As many of you know I watch WAAAY too many movies.  And I don't RE-watch very many.  The Replacements and Horse Feathers at the beginning of football season, some standards at Holloween and a few classics at Christmas.  But for 2012 I'm going to hit my top 100 list from flickchart.com, more or less from the bottom up, with a few exceptions.  Some movies will be taken out of order to to subject matter.  The Longest Day will be viewed sometime around June 6.  Henry V will be screened around October 25th, etc.  And sice the list changes occasionally (movies moving up and down and new movies being added) there mightbe a few more or less than 100. 

I'm actually looking forward to it.  Hope you enjoy the ride and maybe find a new favorite or two for yourself.

Tne New Mexico Bowl.  Not a biggie, but there are WORSE rewards for a mediocre season.  And besides, NM is the home state of MY pick for the Republican presidential nomination.  Temple v Wyoming.  Two classic uniforms IF they go standard.  The 'Boys have been know to get a bit ... odd ... this season.  But the RoughRiders come close.  Temple favored by 7.  Sounds about right.

The Famous Idaho Potato(e) Bowl!  Hey guys, we played hard all year long and as a reward we're going to send you to Idaho in mid-December.  Maybe THAT'll make you work a little harder next season in two-a-days.  Utah State -1 1/2 over Ohio.  Father Murphy vs a perrannial party  school.  Sharp clean Navy and White vs BFBS.  Take Utah State and lay the points, unless you're betting on the halftime, in which case take the Marching 110.

And finally we go to New Orleans.  Sadly, it's NOT the Sugar Bowl.  It's the New Orleans Bowl wihich features San Diego State (wife's favorite team - the Aztec's, with that cool color gradiant helmet) vs University of SouthWestern Lousiana.  OK, that's what it USED to be called - it's Lousiana - Lafayette with one of MY favorite mascots (and one of Norman Chad's) - the Rajin' Cajuns!  SDSU is favored by 4.  They';; probably cover.

AWESOME if true!  In my newsfeed last night about 11pm (I turned in early)

Spending bill blocks light bulb standards. “The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department’s standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient. DOE’s light bulb rules — authorized under a 2007 energy law authored signed by President George W. Bush — would start going into effect Jan. 1. The rider will prevent DOE from implementing the rules through Sept. 30.”

So if this works, what will I do with my closet full of incandescent bulbs? Er, use ‘em, just like I would have anyway. But it’s great if we can scuttle the idiotic bulb-ban.

Plus, an interesting take from a Democratic Congressman: “It’s the power of Michele Bachmann and the presidential campaign.”

 More here.

with an assist from the smartest man in the gaaxy.

Here’s part of what the clownish Empire State  Senator recently had to say about fiscal policy, as reported by a Washington Post columnist.

Schumer said, “…Republicans came in and said, `We can solve your problem by shrinking government’…We tried their theory…The American people resent government paralysis, but most of them would say that government is doing too little to help them, not too much.”

What’s remarkable about this statement is that it’s so inaccurate that we can’t even decipher what he means. I’ve come up with three possible interpretations of what he might have been trying to say, and they’re all wrong.

1. He’s referring to GOP actions this year. This interpretation might make partial sense because the House Republicans have made a few semi-serious efforts to shrink government, but how can Schumer say “we tried their theory” when every Republican initiative was blocked by the Senate and Obama?

The Ryan budget died of malign neglect since the Senate didn’t even bother to produce a budget, and Republican efforts on the 2011 spending levels and the debt limit also were stymied, resulting at best in kiss-your-sister deals.

2. He’s referring to GOP actions during the Bush Administration. This interpretation might make some sense because the GOP did control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, but does Schumer understand that “shrinking government” was not part of the Republican agenda during those years?

But don’t believe me. The numbers from the Historical Tables of the Budget unambiguously show that the federal budget almost doubled during the Bush years because of huge increases in domestic spending.

3. He’s referring to GOP actions during the 1990s. This interpretation actually does make sense because the burden of the public sector did shrink as a share of GDP during the Clinton years when Republicans controlled Congress, so it would be accurate to say “we tried their theory.”

But what was so bad about the era of spending restraint during the 1990s? The economy expanded and people were better off, in large part because, to quote Schumer, government was “doing too little to help them.”

Heck, the Clinton-GOP Congress years were so good that it's been suggested during a debate on national TV, that we to go back to Clinton’s higher tax rates if it meant we also could undo all the reckless spending of the Bush-Obama years.

above from Big Government.com

Now, about the POTUS:

Forbes breaks down the Teddy Roosevelt speech thus:

Best Matchup:

Of course the title game is great, it just shouldn't BE. That's all.  Other good matchups include the Fiesta Bowl (Okie State v Stanford), Rose (Wisconsin v Oregon).  Best of the best.  Some watchable games include SC v Nebraska (SEC V Big ?), Northern Ill v Arkansas State (they both suck, but they it's an evenly matched suck) and believe it or not Purde v Western Michigan (and sadly, WMU wins!)

Games not worth watching?  Oklahoma will DISMANTLE Iowa.  It will be VERY ugly.  Same for Texam A&M vs Northwestern if only becasue TAM is going into the SEC and we all know whatTHAT means.  And Missouri vs North Carolina.  Another romp.  Rounding out the unwatchable games are such gawdawful matchups as the Beef o Brady bowl (Florida Int'l v Marshall), New Orleans (LaLafayette vs Sand Diego State) and the Idaho freakin Potato Bowl (Utah State vs Ohio in their new fugly black unis.)

Picks to follow on a regular basis.

"I suggest you dial 1-800-REALITY."

From Professor Reynolds:

BEYOND “BLAME BUSH:” Obama Adds Bill Clinton To List of Those to Blame for Lousy Economy.

All Obama’s trying to do here is give himself a bigger excuse for the fact that his own policies have completely failed. After all, how can anyone expect him to produce strong growth after decades of economic mismanagement?

“I’ve always believed that this was a long-term project,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft, and that it “was gonna take more than a year. It was gonna take more than two years.”

The problem is that, once upon a time, Obama was saying pretty much the exact opposite. Examples:

• On Feb. 2, 2009, Obama told the “Today Show” that “a year from now I think people are gonna see that we’re starting to make some progress,” and that “if I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

On Feb. 12, 2009, he predicted that his $830 billion stimulus would “ignite spending by businesses and consumers” and unleash “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction … all across America.”

• On Feb. 26, 2009, Obama’s first budget projected that by 2011 the economy would be cooking ahead at 4% real GDP growth, with unemployment at 7.1% and falling fast.

• On Feb. 7, 2010, he said “we are seeing the corner turn and the economy growing again.”

• On June 4, 2010, Obama claimed the “economy is getting stronger by the day” and later that month said the recovery was “well under way.”

It was only when the agonizingly slow pace of the recovery became obvious to everyone that Obama started pleading for patience and looking for someone or something else to blame.

scrolling through their T-shirts.  This one's available.  It makes me laugh. Alot.  Out Loud.  Repeatedly.

Facts can be pesky things.  And memoires.  But the inter-webs have marvelous curative properties.

In Sunday's interview with Steve Kroft on "Sixty Minutes" POTUS observed that he "didn't overpromise" and that he "doesn't control the weather."

Talk about learning on the job!  Back in August 2009, the Obama White House put out its updated economic forecast. Now, this was after the $800 billion stimulus had passed and, technically, after the Great Recession had ended. Here is where the White House thought the economy was headed over the next few years.” Hint: Not where we wound up. “Talk about overpromising. According to the 2009 Obama forecast, 2011 was supposed to start a five-year mini-boom where GDP growth averaged 4 percent, taking the unemployment rate down below 6 percent by 2014. But few outside economists are so rosy today. The latest Wall Street Journal survey of economists predicts the unemployment rate will still be above 7 percent through 2014 with GDP growth averaging a subpar 2.5 percent. The White House explanation is that no one knew back in 2009 how bad the Great Recession really was. Indeed, instead of contracting by 2.8 percent in 2009, as indicated in the above chart, GDP actually contracted by 3.5 percent. Yet even after 2009, the White House continued to be strangely bullish.”

And then there's this:  February 2009: Obama Vows To Cut The Deficit In Half By End Of His “First Term.”

And who can foget the night he got the nomination?  It was he who said he would heal the planet and tame the rising seas. HE set the standard. HE made the promises. 

How soon he forgets.  Or at least assumes we will.

the Earls have gotten the number 1 seed.  Saves me about 3 points a game.  We'll see if it makes a difference.

Meanwhile, over in The Bigs:

NFC:  Green Bay, San Francisco, New Orleans (MAN I wanna see the Saints beat the Niners.  Too many years of beating in the old NFC West)  and either Detroit or Atlanta.  And it won't matter which.  

AFC:  Texans and Ravens for the title.  T J Yates can keep getting it done.  Steelers and Patriots to round out the field.

Packers and Texans in the SB???  Maybe, if Houston can get home field over the Ravens.