last year - on December 2, 2013, to be precise - a poster put up a You Tube video talking about a debate between Paul Finebaum and Danny Kanell, with Colin Cowherd on background vocals. I posted awhile back regarding one of the dumbest arguments known to man: the complaint that the SEC's dominance is "overstated" and that "the SEC pads their record by playing a bunch of out of conference cupcakes" and is thus not all it's cracked up to be. I merely made the following observation:

The SEC plays one less division game every year. So what? What is your point?

It is funny how often this frivolous objection is raised. But enter Ted Nahas to make the mistake of picking a fight with someone far more intelligent than he. Apparently, the beatings his beloved Buckeyes have taken through the years from the SEC have left Ted with severe brain damage (or perhaps a severe case of PTSD). Thus, the moment the Buckeyes beat Alabama, Ted decided to vent his frustration at me. So let's see how Ted fares with FACTS in an argument. Let's just say that today's SAT question is:

Facts are to Ted Nahas like:
a) Fire to gasoline
b) Water to the Wicked Witch
c) The House to the Other Wicked Witch
d) All of the above

The correct answer, of course, is who really cares? But I then made the following comment, which brought up the ire of Ted Nahas, Clueless Buckeye:

The SEC also wipes the floor with the other conferences when they play them in bowl games, so this excuse simply doesn't wash. Granted, the PTB in the West went 0-5 this year but look over the last near decade while all this whining has been going on.

My point is VERY simple, so simple even someone as dumb as Ted ought to get it but doesn't: if the REAL reason for SEC dominance all these years was because they run up fantastic records against a bunch of scrub teams then the "better" teams in other conferences should be absolutely wiping the floor with the SEC in the bowl games. IF as Ted alleges the SEC owes its success to FEWER SEC games because of cupcakes then the SEC is NOT really very good and should easily be exposed as a fraud. My point goes back to the 2006 bowl season, the first year of the long SEC streak of championships (and appearances). Having felt he was not done showing us how stupid he was, Ted came back with the following stroke of genius:

Wipes the floor? Your SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6 every year. For the last ten years they have gone 500 or below. Also, did you not just see your precious SEC top west teams get stomped this year? Hmm? Don't make up fake stats to try and make it sound like you are right.

My response to Ted follows:

Now look, Jackweed:

I'm not sure if it is the ignorance of your statement or the arrogance that is the most mind-boggling. Let's take your statement apart one foolish comment at a time and demonstrate to the entire Internet that your only asset is good fiction writing. Here goes:

1) Your SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6 every year

Hmm, let's take a look:
2006 - 6-3 (oh and SLAUGHTERED Ohio State in the BCSNCG)
2007 - 7-2 (oh and SLAUGHTERED Ohio State in the BCSNCG)
2008 - 6-2 (and Ohio State lost to Texas)
2009 - 6-4
2010 - 5-5 (and Ohio State's win doesn't even count, ha ha)
2011 - 6-3 (and Ohio State lost to Florida AGAIN!)
2012 - 6-3 (and Ohio State watched at home due to sanctions)
2013 - 7-3 (and Ohio State LOST to Clemson)
2014 - 7-5

So you said the SEC goes 500 every year or 5-6. ACTUAL number of times the SEC went 500 in the time frame referenced? ONE! Number of times SEC won LESS than 6 games? ONE! But you're just warming up the stupid.

2) For the last ten years they have gone 500 or below. 

ACTUAL record of SEC in bowl games the last ten years: 56-30 (.651)

Now that's just nine years, but we'll add 2005 just to make you feel better. The SEC went 3-3, so their overall record the past TEN YEARS - which YOU said was less than .500 - is ACTUALLY 59-33 (.641). Incidentally, your beloved Buckeyes in bowl games the last ten years? 4-5, aka, BELOW .500. Their record against the SEC? 1-3 with a vacated win.

Now as far as teams getting "stomped" this year, yeah, TCU stomped Ole Miss and Ga Tech pretty well handled MSU. Beyond that? Auburn lost in overtime, LSU lost on a last play field goal, and Alabama lost by seven points, hardly a "stomping." You did see that the conference overall - the SEC - went 7-5, right? (Not your made up 5-6). What was the Big Ten this year in bowl games, all ten of which saw them as underdogs? .500, which you just said about the SEC. Maybe before jumping onto the Internet and shooting your mouth off about subjects you obviously know nothing about, you should actually stop and LEARN THE FACTS before posting and making a complete idiot of yourself.

Ted then continues on his next post:

3) The past decade not one team in the SEC is tops in winning percentage don't be a fool making up false fact

It should be noted that I never said this, so perhaps Ted is erecting a straw man. Of course, we've seen here that Ted himself is sort of a straw man ("if he only had a brain"). But this hardly matters. The top winning percentage since 2000 belongs to Boise State. When you don't actually play anybody decent, it's easy to run up huge win totals. But what is Boise State's winning pct against the SEC? Well, they're not only bad, they're awful. They're 1-5 and have lost every single one of those by 19 points or more. So maybe Ted can explain this irrelevancy for the rest of us.

But Ted isn't done yet!!

4) Maybe you should stop talking, you don't know football at all

Apparently, Ted is looking in the mirror and having a screaming fit. Hey Ted, if I pulled for the Buckeyes and had to tolerate Tattoogate and watching Alabama win a title that should have been mine in 2012, I'd be upset, too. But don't take it out on me. I'll note that Ted Nahas is welcome to debate the FACTS of college football history anywhere at any time. Of course, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel (with Nahas in the barrel) but so what?

5) Way to prove your case wrong bud on EVERY fact you stated

It should be noted this began as a RESPONSE to the ridiculous charge that the SEC pads their winning percentage with cupcakes and doesn't play a tough schedule. I'm vindicated. Roll Tide.

Slim Smith Tries To Make One Point, Makes Exact Opposite Point But Is Too Stupid To Know

Slim Smith, the resident liberal at the online version of the Commercial Dispatch (Columbus, MS) apparently had a quota to meet this past week. You can always tell when a liberal is short of ideas and needs a quick column to keep his job because the column is ALWAYS the same: racism and conservatives/Republicans. Smith spares no effort at making himself look like a complete tool. 

Fifty years ago Friday, the President of the United States was shot and killed in Dallas and some of the schoolchildren in segregated schools throughout the South cheered the news. 

So he gets off on the wrong foot. After all, I'd be willing to bet some children in integrated schools other places also cheered. The cool thing about anecdotal evidence like Slim is going to use to make his case is that when the evidence doesn't exist you can simply make it up.

Children cheered in Oxford, recalled Lloyd Gray, the editor of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, who was a fourth-grader there. 

Children cheered in Columbus, said Birney Imes, the publisher of The Dispatch, who was a junior high student at Joe Cook Junior High. 

It happened throughout the South. 

Note this slimeball tactic. Slim takes two alleged eyewitness accounts of events fifty years ago and extrapolates them across one specific region of the USA. So let me make this point: I attended Caledonia Elementary School in that sewer known as Lowndes County and I can attest that on March 30, 1981 there were children of both races in the sixth grade class at Activity Period who cheered the shooting of President Reagan. I'd be willing to bet this also happened at some all-black schools, too, but since it doesn't fit Slim's narrative, he ignores it.

It wasn't as though entire classrooms rose in one voice to celebrate the tragedy. 

No, that was reserved for folks who cheered the acquittal of a black former NFL running back who killed two white folks and got away with it.

By most accounts, it was the reaction of a handful of children, who cheered, then quickly fell silent, as though they were embarrassed, perhaps even surprised, at their spontaneous reaction to the news. 

But the fact remains, a president was shot and the first reaction of some children was to cheer. 

That seems hard to fathom today. 

Or does it? 

No, because kids are kids who generally have no understanding of death and who tend to believe pretty much everything they're told at home. The dumb ones grow up to go to Ivy League schools and run for office and never once learn to question what someone is telling them. 

For all of the progress that has been made, I wonder if, were the unthinkable to happen today, some of our schoolchildren might react much as those schoolchildren did on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963. 

Yes, but it has nothing to do with what you're building towards, so this is a pointless claim.

In the years since JFK, all presidents have had their share of bitter critics. Some have been despised and over the years the respect that was normally accorded to office of the President of The United States of America has disintegrated.  

Nothing like dealing with a historical ignoramus. Does Slim not know that Rutherford B Hayes was called "His Fraudulency" by the self-appointed party of the people? Does he know that John Tyler was nearly impeached and that Andrew Johnson actually was impeached? This mythical "respect my generation had for the office of President" is a pile of garbage that Slim and his liberal cohorts need to abandon in favor of reality.

But there is a level of hatred reserved for Barack Obama that hasn't been witnessed in this country since JFK and before that, Abraham Lincoln. 

This is hogwash Not only can you not prove this but this is wrong on so many levels as to make me question whether you're back off the wagon.

1) I'm guessing nobody hated James Garfield or William McKinley. Sure, they were assassinated, but those weren't hate crimes, just good Democrats gone bad.

2) Since the assassination of Kennedy there have been THREE total assassination attempts. NONE was against Barack Obama. Two were made against President Ford and a third (and most dangerous one) against Ronald Reagan.

3) If this is true then why haven't Obama's approval ratings sunk as low as Carter or Bush 43? 

Some Americans may have wanted Nixon or Reagan or Clinton or Bush driven out of office, but those who openly wished for their deaths were confined to psychotics who lived on the ragged edges of the political sphere. 

I'm guessing Slim considers Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams part of the lunatic fringe. In 2007, Williams came to Bush's home state of Texas and said, "Right now, I could kill George Bush." She went on to say "not really" and then modified it by saying she would love to kill him in a nonviolent way. Or what about the recently terminated Randi Rhodes, who in May 2004 advocated the murder of President Bush? Or what about Air America being investigated in 2005 for a skit where Rhodes again talked about shooting Bush?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Air America was only the home of the left-wing lunatic fringe? If so, then you have a serious problem since one of those former hosts is now a U.S. Senator.

The fact is that this whole paragraph is a pile of garbage with no factual basis.

But the hatred that manifested itself in the impulsive cheers of children upon first hearing of JFK's shooting in Dallas was not confined to the deranged few, especially not in Mississippi.  

Now you're contradicting your earlier claim that it was a "handful" of children. You've gone from a handful of kids to the entire South and now back to the entire white population of Mississippi. No wonder you like Obama so much - your rhetoric comes from the same ill-informed and dishonest sewer pipe as his.

It had been a little more than a year since Kennedy sent in federal troops to squash the riots that had broken out in Oxford in the immediate aftermath of James Meredith's enrollment as the first black student at the University of Mississippi on Oct. 1, 1962.  

I don't know how to break this to you but Kennedy didn't even carry Mississippi in 1960. It's not like he was a popular guy in the first place.

Kennedy's decision to send in federal troops was widely viewed a humiliation among white Mississippians, who bitterly opposed integration. It was a breach of state sovereignty and a slap in the face to the people. Well, it was a slap in the face to the white people, who were then the only people who mattered.  

Fair enough slam but given the reaction of Bostonians to forced busing over a decade later, this is an amusing anecdote at best. Apparently, what was good for a Bostonian to impose on Mississippi was not such a good idea when it applied to them. And THAT was the entire point.

While Kennedy, a liberal Catholic from Massachusetts, was never popular among white Mississippians, it wasn't until the troops descended on Oxford that he became a figure of burning resentment, even hatred. 

 Ah, the myth of the liberal Kennedy. The late Teddy White, who actually knew and admired JFK, wrote at the time that Kennedy was the perfect example of an "enlightened Tory" while Teddy represented the "unabashed liberal extreme." Kennedy was by no means a Reaganite, but he was not an Obama prototype, either. And dare I point out that Kennedy's views on civil rights apparently did not extend to the private life of Dr. Martin Luther King?

And so it was, on that awful November day, children too young to understand why their president should be hated, hated him anyway and cheered the tragedy, if only for a fleeting instant. 

They acted like innocent kids who don't understand death, you moron.

Are things so different today? 

No, kids are still kids. They've gotten stupider via the Smart phones but they're still kids.

There is a segment of our country that actively believes Obama not only isn't an American, but is decidedly anti-American.

Now why would that be, Slim?

1) His attending church for 20 years sitting under the instruction of an American-hating pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Either he never went to church or he heard that bozo spouting that stuff and implicitly approved.

2) His wife saying in 2008 after the Wisconsin primary that this was the first time she was proud of America?

3) His not even knowing how many states we have

4) His stated willingness to kill American citizens with drones outside of war zones

5) His ALWAYS siding with the black guy in a black/non-black situation (Henry Gates, Trayvon Martin)

I've got more, but you can chew on those for awhile.

 Considered from a view that can only be described as a function of paranoia,

In other words, all those things above combined don't really mean anything. Right?

 every policy has an ulterior motive, every act is a willful effort to destroy the Constitution and each move, no matter how innocuous it might appear, is a progression down the slippery slope to tyranny. 

Do you seriously think Barack Obama is the first President this has ever been said about? I heard the same things for eight years about George W Bush, starting with his election and continuing on into his retirement. The Patriot Act, the wiretaps, heck I even heard it said by many that the reason Bush failed to evacuate New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was because he hated black people. Sound familliar, Slim?

The government isn't simply inept, unresponsive or misguided: The Government is the enemy and Obama is the head of that government. 

You need to read more of the founding fathers if you think this is a recent sentiment.

Past presidents have been despised for being dishonest, immoral, inept or even pawns. But they have not been perceived as the enemy. 

You are out of your mind if you believe this. 

That status was once reserved for JFK and is now affixed to Obama. 

 Because they're Presidents and that is what happens to Presidents - period. It's not because Obama is black or a special case. 

Fifty years ago, children who had learned to hate a president at their parents' knee cheered when an assassin found his mark. 

I am not at all certain a similar event would not evoke a similar response today. 

It was shameful in 1963. 

That it could occur today, 50 years later, is all the more shameful.

Ah, here we go. You see, this is how it is with liberals. Since Barack Obama is darker skinned than Ronald Reagan, it is MORE shameful that someone might cheer if he was shot by an assassin. It's a bigger tragedy because those are the liberal rules of the game. Any non-white gets special status because of years of racism/slavery/tyranny that none of us now living had anything to do with. The fact is that it is no more (nor any less) of a shame than Kennedy's murder or Reagan's being shot. The only shame is that the Dispatch actually let this asinine column run.

Why We Know Lee Harvey Oswald Killed President John F. Kennedy

A week from tomorrow, the city of Dallas (and the country) will commemorate the 50th anniversary of one of the darkest days in American history, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy while riding in a motorcade in downtown Dallas. Whatever one's views of President Kennedy's politics or policies - which are far more conservative than today's Democratic Party that claims him, but I digress - the violent removal of the leader of the free world was a tragedy in every sense of the word, and it is merely good fortune (or God's grace) that has prevented a similar tragedy from befalling the nine Presidents since Kennedy was murdered. Unfortunately, the killing of the President has spawned an ugly industry endemic to capitalistic societies, the unparalleled ability to cash in on his demise. Virtually all of those making money pawn the story that a nefarious and unidentifiable conspiracy overseen by nameless powerful people in the government (or the Mafia) murdered Kennedy and covered it up. And polls show the ignorant American public that believed one could simultaneously implode the health insurance industry and yet leave their own insurance untouched truly believe a conspiracy killed Kennedy, with nearly three out of five Americans holding that view. Such polls do not indicate what Americans actually believe about the evidence but rather show that critical thinking is a lost art. The fact of the matter is that the only thing missing in the case that would prove Oswald killed the President is a video showing him firing the fatal shots. And one must surmise that in the post-Oliver Stone world that we would be informed that this video actually "proves" the conspiracy and was wisely made as a decoy to throw all but the "enlightened" off the scent.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and he did it by firing three shots from a manual, bolt-action rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. He then fled the scene of the crime, went back to his boarding house and obtained a pistol, murdered Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippitt, fled to a movie theatre and was apprehended after a scuffle with police. Less than 48 hours later, Oswald was murdered by a night club owner, Jack Ruby, who was given a life sentence and died in prison a few years later.

State your belief in this version today and the smug chuckles and shaking heads prepare to engage before bothering to think through the ramifications of their thought processes. So let's simply deal once again with the most common objections and lead all rational and clear-thinking persons to the only rational conclusion of Oswald's guilt.

Part of the problem is that when engaging people on this subject, they only want to talk about certain things. In short, they miss the forest for the trees. Objections are made regarding the timing of the shots, the killing of Oswald by Ruby, or the so-called "magic" bullet. Each of these are presented as fine points. NEVER are the objectors required to function in the same world where they must first present their entire case. Presenting the case for a conspiracy is so impossible that Oliver Stone had to make up a fictional composite character to make up the missing evidence and bring it all together. Keep in mind that ANY conspiracy theory must be held to the same standards as they impose on the lone gunman theory. In other words, it must not only hold up in the minutiae, it must also withstand scrutiny as an entire entity. And not one conspiracy theory can do this. So let's deal with the most obvious objections and why the counter-proposals simply will not suffice.

1. Oswald could not have fired the shots in the time allotted by the Warren Commission.

Other than the so-called "magic" bullet, this must be the most common objection: Oswald could not possibly have fired the shots. But all one has to do is do what nobody else seems to want to do, which is actually READ the Warren Commission testimony that has been online now for a number of years. One can probably recite the claim from memory given by Lou Ivon in the movie "JFK," that the Warren Commission establishes three shots in 5.6 seconds. The only problem is that they never did this. Read the conclusion for yourself from the last line of chapter two:

Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.

The 5.6 seconds was a general estimate drawn by conspiracy "researchers" misusing what was stated. In point of fact, the Warren Commission was never this precise because they couldn't be sure. The rest of their report notes that the time span may have been as high as 7.9 seconds. That amount of time would actually permit FOUR shots to be fired. The simple fact of the matter is that the entire conspiracy industry is built upon this lie and the lie about a "magic" bullet. Having dispensed with the one, let's evaluate the other one.

2. The Magic Bullet was concocted to explain away the wounds of Kennedy and Connally.

The so-called magic bullet is also a myth. Nobody ever said any such thing other than conspiracy buffs. What the buffs are talking about is the late Arlen Specter's proposal that a "single bullet" caused the wounds to both Kennedy and Connally. It should be noted that this theory was not invented in order to find Oswald guilty; it was invented because there was not one shred of evidence of a fourth shot and the wounds had to be accounted for. When Kevin Costner said "we have come to know it as the magic bullet" and then extrapolated on it, he never bothered to mention that we had come to know it by that name not by the Warren Commission but by conspiracy buffs erecting a straw man. Pictures long ago showed that Kennedy and Connally were not right in front of each other but were somewhat diagonally. That is unless you think the pictures were also invented, in which case this rational discussion is not for you and perhaps a comic book can alleviate your irrationality.

WHAT ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS MUST ULTIMATELY EXPLAIN

The principle of Ockham's Razor basically says that the easiest explanation is most probably correct. Rarely are the tables turned on the conspiracy buffs, who excel in asking rhetorical questions but then invent answers that are more irrational than if the "magic bullet" were reality. Keep in mind the following things must all be explained rationally to exonerate Oswald:

1) Why was his palm print on the weapon?

Oliver Stone got around this via an incredibly ridiculous solution - just take the gun to the morgue and press his hand on it. Stone is apparently unaware that dead man do not perspire and thus do not make fingerprints but then again Stone is unaware of a number of rational things anyway.

2) Why did Oswald flee the Texas School Book Depository?

OK, this one might be rationally answered by trying to argue that Oswald figured work would be cancelled for the day, the very reason he gave the police. But this begs the question as to how Oswald even knew the President had been shot since he was not part of any group of people watching the motorcade. His whereabouts are unaccounted for yet he somehow knew the President had been shot. Furthermore, it proves (with the next question) why one cannot merely cherry pick small points of data without constructing a larger picture of the entire assassination.

3) Why did Oswald kill Officer Tippit?

This is the question upon which every "Oswald as patsy" conspiracy theory hinges: at some point you have to explain why Oswald killed Tippit. And the explanations given are legendary and have not one shred of evidence to back them up. Furthermore, it is indisputable that Oswald killed Tippit. It was only seen by ten different witnesses, most of whom identified Oswald (not all were taken to a line-up). If you hold that Oswald fired the weapon but was part of a conspiracy, you still must explain Tippit. The reasons are somewhat less rational than the "magic bullet" that never was: Oswald didn't kill Tippit, Tippit was part of the conspiracy (though they never say what), Tippit was supposed to kill Oswald and got hit instead, even that Tippit and Oswald were involved with the same woman. Sure that makes sense. Oswald just happens to leave work the same minute the President is killed, goes back to his boarding house, and then just happens to run into a guy he knows is fooling around with the same woman he is. Makes perfect sense. Not.

4) Why did Oswald fight with the police in the theatre?

Maybe I should summarize each of these points with a rhetorical question: if Oswald was innocent, why did he take so many actions that only a guilty person would have taken? How did Oswald know the cops were after him? Because he killed Kennedy and Tippit. Why did Oswald enter the theatre without paying? Because he was desperate to get into the dark and hide because he was being pursued for Tippit's murder.

In short, we know Oswald killed Kennedy because he had the weapon, the site, and he acted like the most guilty man alive. RIP President Kennedy.

Setting The Record Straight On Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy"

Surfing the Internet and came across more brain-dead claptrap, the kind of nonsense that historical revisionists tout. Decided it was time to have a little fun.

Southern Strategy Not Working

The Republican Party’s infamous “Southern Strategy” is dying out, and that’s a good thing.

Especially if you're a brain-dead liberal Democrat like Brian Gilmore, who probably has never held a private sector job in his entire life.

The re-election of Barack Obama as president with a multiracial coalition from all sections of the country is evidence that the appeal to race is finally becoming a losing hand.

Shouldn't the FIRST election of Barack Obama proven that? And by the way dingle dorph, how many Southern states did Obama carry this time around?

Richard Nixon was the first to implement the Southern Strategy.

Actually, the Southern Strategy goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat albeit one who would be a Republican nowadays. But this doesn't fit his propaganda. Realizing most of his readers are dumber than he is, Gilmore simply throws out this kind of nonsense. And let me tell you something - he doesn't even get the Southern Strategy right.

The idea was to get whites to vote Republican by appealing to their racial impulses.

And make no mistake, this was a fantastic idea in 1968. After all, the Voting Rights Act had just been passed and you could carry the state simply by saying the N word all over TV. What's that you say? Nixon never did that? Fortunately, the Republican Party had a rabble rousing racist named George Wallace. What's that you say? Wallace was, in fact, a Democrat?

 Lyndon Johnson had predicted that the traditionally Democratic South would go Republican after he signed the Voting Rights Act, and that’s what happened

Lyndon Johnson also said he wasn't going to send American boys to fight Asian wars. And does Gilmore want to take a look at actual EVIDENCE? Quick, what states come to mind FIRST when you want to talk about blacks, whites, and racism? QUICKLY!!! That's right - Alabama and Mississippi. So taking a look at the actual vote totals:

MISSISSIPPI
George Wallace 63.4%
Hubert Humphrey 23%
Richard Nixon 13.5%

ALABAMA
George Wallace 65.8%
Hubert Humphrey 18.7%
Richard Nixon 13.99%

Hmmm. So by appealing to racist impulses, Richard Nixon.......finished in THIRD in the most racist states in the South and lost 6 out of every 7 votes in both states. He also finished third in Louisiana and lost both Georgia and Arkansas to Wallace. Obviously the Nixon racist strategy was an incredible success: he went 0 for 5 in the (presumed) most racist states in America. This no doubt would be a winning strategy for anybody!!!

George Wallace, the arch-segregationist from Alabama, was key to the strategy’s birth.

So two racists competing for racist votes (and thus necessarily splitting them) is a guarantee for success? I hope this clown isn't a political strategist.

Wallace, who ran for president in 1968 on a third-party ticket, gathered 13 percent of the vote.

Nationally he did, but you can't make that comparison. It's apples and oranges. If you're going to allege something specific to the SOUTH, you can only count SOUTHERN votes. And about half of Wallace's 9 million votes were from the South.

But Nixon was still able to win half the Southern states, while Wallace won the other half (except Texas).

Nothing like something that proves the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you allege to demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. Why did Nixon win half of the Southern states? It was NOT because of racism; it was because of something called the Vietnam War. The South provided a high proportion of soldiers to that war, and they wanted it won or done rather than the sitting on the ball strategy of LBJ.

 In 1972, Nixon won the entire South.

In 1972, Nixon won the entire nation except for Massachusetts. Don't try to con me, bozo.

Over the years, the Southern Strategy evolved.

Who won the 1976 election, Brian? Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the narrative, so you edit that part out. It was Jimmy Carter, folks. Incidentally, Carter won EVERY Southern state except Virginia. He deliberately pursued a Southern strategy, but I don't see anybody talking about that.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan announced that he was running for president in Philadelphia, Miss., the same city where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964 during Freedom Summer.

You're an idiot, Brian. If you're going to simply parrot talking points then at least get them right. Reagan was already the Republican nominee when he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi on August 4, 1980. He "announced that he was running for President" on November 13, 1979.


 Reagan spoke about states’ rights in his speech. The racial message was obvious.

It sure was. Look at what he said that - for some reason - never gets mentioned when "states rights" are invoked by liberals like Gilmore:

I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others, that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of statement].

I believe in state's rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there

Now please tell me - what is so wrong with the basic philosophy here? Even if you don't agree with it, why don't any of the pundits who use the shorthand ever get it right? I realize thinking is hard - that's why so people bother to do it. But all Reagan is saying is he's going to turn things like education back to the states. This is NOT a hard concept to understand.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush surged ahead of Michael Dukakis by using the notorious Willie Horton ad.

Actually, this is more unadulterated nonsense. First of all, Bush NEVER ran a Willie Horton ad. I repeat - Bush NEVER ran a Willie Horton ad. Secondly, Dukakis DID run an ad about Angel Medrano, a Hispanic killer of Patsy Pedrin. So doesn't this mean Dukakis hates Hispanics? Thirdly, Gilmore has his chronology wrong, not that he cares. Bush took over Dukakis after the Convention but before the Labor Day commercial blitz began. And finally, does Gilmore know that Dukakis himself was in Philadelphia, MS on August 4, 1988, and didn't even bother to mention to the nearly all-white crowd about the infamous murders there?

 The campaign spot played to white fears by using the release of a black man on parole from prison.

Once again, Bush never ran any such commercial. The commercial Gilmore has been programmed to talk about is one that was actually run by an Independent group headed by Floyd Brown. So good did Bush and Brown get along that in 1991, Bush sued Brown after the latter ran a commercial attacking the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee that were going to sit in judgment of Clarence Thomas. And what was Dukakis appealing to? White hatred of Hispanics?

Now notice the time jump. No mention of the commercial where James Byrd's surviving daughter's voice shows up in an NAACP commercial depicting Byrd being tied to the back of a truck and dragged down the road. Why no mention? Oh that's right, because that was a Democratic commercial. And why doesn't Gilmore bother to mention that the Willie Horton escapade was discovered when Democratic Senator Al Gore mentioned the incident during a debate in the 1988 New York primary? Oh that's right - only Republicans are racist despite the evidence. Got it.

In April 2010, then-Republican Party chairman, Michael Steele, an African-American, acknowledged that the party had pursued the Southern Strategy for 40 years.

Michael Steele, who had nothing to do with any of it and was not on the inside apologized for something he knew nothing about. Just like the current President does.

In this latest presidential election, the strategy was present again.

It sure was. It's why Herman Cain was called the N word by Republicans and sent packing. What's that? Oh, you mean he won the Florida straw poll of mostly white voters? Or perhaps he's referring to Harry Reid's comments about how Obama doesn't talk like a real black man?

During the GOP primaries, candidate Newt Gingrich rarely passed up an opportunity to refer to Obama as the “food stamp” president.

So pointing out the FACT that 44.7 million Americans are on food stamps is now racist? But blaming Bush for it, of course, is ok.


Mitt Romney even managed to sneak in two references to food stamps during one of the presidential debates — actually, the one on foreign policy.

A President's record is fair game, Brian. Not that you would know anything about that.

In August at a campaign rally, Romney joked to an audience there that “no one ever asked me for my birth certificate.”

So what? Were jokes about Sarah Palin - who never said anything about seeing Alaska from her house - sexist?

 That was a crass reference to the unfounded controversy surrounding Obama’s birthplace.

Yes, and so what? You think jokes are not permitted?

John Sununu, an adviser to the Romney campaign, commented that Obama needed to “learn how to be an American.”

Given how many lies and fabrications you've told here, Brian, please give me a link to this one. I'd like to know the context.

In the end, the country rejected these low appeals,

In the end, the good-looking guy won just like happens in high school. Point?

just as the vast majority of Americans are rejecting the new secessionists who have surfaced after the election.

The vast majority of Americans once favored the Iraq War, too, Brian. Citing popularity is the dumbest argument a moron can make.

These are tremendously positive signs for the United States.

Positive signs? We feel good about ourselves!!!

Negative signs? We're in debt out the wazoo, the current President is on a power trip, and his Cabinet doesn't even want to stay on the job despite there being no jobs out there.

 Now, almost 150 years since the end of the Civil War, we are at last putting the stain of race behind us.


A lot of us did earlier, Brian. But then again a lot of us lived life and saw things and didn't regurgitate every wrong point we were told in a political science class on a liberal university campus, either.