Wow, how time flies

Apparently slogging through the daily dirge of life hasn't been quite a challenge lately. No posts in half of a year leads me to believe that I'm either too busy living life to write about it, or I've just not had anything profound to say. Whatever the case, life has indeed been plentiful as of late. The end of October brought the birth of our first child, a little girl! Marley Anastasia is a beaut, and we couldn't be more blessed to have such a great child. Adjusting hasn't been a problem at all, especially since we have a fantastic support network (marketroid speak for family).

Work is busy and the holidays were great. Family came to town, and we lived it up. I had joined Glo's no-drinking deal during the pregnancy, but with Marley now with us, we've allowed ourselves to relive some of our old favorite beers. Glo loves her beers ya know, and I'm not one to shy away either. In 2008, stay tuned for more posts to my Big Beers blog. I've had a number of goodies recently, and I plan to finally make my first brew as well, so I'll be sure to post on that.

I'm looking forward to the coming year. More time watching Marley grow, and I have my eyes on the next level in triathlon. With three sprint races under my belt, I'm finally ready for Olympic distance. There ... I put it in writing, so I guess I'm committed now. I'll do the BasilDocs sprint race again, and there's a distinct possibility that I'll also do the Georgetown Half-Marathon (another goal of mine that I'm finally ready to tackle).

Sorry for the lack of witticisms and political posturing in this post ... with the election year finally here, we'll have plenty of time for those rants.

WWN Days 3 and 4 -- Dodging A Bullet

It's 7/7/7 folks. On a day that I thought only the Sweet brothers and their Stryper bandmates could get excited about, I'm getting the impression they aren't alone in getting all atwitter over today. But I won't harp on that, because I've been guilty on more than one occasion of watching the clock tick to 1:23 p.m. (I still maintain that's not as goofy as staying up until 1:09 a.m. ... the 69th minute of the day, Beavis!).

Okay, so I promised examples of decent journalism, and today's entry comes from an online news source. I bookmarked this in May in anticipation of this year's WWN, recognizing that this story fit the model of the type of stuff they taught us in school (you know -- the stuff few follow anymore).

A shining example of "Man Bites Dog," this story is almost too crazy to believe. No, it's not one of those "News of the Weird" headlines that make for interesting Darwin Awards fodder, but are a little too sensational to be considered news. This is the type of stuff that makes even the most ardent skeptics wonder if there's more to life than the science that creates and destroys it. Check it out:

http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=70980

And for the record, I expect this dude to eventually be Colorado's first Powerball winner ... he certainly deserves it.

I could get into the minutia of how and why this story represents proper journalism, but I'll stick with a few general points instead. The headline properly summarizes the main point of the story (I can't tell you how often I read a headline that speaks to details that aren't addresses until the seventh paragraph of the story ... not good). The lead paragraph is almost perfect (the "thanks to..." bit is a little editorial), serving the simple purpose it has been assigned. Better yet, the follow-up paragraph builds on this AND tells the reader exactly why this story is so unique. Then it goes directly into a quote, which does its job of supporting the preceding paragraph. All told, the story sticks to the prototypical model that all journalists are taught.

We could discuss other mechanical elements of the story that are in line with standards, but I've already made this dry enough. The real point I want to make about this is the news can and does report on murders, violent crimes, etc., all day long, but this story here is the one example of why such a crime is news. The majority of other stories are just crap and, in my opinion, the result of lazy journalism and an underachieving news desk.

I'm not saying a community should turn a blind eye to what happens in their cities, but you reach a certain population size where reporting on drive-bys, gang violence, murder, etc., no longer makes much sense, at least not in an ad hoc fashion. In fact, perpetually focusing on these types of stories brings about (wait for it, wait for it) -- desensitization. There, I said it. But I'm not going to get into it, because at the end of the day, you either believe densensitization is real or not. I would even argue that the net effect isn't as passive as densensitization. Quite frankly, I think an incessant flow of news into the brain warps our perspectives and shapes our opinions in unnatural ways. But ahhhhh, I've strayed ... mea culpa and all that.

So instead of choosing to randomly cover various acts of violence in isolation, I again say the news needs to dig deeper. Look at this stuff in aggregate -- "What are we doing as a community to curb violence?" "What progress has the police made with breaking down drug rings, gang factions?" "Which individuals are making a real difference with unique, unselfish contributions that help bring positive change to their communities?" (the latter always gets buried at the end of a newscast, and is delivered in too fluffy of a manner).

Perhaps I'm just a snob for substantive news analysis or I just can't accept that the media became bored with doing things the old way. Obviously, we can't do away with the down and dirty hard news, but I will always maintain that how that news is selected, packaged and delivered makes all the difference.

To their credit, 9News has a winner with this story ... let's see more of it.

"WWN" -- Drugs are bad, m'kay!

What can the media do to report more effectively on drugs in America? Or have we already looked at this topic from every single angle to the point that we've worn it raw?

Bringing a personal note to this topic, I have a 27-year-old nephew who continues to go in and out of prison thanks to an insatiable heroin addiction (Insatiable addiction? Is there any other kind?). I have two sisters who are in their late 40s and are finally getting their lives back on track after decades of various addictions (coke, crack, prescription meds, meth). One is four years' sober, and the other just hit the one-year sobriety mark ... for that, I'm quite proud and hopeful for their futures. And finally, dad was an alcoholic who died at the age of 55, partially due to the alcohol abuse.

We all know the Nuclear Family concept is largely a myth these days, so my experiences are not uncommon unfortunately. As such, I feel somewhat justified in calling out drugs as a universal topic warranting more attention. However, to date, the media tends to focus only on effects, and rarely causes.

Case in point -- each day you can see headlines as they pertain to gang violence, murders, drug busts, etc. Rarely do we get right down to the drug culture in America, and by that I mean the 'entire' culture, from the illicit to the prescribed. We're not dedicating any ink to understanding this problem from a macro level, again because it's easier to only report on a tactical, case-by-case basis.

I don't really blame the media for not going gangbusters on this, because I think we can agree that once you start to peel back a few layers, you'll find one massive elephant that's too large to be ignored. More specifically, any honest and comprehensive look at America's drug culture would have to include:

- How the big drug companies go about business
- How our federal government supports their interests ahead of its citizens
- How we've created an environment whereby mommy and daddy's pot phase just morphs into their painkiller phase
- The types of ethical sacrifices and shady deals law enforcement agencies have to make for the greater good of citizens

I know I'm bordering on propaganda with these comments, but these are collectively just the tip of the iceberg. There are too many variables to list in one blog, but suffice to say that we don't treat this topic with enough priority. It's the "skeleton in the closet" type stuff that no self-respecting Stepford would ever want to air out in public. Much like one would never say the names of fatal diseases out loud in the first half of the 20th century, no one wants to own this weight publicly or in a community fashion. The result is we internalize the topic, bury it and, worse yet, tend to view and analyze it in a myopic way (e.g., "No one understands this pain.").

Case in point #2 -- I quit discussing my nephew's addiction with him a long time ago, and I barely talk with my sisters about their own experiences. Are there questions I want to ask and things I'd like to say and should say? To the extent that they would open a meaningful and helpful dialog, most definitely.

I get the sense that the media has done extensive and extended coverage of these topics, but because they lack that enduring "right now" news factor, coverage remains a bit too transient. I'm also willing to bet that no one has done a complete job of covering the drug culture from soup to nuts. My speculation is risky, I know, which is why I once again call upon any readers to enlighten me to anything they've read in the press. Point being, there are more critical topics to pursue, and better ways of looking at news that's been done to death.

Coincidentally, the two topics I've presented thus far (steroids in baseball, drugs in America) are obviously linked, and they speak to an even bigger issue. Can you guess what it is? Yup, America has a self-image problem. Anyone want to tackle that one?

"WWN" Days One and Two

Not that I've become an apologist for the national media, but I've obviously spent some time trying to figure out why things have degraded over time (I do more than simply bitch about things, ya know). No surprise that everything comes back to economics:

- Newspapers and their staffs have shrunk along with advertising revenue
- Magazines are little more than a loose network of free-lance writers
- Cable news networks have to invent and editorialize to fill 24 hours
- Online sites have to cater to the lowest common denominator to secure high traffic

When TIME magazine lays off senior staff and brings interns in to handle their duties, then you know the (pardon the pun) times are a changin'. Although, I suppose some could argue that magazines, cable news networks and online sites have always wrestled these issues (but clearly it's worse today than it has ever been).

Newspapers are the real victim here, and believe it or not, I find myself bummed about that. For one, they represent tradition. As you know, before the digital age, papers were THE source. And even today, they appear to be the last bastion for substantive reporting. In my last post, I said there were some stories I'd like to highlight, and not coincidentally, most of these were from newspapers.

We'll get to those in the coming days, since I found it refreshing that a few journalists and editors still care to do this thing the right way. And despite the fact that wire stories increase their ink domination in most metropolitan newspapers each day, your local scoop reporter isn't dead yet.

For today, in the interest of touching on the "topics we should be focusing on", I'd like to hit on this notion of substantive reporting. Back in the day, journalists were taught to write for the 30-minute reader, 3-minute reader and 30-second reader. With the digital age, we've moved it down to the 3-second reader, so obviously we've lowered the bar even further.

The result is you have a dearth of articles that transcend the 'sexy' and 'bizarre.' Again, it's a lowest-common-denominator world, and we're just living in it. So, what we get are a slew of basic, wire-fodder pieces about whatever trend or topic is occupying us at the time, but few, if any, stories that dig deeper. Instead of hardcore news analysis, we get re-directed to the editorial pages or whatever beat columinist has a 'take' on the matter. All of that is fine, but there was a time when news did more than just placate our strange desire for the headline and lead paragraph. It made us think, it did the research for us and it gave us plenty more to question and process.

I mentioned Barry Bonds before, and this is one of those timely topics that speaks to things I think we ought to be focusing on. Purely my opinion, and I completely realize that a number of people could care less about sports (not to mention the fact that the over-saturation of Barry would prevent a number of people from considering yet another Barry story). But it's not the notion of Barry or steroids or baseball that has prompted me to raise this; there's nothing intrinsic about these elements that warrant merit or attention. It's the fact that this is such a great example of the media completely missing the point, or better yet, the meat of the story.

Let's get right down to it -- Barry Bonds is a pariah. Not a victim, but a pariah, and Major League Baseball is more than happy to accept that. What's more, the media is just as satisfied to let Bonds be the focus of their news. Now, I'd never excuse Barry's personal responsibility in all this, but I have to tell you that if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't own up to it either. Not because I don't have integrity or because I don't care about the fans, but because MLB has put Barry in a no-win situation. If he comes clean, he has to own the entire weight of baseball's steroid era, while MLB gets a free pass. Unfortunately, that part has already been written in the history books, regardless of what Barry does from here on out.

But the fact remains that MLB created this environment, allowed it to exist (some would say, supported it), and was all-too happy to sell out America's National Pastime for the sake ratings and attendance. Today, they are mum on the matter, and I find it absolutely shocking that more journalists aren't taking the league to task over this whole thing. The focus has been and continues to be on individual players, and to me that's the sucker's way out. It's easy for writers to focus on icons of the game and all the tactical matters that surround each. It's a much bigger mountain to climb when you start talking about the system and all of the things that go on behind closed doors.

And let's face it ... the media knows it will have an easier time selling stories about what Barry injects in his ass than pieces that attempt to deconstruct the minds and secrets of Bud Selig and Donald Fehr. Barry's drama will always outweigh that of the establishment, particularly in light of the variables at play here -- namely the fact that Barry is poised to break the most sacred record in baseball.

Interestingly, that record is precisely why steroids and Barry are issues in baseball and NOT in any of the other major sports. If an unlikable guy in the NFL were about to break storied records, you can bet that questions would be raised, deserved or not.

Bottom line here -- if we have to accept that the media is going to go ga-ga over various topics, then is it too much to ask for a little substance? And from a business point of view, wouldn't it behoove a news outlet or two to step up to the plate and deliver this type of reporting on a consistent and priority basis, considering how competitive the industry is? For the record, the crap you see on Dateline, 20-20, etc., doesn't count. The pieces are too editorial (just listen to the reporter's inflections when narrating the 'news'); they're riddled with the same scare-tactic crap you find on the local news; and the facts are hand-picked to support the position, instead of the position reflecting the total facts.

If you come across good examples, I'd love to see them. In the interest of being 'fair and balanced', I'd like to highlight these stories as often as possible.

2nd Annual "Week Without News"

Nancy Grace Needs a Time-Out
It's that time again kiddies ... as Independence Day approaches, so doth my freedom to withdraw from all things mass media-related for seven days straight. That's right, it's time for "A Week Without News." For those who are unfamiliar with why I decided to do this, you can get the skinny here.

What: 2nd Annual "A Week Without News"
When: July 4 through July 10
Why: "Because you're Kelly, Kelly, Kelly" ... er, I mean to demonstrate that the world does not revolve around shocking news delivered by some well-coiffed talking head.
How: Should you choose to accept this mission, simply avoid all forms of media for the next seven days (it's more difficult than you think). Consider it your own little protest against the incessant march of Paris Hilton Pimpin'/Barry Bonds Bashin'/Metro Murder Mayhem infotainment.

Last year, my daily blog posts focused on the experience of avoiding all forms of media, from morning radio and newspapers to online news sites and TV broadcasts. I also did some of my usual anti-media barking, all of which I still stand behind, but this year I want to take a somewhat different approach. Each day, I'm going to highlight an example of news reporting done right or a story or topic we should be focusing on, rather than merely consuming what we're fed.

Now, obviously I'm using editorial license to handpick these stories, so when I say what "we 'should' be focusing on," it's just my opinion. And actually, when you think about it, in that sense the only thing that separates me from a news editor is the title. At the end of the day, these folks have to make an editorial call on what makes the news and what doesn't. Of course, that's all remedial, motherhood crap we're all familiar with, but I thought it was ironic just the same.

One thing to note this time around -- I'm kicking this off a couple of weeks earlier this year. Last time I mentioned the existence of a national day of media boycott on July 4. So, in honor of that event, I'm starting this and all subsequent 'weeks without news' on Independence Day.

Also, as I've mentioned previously, I do this thing for myself. I obviously don't expect everyone to place the same priority as I do on such a subject. However, I welcome everyone's feedback, comments, and above all else, participation. If you feel as I do, then I look forward to you joining me each year. Or, if you prefer, simply show your displeasure in whatever manner you deem appropriate (so long as it doesn't include Joan Rivers, pickled herring and a sock).

And on a final note, during the last year, I was surprised to come across a few instances of journalists doing their jobs correctly. I hope to share some of those stories with you this time around, and of course I'd love to hear your own thoughts on things you think should be covered more, so add comments at will.

J'aime la bière

I was trading emails with my bro-in-law today, and I suggested the possibility of jointly creating a blog on beer. No, it wouldn't be an original endeavor, but given that it's a topic near and dear to our hearts, I think it's something I could personally benefit from. After all ... so many beers, so little time. Which is to say when I go to the store in search of new brews, I'd prefer to go off a recommendation.

Now, I've posted on the topic of beer in the past. And those who know me, know that both my wife and I are big into beer. Ironically, to date I've never attempted to brew my own. Always meant to, but best laid plans and all. Fortunately, that's all about to change. I recentlly re-connected with an old college buddy who worked the entertainment desk with me at Chez Collegian, and let's just say he knows his stuff, having brewed just about everything and everywhere (even Japan).

He probably doesn't realize what he's getting himself into, but he's going to take me under his wing, show me the ropes and in the process, likely create a monster. Needless to say, I'm excited to finally give it a try. For starters, I'm going to go watch him run through a batch. I'm also reading up on several recommended sources, so hopefully it won't be a totally hopeless effort once the time comes. Speaking of, the one deal I made with myself was to clean up the storage room in the basement before brewing. Part of that is out of necessity really -- unless I clean up, I'll have no space in the basement.

So, while we wait for this blessed day to arrive, I want to share with you a couple of things. First, is the current Flying Dog Brewery contest. Coloradans and select aficionados will recognize Flying Dog as the brewery that Ralph Steadman lends his talents to (his artwork adorns their labels); the late, great Hunter S. was a big fan as well (the Gonzo Imperial Porter was possibly the best local brew of the last year ... the good doctor would approve). The brewery is looking to the public to name its upcoming summer brew (yeah, it's still winter, but you know how planning goes). It's going to be a Belgian White (you had me at Belgian). So, if you're interested in putting pen to paper and have some creative ideas, submit your best. A basic understanding of Flying Dog's history and current selection of beers might help.

And finally, I discovered something interesting that I hadn't realize about Samuel Adams. While I knew it offered a broader selection of beers for a mass-market brewery, I didn't know it dabbled in special releases or big beers (extreme beers, as it calls them). Come to find out (courtesy of The History Channel's Modern Marvels: Brewing episode) that not only does the brewery churn out some unique crafts, it holds the Guinness record for the world's biggest beer -- 25 percent ABV. It's called Utopias, and you can take in all it's glory here. Don't ask me how to find one, as I haven't discovered the answer yet (short of paying some eBay hack $440).

Not Irish After All?

When it comes to luck, I have none. Never have, and probably never will.

Lottery tickets? I might as well flush the cash down the toilet, or simply call it a charitable donation.

Even simple things like door prizes and raffles escape me. I could literally purchase 90% of the available raffle tickets and still not win a thing. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal really. I think I'll survive even if I never know the thrill of winning a $25 Country Buffet gift certificate or a lifetime supply of Turtle Wax.

But what bugs me the most about this whole deal is the fact that my sports teams always fare poorly, and I take full responsibility for that. Maybe it has to do with my choice of teams, but since the late '70s, my favorite squads have netted a paltry four championships. Worse yet, only one of those championships has come in the last 21 years.

The Raiders have been bad for a long, long time, and the fact that they even made the Super Bowl in 2003 is a complete anomaly (as witnessed by how badly the Bucs beat 'em). The Denver Nuggets have never tasted ultimate victory and have, quite frankly, been dreadful at times in the last 15 years (one game shy of recording the worst season ever). Their fortunes seem to be changing, but knowing my luck, they'll never be good enough. And don't even get me started on the Montreal Expos. Yes, I know this one is clearly a case of supporting the wrong team. But what can I say? In the early '80s, and through much of that decade, they had some top-notch players. And their ability to groom real talent was almost as well known as their knack for trading it away. Now with the Nats taking over where Les Expos left off, it really feels like home. Oh goodie!!

Which brings us to my one salvation -- The Avs. Two Cups in the last decade along with three trips to the semis and many incredible seasons. It has been great to finally have a team that's capable of given its fans the ultimate reward. Yet, with as thrilling as this last decade has been, my luck continues to mess with a good thing. They've dropped from the ranks of perennial powerhouse. And it seems no matter what, the Avs always lose when I see a game in person. I'm a curse, a black mark and an otherwise wet blanket who could likely make a lot of money in Vegas courtesy of my unyielding ability to guarantee defeat.

So, it would seem the luck of Irish doesn't smile on me. Perhaps I need to start traveling to Vancouver and Calgary to watch those teams play in person ... or would that just help them win?

The Ten Commandments of MySpace Friend Requests

(WARNING: Although designed to be humorously offensive, this post is not for those with an aversion to foul, evil, dirty, dirty language)

Getting indignant over anything that smacks of an elitist code where MySpace is concerned is rather ironical when you think about it. So I offer the following Ten Commandments with said irony firmly in mind.

The Ten Commandments of MySpace Friend Requests

1. Thou shalt not waste my time. If I can't tell within two seconds who the fuck you are, consider yourself "Next-ed". I gots me a hair trigger that loves that DENY button. No photo? Get fucked. Some lame-ass name that involves you getting tricky with character spelling (a la sup3rm@n)? Suck my balls.

2. Thou shalt get a courtesy peek for flashing some skin. Sad but true, but combining a friend request with ass cheeks or cleavage will always yield a courtesy peek. Whether we admit it or not, every guy operates under the delusion that they actually know the skank bitch requesting their friendship, even though they've never known a hottie named Chloe. Your first clue that you don't know this webcam whore? Her top friends list is comprised entirely of dudes named 2Fast2Furious, 2Rich4D@B!tches and Ladies Love Cool Steve (in short, a collection of fuckquids too dumb to realize they've been duped ... the same guys who, at a strip club, think to themselves, "Man, this hottie is really feeling me").

3. Thou shalt not freak me out with your oddball "nuclear family" friend requests. Suburban fathers and soccer moms on MySpace scare the shit out of me. Seriously, why the fuck are you on MySpace, and why do you want to be my friend? I don't know your kids or you, so why would I give a shit about your latest family trip to Estes Park or group photos of the clan. I'm seeing more and more of these lately, and it's really giving me nightmares ... like the creepy old guy who shows up to the dance clubs. Is this how the Evangelicals recruit these days?

4. Thou shalt shove your "be my band's friend" requests right up your arse. Don't tell me your band sounds like Radiohead ... it doesn't. I sent a petition to Tom to automatically delete all band profiles that include the phrase "hints of Radiohead" in their "sounds like" section. Furthermore, don't send me a request because you did a search for people who like Sublime and figured I'd like your band too ... I won't. Seriously! Did you bring Bradley back to life? Is Lou Dog with him? No, so sit the fuck down.

5. Thou shalt be denied in a New York minute if anyone in your band where's black-and-white striped shirts or jeans designed for toddlers. All emo kids are asked to show up at the barbers (where they know how to use scissors), and then head over to a store that actually sells big boy clothes. And for god's sake, if you're going to wear some goofy hat, at least wear one that clearly says, "Hey, I know this hat is goofy, but I was born a crack baby, so I'm wearing it anyway." You know, something like a Fez hat or a beanie with a propeller. Until you've completed these steps, please keep your distance. If I wanted your disease, I'd lick a camel's ass.

6. Thou shalt not have a prayer of being my friend if I see your band is from L.A. Bands no longer do the starving Hollywood rock star bullshit. Those that do don't have enough time, money, brain cells or sober moments required to open a MySpace account, let alone build and maintain a profile. Therefore, all you other fucks claiming Los Angeles are really just a bunch of Orange County blue bloods trying to establish some street cred. Look, I feel real fuckin' bad that mommy and daddy are withholding your recording funds until you build a base of 10,000 friends. But if I wanted to hear another "Soundtrack to the Generation That Sucks", I'd fly down there and give you the money and Size 2 pants myself.

7. Thou shalt be excluded from all "Band Commandments" if your crew is from my hood. Local bands, no matter how shitty or cheesy, will always get a home in my friends list. The foundation of tomorrow's music starts in your own backyard, and as such you must support your local musicians. If you don't, you're a Nazi. So, yes Josh & The Jump Jivin' Wailers, I would like to be your friend.

8. Thou shalt realize that Tony Robbins did it first and did it better. If you come to me with a "great opportunity" under the guise of a friend request, you will be shot on site, you little maggot. It's one thing for legit, relevant businesses (e.g., Hellcat Records, Suicide Girls, etc.) to have a presence on MySpace. It is not, however, cool for you to take up my time trying to pimp your latest MLM scheme. Sell it to the guys who love the webcam chics. Or better yet, squash the MLM noise and get ta strippin'.

9. If thou wishes to be my friend, thou shalt fight the urge to load your page up with every goddamn third-party MySpace plug-in known to man. If I was nostalgic for mid-'90s websites, I'd boot up my favorite WYSIWYG editor, throw myself on my keyboard and mouse and induce a seizure. Seriously dude ... there are better ways to get yourself short-listed for next year's Darwin Awards.

10. Thou need not apply if thou already havest more than 1,000 friends. What could I possibly do for you that the one thousand other friends couldn't? I mean, if you couldn't find a full-time fluffer among the group you already had, you weren't going to find it with me. Besides, I'd never crack your Top 8 (or even your Top 24) with that much competition. Based on odds alone, I wouldn't even have a bee's dick of a chance, so fuck it.

First and Tendencies

Week 10 in the 2006/2007 NFL season served as a perfect example of the distinction between teams that belong and teams that are merely biding their time until Week 16 concludes and their seasons end. Consider the following matchups:

- Denver @ Oakland
- San Diego @ Cincinnati
- Chicago @ the New York Football Giants
- Baltimore @ Tennessee
- Buffalo @ Indy
- St. Louis @ Seattle
- Tampa Bay @ Carolina

Pick any game really, and you'll find that a strong statement was made. If you watched Denver and Oakland, you just knew that Denver was going to get it together eventually. If at one point you thought to yourself, "Hey, Oakland looks like they're actually going to win this one", then clearly you weren't watching the same game. Pittsburgh was in a similar predicament with Oakland earlier in the season, and they imploded, which really just sums up the Steelers season.

San Diego put up 40+ points in the last 30 minutes to overcome a crappy first half, and while LT played a big role in the outcome, Rivers had to be the difference. Chicago looked as if it was in for another Arizona and/or Miami performance, but before long the Bears took over that game and left no doubt as to what the eventual outcome of that game would be.

Peyton & Co., for the second time this season, edge out an inferior opponent by a point, succeeding in spite of themselves. As for Seattle, they can thank the genius Rams' staff for going for it on 4th and 1 deep in Seahawks territory, instead of using this season's hottest kicker to add another three points on the board. They can also thank themselves for staying the course and doing the things winning teams do.

And finally, Carolina looked as rusty as their two-week hiatus would suggest. Absolutely no running game, no rhythm and, as usual, no skills on third down. If not for the dominant play by the Panthers defense, the O never would have had a chance to correct the poor start.

But this is what sums up my point here today. These teams won for a reason, despite evidence that suggested they should have lost. Simply put, there's an intangible character that winning teams possess. Forget talent, forget schemes, forget all the prep work that goes into coming up with a game plan. Teams who win games like these, end up in the playoffs; those who lose them, go home. Those in the playoffs this year will look back at their victories this week and view them as a key reason why they are among the few to move on to the postseason.

Perhaps a more interesting study would be the New York Giants. I realize injuries have played a role, plus the conditions weren't ideal at the Meadowlands, but when the G-Men pack up their lockers after falling short of getting Tiki his ring, they can put Week 10 under a microscope and get all of their answers.

Don't believe these victories were significant? The seven winning teams mentioned above are seven of the 12 that WILL make it to the playoffs. Guaranteed.

XXX Banned XXX

It seems the folks at CSU are caving to political correctness by opting to ban one of CSU's more controversial fight songs when it meets up with CU in the coming weeks. I'd say that old Fum would be rolling over in his grave, but I think a ban will only have the reverse effect -- the fans are only going to sing it louder and more frequently.

Sing it with me:

I'll sing you a song of college days and tell you where to go.
Aggies, where your knowledge is, and Boulder to spend your dough.
CC for your sissy boys and Utah for your times,
DU for your ministers and drunkards' School of Mines.
Don't send my boy to Wyoming U., a dying mother said.
Don't send him to old Brigham Young, I'd rather see him dead.
But send him to our Aggies, it's better than Cornell.
Before I'd see my son in Boulder, I'd see my son in hell!