Bleacher Report - Articles by David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X

Stating The Obvious: Why Jon Gruden Should Coach The Redskins

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:34:06 -0500

As a Raider fan, one of the worst days in my memory was when Al Davis traded Jon Gruden to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

At the time, it seemed like a fleecing for the Raiders, but Gruden had changed the direction of the Raiders in 1998 by wresting power from Davis when Gruden got his quarterback in Rich Gannon instead of Jeff George in 1999.

Davis likely looked at the record-setting offense of the 1999 Vikings, and thought, "I should have stood my ground with Jeff George," even if George split time with Randal Cunningham at quarterback. It would also explain why Davis acquired Randy Moss in 2005.

I mention that blurb of Raider history, because I do believe that Jon Gruden is the only coach that makes sense for an owner like Dan Snyder of the Washington Redskins.

Aside from the popular analogy that equates Snyder and Davis, Gruden prefers the same type of players that Snyder prefers: veterans. From what I've read in the past, Snyder believes that the formula for success in the NFL is still the same as the "Over the Hill Gang" of the early 1970s Redskins under George Allen.

Gruden has shown a preference for veteran quarterbacks, which the 'Skins have in Todd Collins, unless Jason Campbell can step up as a control freak quarterback like Gruden had with Gannon. Or the 'Skins could sign Chad Pennington or Kyle Orton, each of whom fits the typical Gruden offense.

Gruden also prefers veteran running backs, which the Redskins have in the form of Clinton Portis. Gruden would be the best friend to a runner like Portis, who has been hindered by injuries and nearing the magic age of 30 where running backs often (not always) decline.

Gruden prefers veterans in general, defense and offense, and dislikes working with rookies, which is conducive to Snyder's philosophies of acquiring players. With a potentially chaotic free agency looming in 2010, because of the likely absence of a salary cap, Snyder will likely try to make another big splash and want to trade draft picks for known commodities.

Especially with names like Vincent Jackson, Brandon Marshall, Winston Justice, Pierre Thomas (RFA), Willie Parker, LenDale White, Le'Ron McLain, Chris Chambers, Isaac Bruce, Alge Crumpler, Marcus McNeill, Elvis Dumervill, Derrick Burgess, and Julius Peppers all slated to be free agents at the end of the season.

Most coaches prefer rookies and journeymen players and some known stars, while Gruden prefers veterans and works better with them. Thus, it clearly makes the most sense that Dan Snyder should hire Gruden as his next coach because their philosophies on player personnel clearly match.

Why Al Davis Should Hire Joe Lombardi As Offensive Coordinator

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:59:42 -0500

Recently, I wrote an article in support of Raiders coach Tom Cable, after I had written an article earlier this season that expressed my discontent with the Raiders coach.

I believe that the Raiders are on the right track, despite the losses, because I do believe that the current players now care when they lose.

The difference is that I think the Raiders have gone from treading water to rebuilding mode, thus to change course with another coach would be another unneeded setback.

Unfortunately, Raider Nation was stuck with the "pathological liar" known as Lane Kiffin from USC, who attempted to orchestrate a coup by colluding with Michael Lombardi to trade Randy Moss; acquiring his friend and mega-flop Mike Williams from USC; refusing to work with JaMarcus Russell; and trying to fire defensive-coordinator Rob Ryan and hire his dad Monte Kiffin.

That is no theory.

Obviously, Raider Nation has been frustrated with circling the waters. We had high hopes for 2009, but we should not be dismayed about the future. We are on the right track, and must believe that this team will and can continue to improve.

I believe that the biggest need for Oakland is a full-time offensive coordinator. The biggest contrarian voice has been, however: No one wants to coach for Al Davis. I see that as an admission of low confidence.

If any coach said, "I won't coach for Davis," I would take that as admission that the coach does not believe in what he can do for a team.

He's saying that he can't win with an owner that orchestrated three Super Bowl winners and 40 years with the highest winning percentage in the NFL.

Thus, saying, "I can't win with Davis," is just admission that you really aren't that good.

If you want an answer for the Oakland struggles: Look to Michael Lombardi's bad draft picks and the fact that the Raiders have greatly improved on draft day ever since they canned the Bruce Allen puppet for the fifth time in Lombardi's career; the attempted coup by Lane Kiffin; or the muckraking by ESPN and East Coast media ("biggest post Super Bowl collapse in NFL history", which can be disproven qualitatively and quantitatively).

Who better to be offensive coordinator than Saints' quarterback coach Joe Lombardi?

That's right. The grandson of Vince Lombardi. He has been part of the Saints' offensive coaching staff since 2007, where the Saints run an offense similar to that of the Oakland offenses of yore.

When I look at the Raiders' roster, I see talent, but not vision for how to use that talent. The vision I can see for Raider players is similar to that of the Saints offense.

The Raiders offensive-line has been improving, and could stand mostly depth and an upgrade at right-tackle. Between Chaz Schilens, Louis Murphy, and Darrius Heyward-Bey, I think the Raiders have a trio that could be comparable to Marques Colston, Devery Henderson, and Robert Meachem.

Meanwhile, Raiders' TE Zach Miller is practically a clone of Saints' TE Jeremy Shockey, if not better.

Though Darren McFadden was not the super-hyped player that Reggie Bush was, I think that they are similar in what type of plays that they should make: Catching the ball on short routes, and running the ball, "east-west".

I could see Michael Bush in a role similar to Pierre Thomas, and Justin Fargas in a role similar to Mike Bell, with Gary Russell and Luke Lawton to boot.

Lombardi would also have Paul Hackett and Ted Tollner to provide insights, and groom him as an offensive-coordinator.

The biggest question mark has been the quarterback. JaMarcus Russell has all the skills, but seems to lack desire and focus. Bruce Gradkowski meanwhile has given the Raiders a competitor for Russell.

I'm not sure sure as to which quarterback is better suited for the offense, but I do believe that the Raiders have two talented prospects to work with, and that Joe Lombardi would be the perfect match at offensive coordinator to give either QB the chances to make plays.

http://www.neworleanssaints.com/Team/Coaches/People/Joe%20Lombardi.aspx

Why I Support Oakland Raiders Coach Tom Cable

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:22:58 -0500

So far this NFL season, Raiders fans have seen much of the same old same old.

But what has been different, it seems, is that the players are starting to care when they lose, rather than brushing it off carelessly because they get paid either way.

Several weeks ago, I wrote an article about my frustration with the three weeks of blowouts, claiming that either the Raiders hire Bill Cowher or Raider fans boycott.

I no longer think that is necessary.

The performances have still been erratic, but that is somewhat excusable as many of their players have less than three seasons' worth of experience.

In previous seasons, the Raiders roster seemed scotch-taped together, while this team in 2009 is filled with draft-picks and free-agency revelations.

Many have called for the firing or suspension of Coach Tom Cable amidst tabloid reports of a mistake he made 20 years ago; but I think Cable has this team on the right track, even if we aren't seeing the Raiders win. There seems to be a new energy in Oakland that would defuse if Al Davis tried to find another coach.

Cable admits that he slapped his then wife 20 years ago, which I don't condone and in fact condemn, but I do believe that it was an isolated act which he regrets. And paid the price for when she divorced him.

Nevertheless, the Pavlovian shills at ESPN saw another story to sell and tried to get Cable suspeneded with incendiary accusations by questionable people.

Another solid draft day, which the Raiders have improved at since firing personnel director Michael Lombardi, and the Raiders could be a wild card contender at worst. As for this season, the Raiders need to focus on making plays, understanding situations, and eliminating mistakes.

We need to see something for them to build on.

I think the best move to be made for the offense is to find a full-time offensive coordinator rather than a different coach. Moreover, the Raiders should consider hiring a General Manager to "assist" Davis in creating a modern vision for this team with many talented players.

My wish would be for Al Davis to hire Mike Holmgren as the General Manager. One connection between the current Raiders and Holmgren is Raiders defensive-coordinator John Marshall.

Holmgren, from what I've heard, is living in the South Bay (Santa Cruz) and is interested in a front office position. His presence would bring immediate respect back to the Raiders and give the team a mind to work with either quarterback, Bruce Gradkowski or JaMarcus Russell.

If Davis is willing to make an offer that Holmgren can't refuse (which I suggested is probably wishful thinking), then the Raiders would have the potential to turnaround before Davis kicks the bucket.

Another year of work and the receivers and quarterback should be ready to make a functional offense.

The Raiders need a better vision of how to use their running backs. I get the sense that they just call a runner and see what works. We have seen Justin Fargas gain yards but struggle in the red zone, where Michael Bush and Darren McFadden can succeed.

McFadden is an "upright runner" who doesn't run well against the line of scrimmage, but I would like to see what he can do in space (meaning, catching the ball with some room to run) or quick tosses from the quarterback in a modified running game the way Charlie Garner used to do for the Raiders.

Michael Bush meanwhile has shown that he is a more physical runner, like Tyrone Wheatley was for the Raiders. Thus, I do think that the Raiders need to rotate Fargas and Bush running inside and use McFadden as a short-yardage receiver, like Reggie Bush in New Orleans.

As for the defense, I think the Raiders have the right personnel for the 3-4 and should target a nose tackle in the off-season to switch from the 4-3. The front seven has been better with Richard Seymour, but they still lack a pure run-stuffer and outside linebacker; which could be resolved with the 3-4 by making Trevor Scott an outside rusher in the 3-4, and acquiring a nose-tackle.

Bottom line, however, is that we Raider Nation must resist the temptation to change horses in mid-stream. The Raiders still have work to do, but I have the sense that the team is truly in rebuilding mode rather than treading water.

Cult Of The Quarterback: Why NFL Rules To Protect The QB Erode The Game

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:35:15 -0500

Here is a topic that grinds my gears: the debate on whether the NFL should inordinately protect the quarterback, and whether it makes the game better.

Frankly, I think it makes the game worse. To me, it is the same as home runs from steroids, only in the NFL it is a codified inflation of stats.

Statistics don't make the game better, they make it worse. It is that simple.

Remember the movie The Incredibles ? In this case, stats aren't special when nearly every quarterback has comparable stats. The numbers are nihilistic. Rather than making the game exciting, they become more of a sedative than an endorphin.

Since 2004, two quarterbacks—Peyton Manning and Tom Brady—have broken the single-season record for touchdown passes, with Daunte Culpepper also coming close.

Never mind the glaring fact that Randy Moss is the common factor in the stats of Culpepper and Brady, because the mental conditioning that NFL fans are supposed to worship is that quarterback stats are independent.

This must be why many NFL fans despise wide receivers that celebrate a touchdown.

I don't assert that Manning and Brady are bad quarterbacks, but simply that their stats have been inflated.

Many players routinely beat the stats of yesteryear, and we're supposed to believe that the "new" record is better than the old record. To me, it's nothing more than an arcade game with a high-scoring player named ASS.

Since 1999, no-name quarterbacks have routinely waltzed onto the team and succeeded, such as Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, and Jake Delhomme.

Even Matt Hasselbeck with his bad back can throw touchdowns in the NFL. Rookie or first-year quarterbacks succeed like never before—Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers, Tony Romo, Carson Palmer, and Matthew Stafford.

Even Matt Cassel has succeeded, who had not started a game since high school.

What I assert is that the pattern of practice squad quarterbacks, rookies, and no names ascending to stardom is the result of the rules to protect the quarterback. Obviously every team can't win, thus not every quarterback can succeed.

Yet, stats of recent have shown that quarterbacks whom pass over 220 yards are winning more than ever, unlike previous years. Thus, I must ask what has changed? Are the quarterbacks on average getting better, are executives getting better at finding personnel, or is this the result of something newly inherent to the game such as rules to protect the QB?

Cassel is just one example. I gave many examples, but I highlight Cassel because I think the fact that he had not started since high school was the final nail in the coffin, and proof in the pudding that a quarterback does not have to be very good in order to succeed in the NFL, just lucky enough to play on a team loaded with hard working players desperately trying to make the team to make him look good.

Some would argue that Cassel's success is an indication of the Patriots system, when I think it's an indication that the NFL is easier for quarterbacks. Thus, I'm not impressed by quarterbacks as "independent" players, when they are dependent on the team.

If high school quarterback skills are transferable to the pro level—that should tell you something about the NFL.

For quarterbacks, the NFL is arbitrarily kept at the same level as the high school game. While other players are expected to be inordinately better than their competition for their position, the quarterback is treated as a fully actualized person who doesn't need to learn, adapt, mature, or continue to improve.

If defenders find an upper hand, the NFL will say, "you can't do that," rather than tell the quarterback to improve.

The NFL wonders why players like Pacman Jones act out in generalized frustration.

It could also be why, on average, black players in the NFL are more athletic than white players. We know that biologically people are roughly the same. There's no biological reason that black athletes are often more athletic than white athletes.

So, the problem could be environmental, cultural, or systematic.

Generally, black players don't get the opportunity to be freeloading quarterbacks. They are expected to work harder to make QBs look good, and let them take all the credit too.

Meanwhile, white quarterbacks, don't have to work as hard to be on the field because the league carves out a position tailor-made to their limited skills.

Paychecks have nothing to do with the stratification in the NFL.

Why?

The NFL rules have made the game easier for the quarterback. Team's defenses are predicated on the notion that "defenseless" quarterbacks should be protected with exclusive rules.

Some defenders claim that quarterbacks should be protected from concussions and even wax emphatic for the "poor babies," who instead, should be subject to the same violence of the game as other players.

In the NFL, defensive players like Pacman Jones get suspended while "defenseless" quarterbacks accused of rape are protected by the NFL and media. Of course, I'm referring to Ben Roethlisberger, whom has an history of concussions and stupid behavior (i.e. the motorcycle accident).

Ironically, the fact that people say quarterbacks like Roethlisberger must be protected because of concussions, should be an argument against Roethlisberger's credibility in the civil suit that charged him with rape, in that, with his mental health, what would he remember?

Is he fully aware of where he is at all times?

If you're a quarterback concerned with concussions—then use your money to hire a specialist for a second opinion.

If you want to play football, you should be prepared to get hurt. If you're afraid to get hurt, don't play. Don't put the pussies on a pedestal (note: for those who are typically offended by that word, I ask that you consider the context and intent).

Like a cult follower, I do think that people truly believe that the quarterback should be above it all; that his stats are independent and earned only by him.

That is why a quarterback like Cassel had $60 million thrown at him by Kansas City for one season in New England, while receivers and running backs get demonized when they demand more money after a productive season (i.e. Brandon Marshall). The quarterback would demand more money, except he doesn't have too.

Remember this: the word "token" can be used to describe a "quarter," and thus in the NFL, the passer is really just the "token" back.

To the quarterbacks that whine, cry, and whimper about the violence of the game: Work harder and be quiet.

You have now been deprogrammed.

Little Prayers: How the Oakland Raiders Can Finish 2009 Strongly

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:37:34 -0500

Anytime I talk about faith without having my beliefs attacked, it feels like a sin. The reason why is because I do believe that anytime a person wants others to follow that person in order to learn more about Christ, it is a sin.

Anyone who has studied acting has likely heard the terms "vertical and horizontal" which is a vague way of saying, act according to the internal not the external. Don't rely on what others do, just do what you believe you need to do.

When it comes to faith, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the same thing: Don't worry about what other people are doing, simply focus on what you're supposed to be doing, which means walk the walk, not talk the talk.

I say this then with some hesitation, but I do pray for the Oakland Raiders. Some of you will surely laugh at that, but I don't care. I pray that they don't defeat themselves, even if they lose the game.

One thing that has stood in my mind has been the acquisition of Richard Seymour by trade before the season. When Seymour did not immediately report, the media declared that Seymour must not want to play for Oakland, while Seymour's former "teammate" Rodney Harrison even recommended that Seymour should kill himself.

Some teammate.

That tells me all I need to know about what the Patriots locker room is really like.

It turned out that Seymour merely had to hastily tie-up some family matters before the unexpected trade, and Raiders owner Al Davis would state that Seymour placed a high importance on, "Faith, family, and football."

The night before the Raiders upset over the Bengals, I dreaded the possibility of another Sunday loss. I decided that the only way to prepare myself for it was to read my Bible in advance, which included the Book of Kings in which the Ark of Covenant is brought to the Temple, and several Psalms.

I decided to pick Psalm 5 from a previous read, which does remind me of the Raiders:

Give ear to my words O Lord, consider my sighing / Listen to my cry for help / my king and my God / for to you I pray / In the morning O Lord, you hear my voice / In the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation / You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil / with you the wicked cannot dwell / the arrogant cannot stand in your presence / you hate all who do wrong / You destroy those who tell lies / bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors

But I, by your great mercy / will come into your house / in reverence will I bow down / toward your Holy temple / Lead me, O Lord, in your righteousness, because of my enemies, make straight your way before me / Not a word from their mouth can be trusted / their heart is filled with destruction / their throat is an open grave / with their tongue they speak deceit / Declare them guilty O God! / Let their intrigues be their downfall / Banish them for their many sins / for they have rebelled against you / But let all who take refuge in you be glad.

I hope that any in Raider Nation whom agree would also say a prayer for the Raiders this Wednesday.

Oakland Raiders' Bruce Gradkowski's Heroics Put JaMarcus Russell On Notice

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:21:32 -0500

With every win, I hope as a Raider fan, that it is a sign of better things to come.

Since 2003, that has yet to materialize.

Today, however, I actually believed that the Raiders could win when they appeared down and out.

On the game tying drive in the last two minutes against the Cincinnati Bengals, I actually believed that the Raiders would win, even on 4th-and-10.

After which, QB Bruce Gradkowski threw a 29 yard touchdown to receiver Louis Murphy who fought his way into the endzone for the touchdown.

On the ensuing kickoff, Oakland's Brandon Myers stripped Andre Caldwell of the ball and recovered the fumble. With less than a minute to go, Sebastian Janikowski kicked the winning field goal for the Raiders to upset the Bengals in Oakland.

Announcers Greg Papa and Tom Flores were quick to recall the Heidi Bowl game against the Jets in 1968, in which the Raiders scored twice in the final two minutes to win the game.

Raider fans have been quick to berate rookie receiver Darrius Heyward Bey because the Raiders choose him instead of Michael Crabtree, but with Chaz Schilens, Zach Miller, and rookie Louis Murphy, I think the Raiders are set at receiver for years to come.

Murphy has not emerged as a "go to" receiver, but has made big plays, and his play reminds me of Hines Ward by playing hard on every play, even when he doesn't have the ball. Schilens and Heyward Bey made critical first-down conversions, as would Miller who also caught a touchdown.

The bigger story of the game though, was Gradkowski starting in place of JaMarcus Russell, who was benched. Gradkowski was not great in terms of completions, but many of the incompletions came in the first half, which can be excused by the fact that it was Gradkowski's first start.

Gradkowski led an efficient drive to tie the game. Russell has led game—winning drives for the Raiders, but I think the biggest difference between the two was that Gradkowski sustained the offense by getting first down conversions throughout the game.

Gradkowski was 17 of 34 for 183 yards, two touchdowns, and two turnovers, but no sacks. The fumble was early in the game so again that is excusable considering that it was Gradkowski's first start.

Gradkowski played, I think, the way Raider fans believed that Jeff Garcia would have. Just get the ball to the receivers and sustain the offense, nothing flashy.

Raider fans did believe that we had the pieces in place, and that once we had a reliable quarterback, it would have a ripple effect throughout the rest of the team.

The defense has gotten a bad wrap in the past, because of an anemic offense that put an inordinate amount of pressure on the defense.

As long as the Raiders can sustain an offense, the Raiders will have a chance to win games.

If nothing else, Gradkowski's performance is a message to Russell that Russell is not the only option at quarterback. That to me is important, because I do believe that Russell took his opportunities for granted, because Al Davis had committed to Russell and the Raiders had appeared to be thin at quarterback depth.

No more.

Let's not forget the running game, which compiled 84 yards between three runners (Justin Fargas, Darren McFadden, Michael Bush) that each averaged over four yards a carry.

That total doesn't sound like much, but when you consider that the Raiders played from behind for most of the game and had to pass, then it is impressive to see that the running backs made plays when they had the chance.

The defense played strong after initially allowing two touchdowns and the departure of DL Richard Seymour due to injury. I think it is important to note that the defense rallied after they could have packed it in.

Seymour left the game early and did not return, but the reports are that the injury is not serious. The defense had three sacks, five forced fumbles with three recoveries and an interception that iced the game.

Safety Tyvon Branch was a beast in the secondary with 12 tackles, a sack, and a forced fumble. Defensive-back Stanford Routt would sack Carson Palmer for an big loss near the endzone that in effect prevented the touchdown. Bengals kicker Shayne Graham would miss a short field goal, which proved to be a critical miss.

It wasn't a perfect win of course, but a win is a win. Take it for what it is. The nay-sayers will say what they will. I can't hold my breath yet, but I hope that the Raiders will finish the season strong and have something to build on, with as many young players that they have.

Many in the sports media have have been quick to call it a fluke and that the Bengals choked, and have compared the game to Kansas City's win over Cincinnati's AFC North rival the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Which might be true, but I think the big difference was the quarterback play for Oakland. The critics have pointed to Cincinnati's turnovers as the cause, even though the Raiders only scored three points from turnovers (the winning field-goal), and stopped a long Cincy drive with a fumble recovery.

Thus, the Raiders did not merely captialize on easy opportunities, because they made many of them, as opposed to the Raider win in Arrowhead, in which the defense made many big-plays to stop Kansas City's momentum, while the Raider offense look terribly until JaMarcus Russell scrapped together a winning drive.

The Raiders have a tough schedule, and I believe that the most reasonable thing to hope for is that the Raiders play for pride. Wins, even if ithey won't add up this year, will give fans and casual observers a reason to believe that the Raiders are back.

Why I Love The World Baseball Classic, and the NFL Should Too

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:34:55 -0500

And I'm not just saying that, either.

I do believe that in order for professional sports to continue to succeed, they must grow their brands, and dare I say it, globalize.

In previous decades, American fans could believe that the best team in the US was also the best team in the world.

No more.

Whine, cry, and whimper all you want, the reality of sports has been that as the national economies have grown and those countries become more economically stable, it often has followed that the nation's passion for more sports does too.

That is not to assert that I know there's a direct correlation between the economic status of a country and that nation's love for sports, but typically (not always), the more stable a country is, the more it usually means the nation will love sports.

Some countries that are economically less developed still love sports, but don't contend internationally or play mostly one sport such as futbol.

I do think it's inevitable for other parts of the world to start loving sports more extensively, and to play for pride, and that American fans should move away from an isolationist mentality that all the best players of the world only play in the same country.

I also believe that the only healthy way to channel national angst against countries you dislike is through sports.

Sports have always been an allegory of war. No one dies though, but the people involved channel their passions as if it were a matter of life or death.

And that's why I love the World Baseball Classic. Perhaps, the American players will eventually learn to have a sense of pride, when they've had their steroid-filled hands out for too long.

The WBC is something that needed to happen, albeit I would tweak it somewhat.

I would rather see the WBC take place after the "World Series" rather than during Spring training,

I would even go so far as to say that the NFL should do the same thing. The NFL wants to grow its brand by tacking on the Super Bowl in London, playing games overseas, etc.

If the NFL wants foreigners to love American-style football, then the NFL should make it a matter of national pride, rather than just one game in which you hope that the excitement of that game diffuses to the fans in London.

I say that because the NFL runs the risk of alienating American fans who can't travel to London.

NFL Europe flopped because the Europeans knew they were watching the worst players of the NFL. I'd like to see an International Football Conference that includes NFL caliber players.

But instead of playing the US teams during the regular season, the best team of the International Conference would challenge the winner of the Super Bowl.

That probably sounds like NFL heresy, but I do believe that if Commissioner Roger Goodell wants to grow the NFL, he needs to be more creative than just giving the Super Blowl to some country that doesn't really care.

So make 'em care.

And after all, Al Davis may as well be a third world dictator of a banana republic.

Why I Must Be Delirious: Bengals and Vikings in the Super Bowl

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:36:23 -0500

Though the success of the Arizona Cardinals in 2008-2009 has no direct effect on the outcome of this season, I mention as a way of saying: Don't be surprised if the Super Bowl features the long-running joke known as the Cincinnati Bengals.

And you, they just might win.

Earlier this year, I called out Carson Palmer in several blogs, not saying that he read them, but I called him a, "Quarterback on welfare" who had failed in his role of leadership. Palmer however has stepped-up.

The Bengals (in my opinion) are playing the way a Super Bowl team should: Defense, running, and timely passing.

What's that you say: Patriots, Colts, and Steelers have the past success?

The Bengals just showed that they can handle the Steelers in Pittsburgh, and have also showed that they can win with defense. The Patriots and Colts are weak on defense, as the Patriots just showed by going for it on 4th-and-2 against Indy; a decision which of course, cost the game for New England.

Knowing that the Bengals can play strong defense and exploit weak defense, or succeed against a strong one like Pittsburgh, in Pittsburgh no less, tells me that the Bengals should be able to handle New England if need be.

The biggest question mark is whether Cincy can handle Indy. Based on the strengths I have already listed, I think Cincy can do it.

As for the Vikings, the Brett Favre experiment has been paying off, after I had believed that football was no longer The Passion of Brett Favre, and that the NFL was merely an escape from the realities of his world.

I like the Vikings though, because like the Bengals, the Vikings appear to be the most complete team: Defense, running, and timely passing, unlike New Orleans, which has a hot-and-cold defense that I think can be exploited by Adrian Peterson if need be.

When a team has a power runner like that, it wears down a defense. Like I said, the New Orleans defense is not a rock solid one. Moreover, the only NFC team with a stout defense, and relative consistency, is the New York Giants.

So barring another shocker in the NFC, as the Cardinals did last season, I think Minnesota is the team to beat.

Tough call between the Vikings and Giants, but if the Vikings have home-field, I would take Minnesota.

As for the Super Bowl, I would rather not pick which team I think will win, right now. I'll reserve that for later.

(And if the Bengals can do it with owner Mike Brown, then the Raiders can do it again with owner Al Davis).

Former Spokane Indian Zack Greinke Wins AL Cy Young For 2009

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:38:10 -0500

Starting pitcher Zack Greinke of the Kansas City Royals has won the American League Cy Young Award, defeating Felix Hernandez of the Seattle Mariners and Justin Verlander of the Detroit Tigers.

Greinke pitched for the Spokane Indians in 2002 for his first season.

Greinke compiled a record of 16-8, an ERA of 2.16 and a WHIP of 1.073, as opposed the record of Hernandez at 19-5, an ERA of 2.49 and a WHIP of 1.135.

For those who don't know, WHIP is Walks plus Hits in Innings Pitched, which is similar to the ERA but is a more individually based statistic, while the ERA is a mix of individual performance and the performance of the defense.

The edge that Greinke appears to have had is the streak of five shutouts to open the season for the Royals.

I had favored Hernandez because I thought he had been more consistent over the course of the season, and used the compilation of more wins and fewer losses as the tie-breaker, because both the Royals and Mariners gave little run support to either pitcher, and had similar stats all-around.

Has "Around the Horn" Called for the Suspension of Shawne Merriman?

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:13:03 -0500

I have not watched ESPN since I announced the Boycott of ESPN for their malicious reports of gossip against Raiders' Coach Tom Cable.

I did so because of ESPN's flagrant disregard for integrity and consistency in reporting. ESPN's Vincent Doria for one, refused to report official charges of rape against Ben Roethlisberger, and yet the same network reported gossip (not charges) against Raiders coach Tom Cable.

I prefer the NFL Network, FSN, and local news, rather than watch the East Coast Media Network known as ESPN.

ESPN is biased. To believe otherwise is idiocy. It is in the interest of ESPN, their ratings, and thus their advertisers to promote East Coast teams, which typically garner higher ratings, and undermine teams that don't fit that agenda.

The San Diego Chargers must fit that agenda as well, because when Shawne Merriman's girlfriend Tila Tequila had him arrested for several charges of abuse and false imprisonment a few months ago, nary a word came from the shills at ESPN.

I say shills as a factual statement, rather than a facetious one.

I say nary a word because many at ESPN including, Bill Plaschke and Jay Mariotti, immediately called for the suspension of Cable, based on the gossip that ESPN reported.

Yet, Plaschke, of Southern California, said no such thing about Merriman.

Gee, I wonder why.

Plaschke also is supposedly a socially conscious critic at ESPN, often advocating for women's rights. Thus, of course, Plaschke would immediately assert that Cable fits the profile of an abuser.

Somehow, Merriman did not to Plaschke. You know, the "Lights Out" defender who has been suspended for using steroids.

Hmm, I wonder if he'd have a temper problem.

Mariotti was silent as well. After he had written a threatening *manifesto* in August on why he hates Al Davis, Raider fans, and his perception of, "thuggery." So much so, that Mariotti stated that he reports gossip without investigation in pursuit of his hate.

Now, Tequila has filed a civil suit in pursuit of 1.5 million in damages from Merriman. I wonder if Around the Horn thinks that Merriman fits the profile of an abuser.

Has ATH reported these chargers by Tequila, and if so, did anyone call for the suspension of Merriman?

I defended Merriman in September after these charges were made because I'm inclined to distrust the word of reality-TV stars, or those who make accusations against any type of public figure, unless they have credible evidence and which channels they utilized to report their claims.

Moreover, I had decided to remain consistent in defense of payers accused of crimes from being suspended because I believe that in the absence of convictions, troubled players and others involved in the NFL should be forced into counseling, rather than be suspended.

For ESPN to remain consistent however, they must make the same statements against Merriman.

So tell me please, has ESPN called for the suspension of Merriman?

Why Bill Belichik Made the Right Call Against the Indianapolis Colts

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:03:49 -0500

Anyone who follows my articles knows that one of my favorite pastimes is to berate the Patriots. I admittedly do so, because it is my only consolation as a Raider fan. Logically, no amount of mud-slinging can take away from the fact that the Patriots win.

For years, Patriot fans ridiculed Raider fans and tried to diminish what the Raiders had achieved, so now we Raider fans get to do the same thing to you.

Problem for Patriot fans is their insecurity. They feel personally attacked when I question the Patriots, because deep-down they to wonder about the integrity of New England's success.

It is called: Just win, baby. The Patriots have assumed the role that the Raiders once had, while in bit of role-reversal, the Raiders are now the bottom-dwellers, as the Patriots used to be.

The Patriots aren't the Steelers of the '70s or the Niners of the '80s. They're the Ray-duhs as Chris Berman would say.

Thus, in my mind, I mud-sling at the Patriots, because the Patriots are the Raiders in a parallel universe. Or as the theory in psychology goes: A person will most hate in others what they see in themselves.

If you cannot see the similarities between the Patriots of the past decade and the Raiders from 1972-1983 though, then you're a fool.

I don't blame the Patriots for all of the Raider woes, while I'm too intellectual to resort to branding a legendary figure of the NFL as "crazy," when Al Davis has accomplished more than most of his critics ever will. Frankly, I see it as nothing more than sour grapes and schadenfreude.

To me, the Tuck Rule was a pivotal moment in sports history in which the wheel of fortune spun and bestowed the Patriots with a future of success.

I don't equate the Tuck Rule to the Ben Dreith Game, because the Ben Dreith game resulted from human-error, while I still contend that the Patriots knew that Charles Woodson was coming on the blitz and thus had Tom Brady take a hit on the pump-fake to stop the clock.

The point of all this being that, as much as I dislike the Patriots, I must give Bill Belichick his due for going for it on fourth and two on New England's 28 yard line.

It was the right call to make, because New England's defense is not what it has been in the past. There were two minutes on the clock, which is plenty of time for Peyton Manning to orchestrate a game-winning game.

Even with a top-defense, Manning is still a threat to carve up an opponent to win the game, and the fact is that, New England's defense is not top-caliber.

On one hand, it was the right call to make. Nevertheless, it tells me that New England is probably not headed to the Super Bowl, because either a) Belichick does not trust his defense, or b) Belichick was intimidated by Manning.

But don't fret Pat fans, you just might have a top-ten pick in 2011 to rebuild the defense, gift wrapped from the Raiders (crap)...lol.

Is Jay Mariotti Nothing More Than a Bigot From Western, Pa.?

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:39:38 -0500

(Spare me the innocuous accusation that I am playing the race card, because that insinuates that I am not adhering to facts, when this is nothing but fact).

Seems like Ozzie Guillen's body language said it all. But here is what I'm saying.

If you are a regular reader of my articles, you would know about my ongoing topic of questioning the integrity of ESPN employees, or even my official boycott of ESPN.

More precisely, reporting the truth about the malicious gossiper known as Jay Mariotti of Around the Horn , and ESPN's blatant attempt to assassinate the career of Raiders coach Tom Cable with incendiary claims of serial abuse made without evidence, only word of mouth.

ESPN does so to protect its agenda to undermine teams that do not garner big ratings.

As much as I hate to say this, historically, the Raiders have done questionably in regards to ticket sales. The Raiders nearly did not sell out when Los Angeles upset Washington for the third Super Bowl win by the Raiders in the 1983 season.

Meanwhile, East Coast teams and a handful of others, usually do garner big ratings. Must be easy to stay enthusiastic about your team and want to pay exorbitant prices when the mainstream media will flatter your ego all season.

Or when the mainstream media brands your fans as, "thugs."

Remember the Titans

A few months back, I wrote an article called, "Remember the Titans: The Cases of Pacman Jones and Ben Roethlisberger," in which I criticized the mainstream media (sports and in general) and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for selling the sizzle of racism; meaning, the effects of racism without calling it racism.

I think Commissioner Goodell did so unintentionally by reacting to over-hyped stories about black players that appealed to malicious white audiences who were more than willing to support a media "lynching of 'thugs."

Don't think so? You did not see too many black people caring about stories of troubled black players in the NFL. The only fans that did were white, or in the mainstream media, where they must sell hate or something easily malleable by bigots.

Many might think that I am just an acerbic prick who treks waters that he knows little about, when unfortunately, I only talk about what I know of all too well; sublimated racism.

A trap is easy to fall into, because it does not require direct bigotry. I for instance, had long had many diverse friends (many were black women).

That is why I have taken an aggressive approach to exposing the truth. That truth being, people are more than willing to take advantage of a system that unfairly benefits them, and delude themselves that they earned it or deserve it.

All it takes is the willingness to support a system that which unfairly benefits one race to the detriment of another race.

The Fightin' Side of Me is against the Willfully Ignorant

Many Southerners during the time of slavery, for instance, did not directly hate African slaves, but those Southerners did willingly benefit from a system that wrongly detriments others. Nevertheless, many of those Southerners became bigots in defense of slavery, because others started to question the morality of slavery.

What is that you say—slavery is over, so get over it?

Only a fool would believe that simply because slavery ended, that the effects of and underlying issues that enabled that system have gone with it. Trust me, I have been that fool, so you are not alone.

I used to question the tactics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, because I viewed them as extremists.

Yet, to apply a quote I had always reserved for myself, and yet never applied it to others: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

That quote came from former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, whom would vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Thus, it is ironically fitting to apply the same idea to Sharpton and Jackson. Those two are doing the same thing, with the only difference being the issues they pursue. I had always liked the quote because I thought of it as universal, despite Goldwater's voting record.

As for the Founding Fathers/Slave Owners, many of them did not "condone" slavery but accepted it as a problem that they could not deal with at that time, but allowed for the problem to be fixed by future generations through the Constitution.

Don't Blink (It's a Rule)

The fact is that, most people are competitive, and competition creates division and stratification. In the NFL, the stratification is clear; coaches and quarterbacks are the "upper class," running backs, receivers, and offensive-linemen are the, "middle class," and defense and special teams are, "lower class."

And the paycheck has nothing to do with it.

It is a matter of prestige and authority more than wealth. If you do not believe me, look at the NFL Rulebook because, the stratification is clear: The offense is to be protected to the detriment of the defense.

The special-teams players can suck on it if they hope to be inducted into the Hall of Fame; with the one true exception, former Chiefs kicker Jan Stenerud (George Blanda was inducted as a quarterback and a kicker).

Meanwhile, the quarterback is the only player ascribed the rights of an individual, and everyone else is expected to, "shut-up,"

Who is it that has dominated the positions of coach and quarterback? White guys, duh. Meanwhile, the rest of the team is controlled through the hegemonic idea that everyone must work for the coach and the quarterback, while anything else is freelancing.

Just ask LaVar Arrington. His freelancing is the reason that no team retained him after Washington released him.

Yet, do not even think about calling it a team effort, because it is only the coach and quarterback that matter, which is the propaganda spewed by the puppets in the sports media (ex, Pete Prisco).

The Freelancin' LaVar Arrington

Personally, I do not support freelancing by defensive-players, because it rarely works. Nevertheless, I do believe that it indicates how defensive-players see their role on the team, and that it is merely the product of human arrogance.

Defensive-players are treated as nothing but peons to churn and burn for their sideline overlords, so rather than empower uniquely talented defensive players with more authority and prestige; they are badmouthed and run out of town for behavior.

Behavior that is common amongst NFL players and, I like to include rednecks, because rednecks are a large fan base of the NFL.

Just ask LB Odell Thurman or CB Pacman Jones.

Abstract Points

Firstly, a few abstract points. When white people say "thug" they are really thinking of a word that starts with 'n' and rhymes with wigger. I say that, because thug is just another word for encapsulating all the prejudices of black people (drugs, promiscuity, violence, recalcitrance), or posers who think they are black.

I don't think I'm black or a guilty liberal, because in fact, most of my opinions on economics are to the right, while I have donated to the UNCF.

I prefer country music, but have nothing against R&B, rap, hip-hop, funk, etc. I should also note that not every contemporary country music fan listens to Hank Williams Jr., but Hank Williams Jr. has influenced many of the contemporary musicians.

On economics, I merely believe that when Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that the invisible hand will govern the market when everyone acts in their interest that, that should mean *everyone,* with no arbitrary exclusions or incremental hegemony over people in lower classes by people who gain wealth.

No one should have special protection, simply because they gained wealth, in fact, they should be more scrutinized, because frequent cycles are healthy for the economy and easier to deal with, rather than one big burst.

That would be true free trade.

Free trade does not exist when people allow banks and other corporations to have a de-facto oligarchy over politics through money. That is called a monopoly, which is the anti-thesis of free trade. For years, corporations have taken taxpayer money and kept wages low.

That is not free trade. That is feudalism.

Just ask Steelers fan Rush Limbaugh. He has often said, "You have the right to speak, but no right to be heard," on the topic of campaign finance reform, because he believes that people with more money should have a greater voice.

Yet, when black NFL players spoke and said (to paraphrase), "Limbaugh has the right to bid, and the NFL has the right to accept his offer, but we don't have to play for him." Well that supposedly violated Rush's free speech. Yet the reality is this: the money of the NFL spoke louder than Limbaugh.

That though is what Limbaugh has always wanted.

Meanwhile, the media puppets have smeared the only Robin Hood’s out there, Ralph Nader, and Ron Paul. Puppets that cling to the hope that they are better than others are, when really they are just the equivalent to the caged gerbils in first-grade classrooms: picked and prodded by mysterious giants that do not care about their welfare and only for vain amusement.

At least, they get to enter your home for your entertainment if you get my drift.

Paul has argued that the floating fiat (paper money that is not backed by gold or silver) is the underlying reason that the, "rich get richer and poor get poorer," because it allows the government to create a near infinite amount of money for politicians to give to corporate panhandlers that bankroll their election campaigns.

Nader on the other hand, has also argued against the system known as corporate welfare.

Yet, Nader has not see the big picture that Paul has, which is that the reason why the economy grows out of proportion is that everyone spends beyond their means by borrowing money against assets trumped-up by computer created derivatives (even the computer programmers don't understand the derivatives created by the algorithms).

All of which is conducive to the reckless speculation on loans (that inflated the stock market) created to control the value of the dollar with the interest owed on debt.

Thus, the value of the dollar is pinned to interest owed on debt instead of a fixed commodity, which is why the unscrupulous can hijack the economy with bogus securities (mortgages that could not be repaid).

Thus, vain attempts to regulate the unsocial free for all known as Wall Street are pointless. The only solution is to remove the source of the problem. Infinite creation of money with a value controlled by the existence of debt.

That is also the reason for this old saying when the Fed (Federal Reserve) speaks, the world listens.

Frankly, to, you should be less afraid of a mugger with a knife on Wall Street, and more afraid of a banker with a pen on the same street.

The Cold Hard Truth / Who's Gonna Fill Their Shoes?

Moving forward from those abstract points to accentuate the big picture.

In the case of Thurman, Thurman has been indefinitely suspended for a single DUI and indictment for charges that were dropped. Meanwhile, DE Jared Allen, convicted of three DUIs, had a mere two-game suspension.

It seems to me that suspending a white player in the NFL for alcohol problems would be bad for business in many ways.

Allen is white, thus his alcohol problems would impugn the rampant alcohol problems of many white NFL fans that listen to country music (they certainly aren't listening to Kanye West). That would be bad for a league and news network (ESPN) that advertises the sale of hard liquor, and ESPN even has a segment called, "The Cold Hard Facts," sponsored by Bud Light.

The only cold hard fact is the ironic truth that which proves my point.

Verily, verily, it is okay to excessively punish a black person for alcohol problems, because white fans do not believe that they are as bad as the, "thug.” is

It makes white guys feel better about drinking heavily and beating their wife when they can believe, 'well, at least I'm not a thug (or a Raider fan).'

Fact is that, many of the black people interested in sports are not watching the sport, because they are playing the sport. Moreover, the white people are not playing the sport, because they are watching the sport.

In the case of Jones, Jones was convicted of no crime while in the NFL, yet he had his career assassinated by the malicious gossip enabled by ESPN and other outlets that generally rely on ESPN.

Jones was merely a troubled loudmouth with substance problems (like Limbaugh), who played in Nashville, which is the country music capital of the world and a genre that revolves around sad songs about troubled loudmouths with substance problems.

Just ask Hank Williams Jr. He is the pop-culture face of the NFL who shouts, "Are you ready for some football?" However, when he sings, "If I get stoned and sing all night long, it's just a family tradition," white people will listen to that in admiration. If Afroman sings, "I didn't go to work today, because I got high," well, he is just a, "thug."

Jay The Gerbil

One of these white guys is Jay Mariotti of Pittsburgh, Pa. You know, the place that President Obama suggested was deeply racist when Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary?

With Mariotti as the ambassador of Western, Pa. on ESPN, I can see why.

Back in August, Mariotti ranted in his blog that Commissioner Goodell had "cleansed" the NFL of, "thuggery." You know, when I hear people talk about "cleansing," I think of a disgruntled psychopath that is potentially dangerous.

Especially when, the only players which have been removed from the NFL were black. Mariotti clearly indicated in that blog that he had no regard for the rights of the accused and proudly admitted that he believes in gossip without investigation, because he sees sports writers as "victims" of Al Davis who is "cackling" from his "bunker;" Raider fans who are "terrorizing the enemy;" and generic, "thuggery."

As I have suggested, Raider fans are viewed wrongly as just black and white thugs: or wiggers and the word that rhymes wigger and starts with the letter, 'n.'

Moreover, Mariotti is nothing more than a disgraced hack from the Chicago Sun-Times whom burned a number of bridges on his way out the door (including a Pulitzer Prize winner), after he had a long history of workplace disruption and combativeness.

In one case, he fought with a co-worker when Mariotti wanted to write about President Obama.

As I suggested, I am no bleeding heart. I believe in avoidance of investing more importance to some facts while disregarding others. It can be a long and sometimes difficult process, but I attempt to see the big picture of as many facts as possible.

I have done that in this case, however, I also do so to prove my point about what ESPN has done to the Raiders and black players perceived as, "thugs."

I believe that the truth is, Mariotti is the epitome of the guilty white liberal who voted for President Obama, simply so that he could delude himself by thinking he's not a bigot.

When he clearly is.

And I say that, because what he's done is simply what bigots from Western, Pa. do.

End of story.

How Balloon Boy Proves The Innocence of Tom Cable By Transitive Property

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:25:59 -0500

Today, Richard and Mayumi Heene plead guilty to charges related to the infamous "Balloon Boy" stunt.

Mr. Heene pled to felony charges, while Mrs. Heene pled to misdeamenor charges.

I would prefer to avoid the jargon of that story and go straight to the point, that being "Balloon Boy" is a lesson for an era based on reality-TV and people that get attention for acting terribly.

In their case, they claimed that their son was in danger when the Balloon escaped. All a hoax to get public attention.

At this point, I merely think of people who create drama and make incendiary claims as Pop Culture Peons, because like PCP, they will act like unsocial animals and believe that they are invincible.

I can't help but be reminded of the current situation in which ESPN has allowed people to accuse Raiders coach Tom Cable of abuse and have called for his suspension based on their reports.

It is effing stupidity to believe incendiary claims made to the media when there is no evidence. It is effing stupidity to believe incendiary claims made to the media, when the only thing to report is word of mouth.

In all three "reports" that ESPN claims have "documentation" (translation: the charges had been investigated but were not prosecuted for lack of evidence), there is no substantiable proof, and yet ESPN has attempted to assassinate the career of Tom Cable.

ESPN employees (Jay Mariotti, Bill Plaschke, etc) have called for Cable's suspension when they had remained silent on the issues of sexual assault by Ben Roethlisberger and accusations of violence against women by Shawne Merriman.

As you can see, ESPN has no conscience. I thought they did, but clearly they don't (maybe some, but definitely not the majority and definitely without power). All ESPN has is an agenda to malicioulsy attack those who don't fit their agenda with gossip.

If you need more clarity on why I believe that, or more about the issue, please read my related article:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/286806-announcing-the-boycott-of-espn-raider-nation-nfl-and-now

Announcing the Boycott of ESPN To Raider Nation, the NFL, and NOW

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:50:01 -0500

--I have sent a request to my respective US Senator to investigate ESPN, and I implore that you do so as well--

I believe I have taken a fall because of my willingness to take the initiative on the issue, because I feared the possibilities of saying nothing. Thus, I don't take these accusations lightly.

Nevertheless, when the mainstream media element is involved with incendiary accusations, I do believe that it is reasonable to question the intentions of the accusers and thoroughly examine the facts.

Otherwise, the media would become nothing more than a bully pulpit for unscrupulous people to take advantage of.

Some writers, like Gregg Doyel of Sportsline.com, has said that he and others in the media like to be used. There is however, a line that must be drawn.

Trust But Verify

In one abstract example to accentuate this point, if you have ever listened to the radio show Loveline, there are people who call in and convincingly make incendiary claims that the hosts usually catch as false (eventually).

It is part of the idea, "Trust but verify," when incendiary claims are made. If a person claims to have AIDS—initially you should take their word, but examine the facts.

In the three accusations against Cable, police or the DA investigated and declined to pursue the issue, for a lack of evidence.

Some in the media have even suggested either corruption or intimidation as why. Thus, those people have shown that it is their agenda for people to believe that Cable is a serial abuser.

Moreover, it seems strange that if these claims of abuse by Cable were substantial that Al Davis and Amy Trask of the Raiders would have heard about it, and would have considered it.

Trask is the first and only woman to be hired as CEO of an NFL team, thus, the accusations against Cable insinuate that the first and currently only female CEO of an NFL team would knowingly hire a serial abuser.

I think that Trask of all people would know whether Cable fits the bill of an abusive man, or if he's just being used as a scapegoat.

I do believe that if Trask had known or believed these accusations against Cable that the Raiders would not have hired Cable as coach.

Unfortunately, when a person is accused of something that involves gray area—that accusation can lead to other accusations, because that person is seen as lacking credibility, even if the person was not legally at fault for the original accusation.

Meaning that—a person gets accused once of something, because they made a mistake. The law says that person is not at criminal fault.

Yet, it creates false perceptions, which lead to more accusations. The more accusations, the more likely people become to think there's something to it.

Can people change? ESPN says, 'No!'

Cable had a lapse in judgment 20 years ago with his then-wife. Police investigated, and declined to prosecute.

Yet, because Cable made that mistake, and has stated that he has been remorseful ever since, people now assume that he fits the profile of a serial abuser, simply because two others made claims to the media that Cable had attacked them.

In the case of Hanson, Hanson went to Yahoo Sports before he reported his claim to authorities, while police believed that the ex-girlfriend was stalking Cable.

Thus, the beliefs about Cable would imply that no person can change or learn. I say that, because the direct facts don't support the claims made by Hanson and the former girlfriend, Marie Lutz.

The Lynch-Mob is at it Again

In other abstract examples to accentuate my point:
Former NFL star Pacman Jones was once convicted for his role in a barfight during college. Jones had a reputation of being a troubled loudmouth with substance problems.

Thus, the serial accusations against Pacman of unruly behavior in nightclubs, led the media and many fans to believe it and run with it.

It should anger you that Jones was treated grossly unfairly, simply because he has a disagreeable personality. At that point, you'll understand why I pursue that issue amongst others.

Ultimately, the media obsession over the Pacman tabloids led NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to suspend Pacman for a year, based on a power given by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Players Union and NFL.

I add this, because I believe it explains the root of Pacman's questionable behavior. His dad was murdered when he was four, while his grandmother, Christine Jones, whom raised him (along with his mother) died from cancer while Pacman was in college.

I have wondered whether that cancer was treatable, because he would have surely thought that he could afford to finance that treatment once he cashed in from the NFL, but she died too soon.

Pacman missed the only game of his career to attend her funeral and wore a t-shirt in her commemoration.

Some issues should anger people. The question is, how do you resolve those issues? I don't believe in violence, I believe that the best arguments are made when the person first questions themselves before he or she questions others.

Facts Don't Always Support the Agenda

Yet, there are forces in the sports media, namely ESPN, that have agendas that they pursue regardless of facts.

One such employee of ESPN, Pittsburgh native Jay Mariotti (who is known as a serially disruptive employee), even said that Commissioner Goodell has "cleansed" the NFL of "thuggery." A career is a form of property.

The last I checked, a person in the US should not be deprived of life or property without due process, just because they fit your definition of "thug;" a word that often has connotations of bigotry.

On one hand, the Players Union gave the unilateral power of suspensions to Goodell (note: they did so before they truly understood the ramifications of such).

Meanwhile, the sports media, namely ESPN, maliciously sees that power as an opportunity to assassinate the careers of those who don't fit their agenda, such as employees of the Raiders.

Thus, ESPN uses selective reporting in order to influence the opinions of the public and Goodell. Once those "seed" stories bubble up into hysteria, a person in NFL becomes subject to punishment.

I know that ESPN uses selective reporting because Vincent Doria of ESPN refused to report charges of rape against Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, because it could damage his career. Yet, the same network is willing to report accusations of abuse by Cable?

In the the case of Roethlisberger, there are formal civil charges. In the case of Cable, there were no charges. Thus, the accusations against Roethlisberger have been legally more substantial than the accusations against Cable.

Some at ESPN, including Tony Kornheiser, even went so far as to suggest that witnesses were intimidated in the case of Hanson, while another ESPN employee, Bill Paschke, openly called for the suspension of Cable after the DA refused to prosecute.

While Cable's ex-wife now claims that she was punched rather than slapped, when Cable (at least thought) she had been adulterous.

Yet, a punch would leave a different wound than a slap, which is something that police would have investigated.

Thus, various people have in effect insinuated that the authorities involved in each case failed to their jobs properly and without bias. Where exactly are the facts to support such claims?

I don't aim to absolve Cable of his poor decision 20 years ago, but I do believe that every person deserves the right to live down a bad decision.

In my view, ESPN merely saw that incident as an opportunity to make hay, because ESPN engages in malicious reports about the Raiders.

In the same article by Mariotti, he refers to the Raiders as a, "God-awful franchise," and that he reports gossip about the Raiders, thus he does not investigate, because he is willing to set aside his own integrity to attack a man, Davis, that he sees as a abuser of the media.

Mariotti would even state his delusion that, "Somewhere Al Davis is cackling," and that Raider fans are, "terrorizing the enemy."

Gee, I wonder why Mariotti would think that?

Mariotti made that statement after I, a Raider fan, had complained to the FCC about the derogatory and selective reporting by ESPN about the Raiders and the issue of suspensions, because I believe that ESPN has acted irresponsibly, and grossly enable negative stereotypes about various people all in the name of "entertainment."

I do believe that Mariotti is not alone in his sentiments at ESPN, as many of their employees have made similar derogatory remarks about the Raiders, and as I pointed-out, ESPN proved their double-standards by refusing to report charges of rape by Roethlisberger, while choosing to report the un-charged accusations against Cable.

Those reports against Cable have garnered the attention of the National Organization for Women, whom have called for the suspension of Cable. Yet, I do believe that that statement has been influenced by an outlet that has clearly engaged in selective and malicious reporting against the only NFL team that truly has had a social conscious in regards to hiring (one reason why I'm a fan of the Raiders).

So considering that ESPN is now a serial offender of "lynching" careers and grossly protecting others, it is no wonder that ESPN clearly thinks that people can't change.

Thus, I've had enough. I want change

I'd like to see either a publicly funded Sports Network that reports fairly, because after all, sports are social institutions, as even MLB Commissioner Bud Selig said at the 2009 All-Star game.

Sports have a responsibility to society, which is why the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL have either full or partial anti-trust exemptions.

As the Supreme Court ruled in the early 1920s, the MLB is "not a business" but rather an organization that coordinates community exhibitions. The NFL, NBA and NHL want the same full exemption; thus, each Commissioner should be forced to officially state that their respective organization is "not a business," but a social institution.

Furthermore, I do believe that Congress and the FCC should investigate ESPN as to whether, ESPN should have its license to broadcast revoked.

More importantly, I have sent much of this same information to the office of Washington State Senator Patty Murray.

I realize the importance of such as issue as abuse to women's causes, and believe that it is a just concern. But at the end of the day, I do believe that when accusations aren't prosecuted...that it is the duty of the American people to move on, and allow that person to learn from what they know and live it down.

When You're Tuning In, They're Tuning Out

Instead, outlets like ESPN are quasi-tyrannical, as the facts show that ESPN has clearly engaged in *serial abuse* of coaches and players that don't fit their agenda by maliciously reporting gossip.

And ESPN is abusive because the American public is supposed to be able to trust an outlet of the press, when clearly, ESPN manipulates and abuses that trust.

At the same time however, the reality of abuse is that abusers have been or are being abused.

ESPN is just a puppet for NFL owners (thanks to the anti-trust exemption given by Congress to the NFL in the early 1960s) that abuses them, thus ESPN turns around and abuses coaches, players, fans, and whoever they think they can to feel good about themselves again.

Note: The NFL received an anti-trust exemption in the early 1960s from the US Congress, which allows the NFL to determine whom broadcasts their games, and coverage of those games. Thus, if ESPN doesn't do what the NFL wants: the NFL could prevent ESPN from covering the NFL.

ESPN is Just the *Vanguard* for the Old Boy Network

I do believe at the end of the day that the reason why ESPN has maliciously attacked Davis and the Raiders is that Amy Trask shattered the glass ceiling in the quintessential Old Boy Network known as the NFL.

As some of you may know from the recent headlines about Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams, there are NFL owners who think that Limbaugh is "too liberal," and are in fact, to the right of Limbaugh.

Limbaugh of course is the man who coined the term "feminazi's," to refer to NOW and feminists in general. Limbaugh is the one who praised Hootie Johnson for excluding women from Augusta National.

Limbaugh is also the one who wants the country to fail, simply so that black president does too. Thus, it is only reasonable to believe that NFL owners feel the same way about Amy Trask.

Ironically, former Rams owner Georgia Frontiere was also treated like a pariah in the media, as Davis has been for his egalitarian hiring record (ex, Flores, Shell, Trask).

I hate to say this, but I know how people like that think. I used to be like them. Every effort against the Raiders and Davis has been from fear that the Raiders would succeed with Trask as CEO because it would set a precedent that a woman can succeed as CEO of an NFL team.

Thus, this is a vicious catch-22. Women are being used by NFL owners through ESPN to make a decision that would make "The Joker" proud. It seems to say, "Men stop the abuse (to defuse feminists)... but women, stay at home."

Would have also made Nixon proud.

By siding with Marie Lutz and her claims of abuse, it would thus detonate the Raiders franchise and Trask, because Cable was the last man who wanted the job as coach of the Raiders. Thereby ending any chance that a woman has to succeed as CEO in the NFL.

Yes, they are out to get Davis and the Raiders. But the only reason why is to get to Trask. And they pit you against your interests, so that you're too blind to see the forest from the trees.

As a singer once sang, "You're only a pawn in their game."

The Truth About Raiders Coach Tom Cable and ESPN

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:33:36 -0500

I had to address this issue. I thought about saying nothing, because it is a complicated issue, one in which many people have their interests at stake, and so I wonder if I can truly do anything about it, or whether change is even possible.

First off, I'm a fan of the Oakland Raiders.

Recently, head coach Tom Cable of the NFL team, the Oakland Raiders, was accused of assault by Randy Hanson. The Napa County DA in California declined to prosecute.

Since then, ESPN has reported accusations of abuse by Cable against a former girlfriend and his ex-wife. I do believe that ESPN has made a calculated effort to target the Raiders organization with malicious gossip.

This is a very conflicting issue though, because on one hand, abuse is a serious issue and people generally don't make such claims unless they believe those claims.

You might know from my concerns about my previous employer that I believe I was targeted after I reported sexual assault by an assistant. I believe I have taken a fall because of my willingness to take the initiative on the issue, because I feared the possibilities of saying nothing. Thus, I don't take these accusations lightly.

Nevertheless, when the mainstream media element is involved with incendiary accusations, I do believe that it is reasonable to question the intentions of the accusers and thoroughly examine the facts. Otherwise, the media would become nothing more than a bully pull-pit for unscrupulous people to take advantage of. Some writers, like Gregg Doyel of Sportsline.com, has said that he and others in the media like to be used. There is however, a line that must be drawn.

In one abstract example to accentuate this point, if you have ever listened to the radio show Loveline, there are people who call in and convincingly make incendiary claims that the hosts usually catch as false (eventually). It is part of the idea, "Trust but verify," when incendiary claims are made. If a person claims to have AIDS—initially you should take their word, but examine the facts.

In the three accusations against Cable, police or the DA investigated and declined to pursue the issue, for a lack of evidence. Some in the media have even suggested either corruption or intimidation as why. Thus, those people have shown that it is their agenda for people to believe that Cable is a serial abuser.

Moreover, it seems strange that if these claims of abuse by Cable were substantial that Al Davis and Amy Trask of the Raiders would have heard about it, and would have considered it.

Trask is the first and only woman to be hired as CEO of an NFL team, thus, the accusations against Cable insinuate that the first and currently only female CEO of an NFL team would knowingly hire a serial abuser. I think that Trask of all people would know whether Cable fits the bill of an abusive man, or if he's just being used as a scape-goat.

I do believe that if Trask had known or believed these accusations against Cable that the Raiders would not have hired Cable as coach.

Unfortunately, when a person is accused of something that involves gray area—that accusation can lead to other accusations, because that person is seen as lacking credibility, even if the person was not legally at fault for the original accusation.

Meaning that—a person gets accused once of something, because they made a mistake. The law says that person is not at criminal fault. Yet, it creates false perceptions, which lead to more accusations. The more accusations, the more likely people become to think there's something to it.

Cable had a lapse in judgment 20 years ago with his then wife. Police investigated, and declined to prosecute. Yet, because Cable made that mistake, and has stated that he has been remorseful ever since, people now assume that he fits the profile of a serial abuser, simply because two others made claims to the media that Cable had attacked them. In the case of Hanson, Hanson went to Yahoo Sports before he reported his claim to authorities, while police believed that the ex-girlfriend was stalking Cable.

Thus, the beliefs about Cable would imply that no person can change or learn. I say that, because the direct facts don't support the claims made by Hanson and the former girlfriend, Marie Lutz.

In other abstract examples to accentuate my point:
Former NFL star Pacman Jones was once convicted for his role in a barfight during college. Jones had a reputation of being a troubled loudmouth with substance problems.

Thus, the serial accusations against Pacman of unruly behavior in nightclubs, led the media and many fans to believe it and run with it.

In effect, he was treated as a "cancer" on the NFL, when he not been convicted of anything. I say this with caution, but many in the media and public in effect "lynched" Pacman's career by undermining the justice system, because he had not been convicted of anything.

If my use of the word "lynch:" in reference to what the "mob" did to Pacman's career is offensive, it should be. It should anger you that Jones was treated grossly unfair, simply because he has a disagreeable personality. At that point, you'll understand why I pursue that issue amongst others.

Ultimately, the media obsession over the Pacman tabloids led NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to suspend Pacman for a year, based on a power given by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Players Union and NFL.

I add this, because I believe it explains the root of Pacman's questionable behavior. His dad was murdered when he was four, while his grandmother, Christine Jones, whom raised him (along with his mother) died of cancer while Pacman was in college. I have wondered whether that cancer was treatable, because he would have surely thought that he could afford to finance that treatment once he cashed-in from the NFL, but she died too soon. Pacman missed the only game of his career to attend her funeral and wore a t-shirt in her commemoration.

Some issues should anger people. The question is, how do you resolve those issues? I don't believe in violence, I believe that the best arguments are made when the person first questions themselves before he or she questions others.

Yet, there are forces in the sports media, namely ESPN, that have agendas that they pursue regardless of facts.

One such employee of ESPN, Jay Mariotti (who is known as a serially disruptive employee), even said that Commissioner Goodell has "cleansed" the NFL of "thuggery." A career is a form of property. The last I checked, a person in the US should not be deprived of life or property without due process, just because they fit your definition of "thug;" a word that often has connotations of bigotry.

On one hand, the Players Union gave the unilateral power of suspensions to Goodell (note: they did so before they truly understood the ramifications of such).

Meanwhile, the sports media, namely ESPN, maliciously sees that power as an opportunity to assassinate the careers of those who don't fit their agenda, such as employees of the Raiders.

Thus, ESPN uses selective reporting in order to influence the opinions of the public and Goodell. Once those "seed" stories bubble-up into hysteria, a person in NFL becomes subject to punishment.

I know that ESPN uses selective reporting because Vincent Doria of ESPN refused to report charges of rape against Ben Roethlisberger, because it could damage his career. Yet, the same network is willing to report accusations of abuse by Cable?

In the the case of Roethlisberger, there are formal civil charges. In the case of Cable, there were no charges. Thus, the accusations against Roethlisberger have been legally more substantial than the accusations against Cable.

Some at ESPN, including Tony Kornheiser, even went so far as to suggest that witnesses were intimidated in the case of Hanson, while another ESPN employee, Bill Paschke, openly called for the suspension of Cable after the DA refused to prosecute. While Cable's ex-wife now claims that she was punched rather than slapped, when Cable (at least thought) she had been adulterous.

Yet, a punch would leave a different wound than a slap, which is something that police would have investigated. Thus, various people have in effect insinuated that the authorities involved in each case failed to their jobs properly and without bias. Where exactly are the facts to support such claims?

I don't aim to absolve Cable of his poor decision 20 years ago, but I do believe that every person deserves the right to live down a bad decision. In my view, ESPN merely saw that incident as an opportunity to make hay, because ESPN engages in malicious reports about the Raiders.

In the same article by Mariotti, he refers to the Raiders as a, "God-awful franchise," and that he reports gossip about the Raiders, thus he does not investigate, because he is willing to set aside his own integrity to attack a man, Davis, that he sees as a abuser of the media. Mariotti would even state his delusion that, "Somewhere Al Davis is cackling," and that Raider fans, "terrorize the enemy."

Mariotti made that statement after I, a Raider fan, had complained to the FCC about the derogatory and selective reporting by ESPN about the Raiders and the issue of suspensions, because I believe that ESPN has acted irresponsibly, and grossly enable negative stereotypes about various people all in the name of "entertainment."

I do believe that Mariotti is not alone in his sentiments at ESPN, as many of their employees have made similar derogatory remarks about the Raiders, and as I pointed-out, ESPN proved their double-standards by refusing to report charges of rape by Roethlisberger, while choosing to report the un-charged accusations against Cable.

Those reports against Cable have garnered the attention of the National Organization for Women, whom have called for the suspension of Cable. Yet, I do believe that that statement has been influenced by an outlet that has clearly engaged in selective and malicious reporting against the only NFL team that truly has had a social conscious in regards to hiring (one reason why I'm a fan of the Raiders).

Thus, I've had enough. I want change.

I'd like to see either a publicly funded Sports Network that reports fairly, because after all, sports are social institutions, as even MLB Commissioner Bud Selig said at the 2009 All-Star game. Sports have a responsibility to society, which is why the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL have either full or partial anti-trust exemptions.

As the Supreme Court ruled in the early 1920s, the MLB is "not a business" but rather an organization that coordinates community exhibitions. The NFL, NBA and NHL want the same full exemption; thus, each Commissioner should be forced to officially state that their respective organization is "not a business," but a social institution.

Furthermore, I do believe that Congress and the FCC should investigate ESPN as to whether, ESPN should have its license to broadcast revoked.

I realize the importance of such as issue as abuse to women's causes, and believe that it is a just concern. But at the end of the day, I do believe that when accusations aren't prosecuted -- that it is the duty of the American people to move on, and allow that person to learn from what they know and live it down. Instead, outlets like ESPN are quasi-tyrannical, as the facts show that ESPN has clearly engaged in *serial abuse* of coaches and players that don't fit their agenda by maliciously reporting gossip.

And ESPN is abusive because the American public is supposed to be able to trust an outlet of the press, when clearly, ESPN manipulates and abuses that trust.

At the same time however, the reality of abuse is that abusers have been or are being abused.

ESPN is just a puppet for NFL owners (thanks to the anti-trust exemption given by Congress to the NFL in the earyl 1960s) that abuses them, thus ESPN trues around and abuses coaches, players, fans, and whoever they think they can to feel good about themselves again.

I do believe at the end of the day that the reason why ESPN has maliciously attacked Davis and the Raiders is that Amy Trask shattered the glass celing in the quintessential Old Boy Network known as the NFL.

Limbaugh of course is the man who coined the term "feminazi's," to refer to NOW and feminists in general. Limbaugh is the one who praised Hootie Johnson for exlcuding women from Augusta National.

Limbaugh is also the one who wants the country to fail, simply so that black president does too. Thus, it is only reasonable to believe that NFL owners feel the same way about Amy Trask.

Thus, this is a vicious catch-22. Women are being used by NFL owners through ESPN to make a decision that would make "The Joker" proud.

Yes, they are out to get Davis and the Raiders. But the only reason why is to get to Trask. And they pit you against your interests, so that you're too blind to see the forest from the trees.

As a singer once sang, "You're only a pawn in their game."

Why It's Time for Raider Nation To Sue ESPN for Defamation

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:05:41 -0500

Here's the deal.

Roger Goodell has unfairly suspended black players in the NFL in recent years. The thing is that, the Players Union could not do anything about it, because they agreed to give the NFL Commissioner that power in the Collective Bargaining agreement.

With various people calling for the suspension of Raiders coach Tom Cable such as the National Organization for Women, it has made me wonder something. Cable is a coach, not a player. NFL coaches are not bound by collective bargaining agreements.

When did NFL coaches agree to give that power to the NFL Commissioner?

What I don't understand is this, why didn't NOW call for the suspension of Shawne Merriman after he was accused of assaulting a woman? Why didn't NOW call for the suspension of Ben Roethlisberger for charges of rape?

NOW says that boys and girls look to athletes as role models. NOW must think that Roethlisberger and Merriman are role-models, because NOW has said nothing about them.

Back to the earlier question. Most people have agreed that Goodell has been excessive in using suspensions against mostly black players, but say, it's too bad because players gave him that power.

That though would not apply to a coach, whom are employees of the franchise located in the respective state.

We have seen from the case of Pat Williams and Kevin Williams that state laws can factor-in to whether the NFL suspends a player. Thus, if even players can wiggle free from the NFL rules, it is only reasonable to believe that a coach and NFL franchise could do the same if not more.

Raiders owner Al Davis, whom has a record of anti-trust suits against the NFL, could theoretically have a new one in play if Roger Goodell tries to suspend Cable, based on the fact that Cable has not been convicted of anything, while the Napa County DA refused to prosecute charges against Cable.

What gives Goodell the power to interfere with the internal workplace issues of non-players? Cable was hired by Al Davis, not Goodell. Thus, Davis could once again argue that an NFL franchise is an independent entity within an umbrella organization.

The NFL argues that an NFL team cannot compete against itself. But, what if that NFL team decided to schedule games outside the NFL, against say, the CFL, UFL, college teams or independent exhibitions to promote its fanbase in other countries by competing against local clubs?

That is what football was like before the formation of the NFL in the 1920s.

Thus, Goodell would in effect be undermining the Judicial System.

I would also say that if Goodell tries to suspend Cable, that the Raiders should pursue a defamation law-suit against ESPN.

And that we, Raider Nation, should seek a class-action suit for defamation by ESPN, unless they can prove the veracity of these claims that the Justice system of this country refused to prosecute.

And we have Jay Mariotti to thank for admitting that he and likely ESPN does not investigate stories about the Raiders, they maliciously report gossip, no matter how detrimental it is.

Yet, idiots believe that an "air" of bad behavior must mean there's something to it. Just ask Rubin Carter, wrongly convicted of triple-murder because he had a record of questionable behavior.

Thus, this is a call to Raider Nation. If you know any lawyers that would be interested in filing a class-action suit (particularly season-ticket holders) against ESPN for defamation, in any event that Cable is suspended, then please contact that lawyer, or find one.

His Words: Rush Limbaugh Has Right To Speak, But No Right To Be Heard

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:12:14 -0500

I'll make this simple.

In the recent months, there has been a backlash at the NFL for dropping Rush Limbaugh from the group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams.

Limbaugh's defenders have argued that it violated free speech or ran amuck of free-speech. The irony is that, it was the result of Limbaugh's own words, in more than one way.

Limbaugh speaks his mind, or at least what he thinks his audience wants to hear. That doesn't play well with everyone. Not everyone is a fan of Limbaugh, some are even angered by him.

Some in the media even quoted things that Limbaugh never said about slavery and the assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here though is a real quote for the media that runs with fictitious quotes because they don't actually listen to his show, past or present.

In Limbaugh's own words about campaign-finance reform: You have the right to speak, but no right to be heard. The people with more money should have a greater voice. His words, not mine.

And guess what, the NFL has far more money than Limbaugh, and believed that his presence would be detrimental to the bottom line. In the end, money spoke louder than Limbaugh's words.

That though, is what Limbaugh has always said.

What I Really Mean: Why Does ESPN Undermine the Oakland Raiders?

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:47:17 -0500

We in Raider Nation have long asserted that ESPN "had it out" for Al Davis and the Oakland Raiders. In the past year, that idea has gone from mere complaints of perception to blatantly clear to objective observers of ESPN coverage of the Raiders.

Though I cannot prove who has done what and why, I do wonder aloud, "Why does ESPN undermine the Raiders and Al Davis?"

Davis has long represented what I had long thought were the sympathies of the, "East Coast Media." As we have learned in recent weeks, many NFL owners are to the right of Rush Limbaugh even though they were too afraid to include Limbaugh.

Michael Wilbon of Pardon the Interruption even said that some owners are believed to think that Limbaugh is, "too liberal."

Thus it seems odd that the, "East Coast Media," would treat Davis and the Raiders like something they dug out of their ear.

If anything, Davis has represented their supposed sympathies by being the first NFL owner to promote women and minorities to high positions within the Raiders organization.

Strangely, Bill Plaschke of Around The Horn and the "West Coast Bias," once called the Raiders, "a great place to work," because of Davis' policies on hiring. Now, Plaschke has had an inexplicable grudge against the Raiders, calling for players to seek their own medical attention, and for the suspension of Coach Tom Cable for accusations that the Napa County DA declined to investigate.

Just admit it, ESPN. For whatever reason, Davis gets under your skin. I don't know why, but more importantly, do you know why?

Maybe then, rethink the stories about the Raiders and Davis the next time around. But I suspect that they have marching orders from superiors that are to the right of Limbaugh whom are probably terrified of an NFL team succeeding with a woman as CEO.

Yeah, I generally dislike the major news networks, primarily because viewers will take whatever they hear at face value rather than do their own research.

I have called for the US Congress to revoke ESPN's license to broadcast, but the main intent of that was to send a message that I see right through these smear campaigns by ESPN.

I even called employees of ESPN as useless and said they contribute nothing to society. I did so, because ESPN has done the same thing to hard-working viewers in general. ESPN has treated fans as scum especially those outside the East Coast Bias, so I in effect called them hypocrites.

I also did so because I'd like to see employees of ESPN change the direction of ESPN from the inside. ESPN has lost its way, and there could be a number of reasons.

I suspect that the greatest reason is an influx of bad journalists that don't truly appreciate sports, they instead fixate on stats and the fact that they "get to" be mediocre and that some fans would also like to be mediocre.

There are good journalists at ESPN, but I suspect that the bad journalists have taken over in recent years. I'd like to see the good journalists change that.

I'll give you a hint about one of those bad journalists: the name is similar to reality. This person serves as the reality of what ESPN has become.

Why the US Congress Should Create a Public Sports Network

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:41:20 -0500

Had people been more willing to ask questions and educate themselves, they would have been more skeptical of predatory lenders. That though does not absolve the Wall Street businesses that spent and invested beyond their means, and thus aggressively pursued naive customers.

Anyone who follows my articles would know that I don't back down from what I believe, and that I detest corporate news in all forms: MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, E!, ESPN.

They're all the same to me, and the fact is that, the jobs are transmutable.

Reporters from ESPN have left for employment with networks like MSNBC to cover subjects unrelated to sports, such as Keith Olberman. In another case, a reporter of entertainment gossip at Inside Edition would leave for employment with FOX News' Bill O'Reilly.

Why are those jobs transmutable? They all have the same goal and same criteria for news. That goal is to submit to the corporate line and propagate whatever makes money, even if unethical; and whatever makes money is what entertains the viewer (consumer).

Thus, there is fault by all involved. This point has historical examples as well.

Those Who Don't Know History or the Contemporary

When Christians were thrown to lions as sports entertainment in the Roman Coliseum, the audience was just as guilty for being entertained by the event. That fact applies to many groups, not just Christians. In that, people have been dehumanized throughout history for the entertainment of others, even if the event is inherently hypocritical.

Meaning that, at one time, it was okay to throw people to lions as bait, even though it was against the law to commit murder.

I do believe that in a responsible society, the people should be allowed and committed to entertainment that inspires, questions, or investigates. I don't believe that everyone should adhere to what I see as virtuous. However, I do believe that when examined, you will see that the evidence shows a glaring problem that must be addressed.

The problem being that, when a nation is entertained or fascinated by the incendiary rather than the inquisitive, that will create predatory reporting that is only interested in money and protecting reputation when you've flirted with negligence, malice, and simple self-interest.

That problem has manifested itself in various ways. From reality TV "stars," reckless celebrities, murderers, child abusers, and other nonsense that only serves as a distraction from the problems that affect the stability of a person's life, such as the economy.

What Else Is On?

We have seen that today, for too long, people turned away from "boring" news and watched the news that entertained rather than educated. I do believe it is that intellectual laziness on the part of the average person that has contributed to national problems, such as the economic meltdown.

In a contemporary example, it was the average baseball fan that looked away from the stories about the problems with steroids in baseball in 1998. Those stories had no entertainment value, thus left without investigation. I don't believe however, that the sports media can wash their hands of fault, simply because viewers didn't want to hear things that questioned the illusion.

Ultimately, the problem grew up to be an elephant in the room that it was dumped on Congress to investigate in 2005, because the interests of greed had prevented the conduction of investigations into steroids at an earlier time. In doing so, the steroids problem wasted massive amounts of time and money of the public and the officials who seek to advocate the public interests. Had the direction of public inquiries sought to address other problems, in the real estate market for example, I do believe that the economic mess would, if nothing else, have been less severe.

I should note that signs of trouble in the real estate market had appeared in 2005, but the national agenda had been set to address a monolithic problem in baseball that had gone unresolved by the MLB because of greed. Like Wall Street, everyone was getting rich from juicing (including ESPN) and no one wanted to stop, until the public started to wonder if those homeruns were actually foul.

In another contemporary example, the sports media (ESPN) did not investigate the veracity of accusations against NFL player Pacman Jones. Instead, they reported every scandalous accusation against the troubled player to the point where it only annoyed viewers, and in effect left him out to dry for malicious fans and a Commissioner that just wanted the issue to go away to protect the bottom line.

Had ESPN truly investigated, I guarantee the issue would have gone away without Commissioner interference.

Yet, the same organization, ESPN, refused to report civil charges of rape against Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger, because it had the potential to damage his reputation. Yet, ESPN jumped all over the charges of rape against Kobe Bryant.

I suspect a number of reasons: Corporate greed, entertainment value, and simple incompetence by the employees that seem content with their M.O. of mediocrity and obnoxiousness.

Make It Global

The best example of a grossly incompetent hack has been Jay Mariotti of Around the Horn . Mariotti epitomizes a divisive and malcontent person who seeks only to flatter his victim-hood with delusions, so that he feels no remorse about being a disruptive and selfish freeloader.

Case in point, Mariotti left the Chicago Sun-Times for AOL Sports after the newspaper financed his business trip to the Beijing Olympics in 2008 . He went on this trip while considering the offer from AOL Sports. After the trip, Mariotti turned around and publicly derided the Times and employees, because of imminent financial issues for the paper.

Mariotti's colleague, Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Roger Ebert, even decided to publish an article entitled, "Jay the Rat," because of Mariotti's reputation for being a disruptive influence in the working environment.

Before I continue, I don't believe that Mariotti is alone in his behavior, and I do believe that the mainstream media is filled with the same selfish freeloaders that contribute nothing to society after insinuating themselves into places they don't belong.

Make it global as it is said. It is not a problem with one employee, but all employees.

I believe that because ESPN attempts to claim to inform and entertain, when evidence contradicts that assertion.

The most glaring example of such is the video in which ESPN employees deride and mock a distraught Clemson Tigers fan. Ergo, ESPN does not entertain, and as you will see from the following, ESPN does not inform either. They merely propagate in order to undermine their opponents and advocate their agenda, which does not include consistency in reporting facts.

Mariotti is the same "rat" that would publish a blog in which he angrily stated that Raiders coach Tom Cable should be "suspended," for allegations of assault, and that Al Davis should, "vanish," because with the Raiders, Mariotti puts his integrity aside and reports gossip without investigation. Read the article. There is no subtlety about his malice.

Mariotti also wrote so by angrily portraying Davis and Raider fans as malicious enemies of the sports media, which would include ESPN.

Mariotti rooted for violence and discord within the Raiders organization, even called the legendary franchise a, "God-awful franchise." In addition to that, Mariotti would wax empathetic with Roger Goodell for having "cleansed" the NFL of, "thuggery."

I state that because it showed a clear bias against the antics of some NFL players, and would suggest that Mariotti simply neglected his job to, "trust but verify" and assiduously pursue inquiries into incendiary accusations, against players such as Pacman Jones.

I say that with some reserve, because part of Mariotti's job is to promote the scandalous, rather than facts, because the scandalous is what generally entertains. However, it is clear Mariotti simply took glee in feeling that he could exercise his malice and not have issues with his employer, because he merely gives ESPN what they want: scandal, not facts.

Thus, Mariotti does not make virtue from necessity.

Mob Power Undermines Legal Authority

Some readers may believe that I beat a dead horse, but as I will reveal, these issues are in the interest of all sports fans, and in effect, our society and our public discourse. For one, ESPN and people like Mariotti, are cancerous to the public discourse, and that problem diffuses into other forums of society.

The fact of the matter was that the Napa County District Attorney deferred from prosecution against Cable, due to insufficient evidence and the fact that the accuser, Randy Hanson, sought the media (Yahoo Sports) before he sought the police with his incendiary accusations that Cable had threatened his life.

Why would Hanson seek the media first? Because we've seen in an era of reality-TV a dramatic increase in media seeking charlatans of drama, with a recent example being the "Balloon Boy," and of course, the reality-TV peons that profit from irrational behavior and conflict exacerbation.

As it turned out, Hanson fell over in his chair after leaning back and putting his feet on the desk.

This is the same sports media that allowed Rodney Harrison to broadcast his suggestion that people associated with the Raiders should commit suicide, which would include staff, players, and fans.

Now with egg on their face, ESPN is transparently trying to create clamor for the suspension of Cable, after multiple employees of ESPN have called for said action, including Mariotti and Bill Plaschke of the same show.

Thus, people like Mariotti would like for the public to disregard legal authority and instead act impulsively, because as we know, customers are more profitable when they are impulsive.

ESPN is doing so by perpetuating a he-said/she-said situation with accusations of assault by Cable against two ex-wives and a former girlfriend.

As FOX News reports "people are saying," which really means, FOX Commentators are saying, ESPN is trying to bait viewers into believing their bunk with vague allusions to the presence of fact, and instead rely on the incendiary claims by accusers.

In one such instance, ESPN has claimed the existence of "documentation," and yet has not revealed what that "documentation" is, and whether it was present in each case.

Twenty years ago, police investigated an incident by Cable in which he slapped his then wife in anger, because of an adulterous affair. Cable has stated that has been the only incident, and that he has deeply regretted it ever since.

Thus, for the ex-wife to now say that she was not having an affair and that Cable "punched" her, reeks of bunk. Why is that? Because a slap would leave a different wound than a punch, which is something that police would have investigated in such instance.

And regardless of questions about wounds, the police deferred from investigation.

Dangerous Insinuations

Thus, the ex-wife is now insinuating impropriety against the involved officers, as ESPN has suggested incompetence by the Napa County DA, such as Tony Kornheiser's suggestion that witnesses may have been intimidated in the Hanson case. Had that been remotely likely, the DA would have investigated.

As we know, ESPN does not rely on facts or reason, but merely promote nonsense scandal; scandals that can be detrimental to an individual person (Pacman Jones), or society at large (steroids via Congressional investigation, time, and taxpayer money). But at the same time, will make exceptions for the people they like, such as Ben Roethlisberger.

Thus, ESPN has shown itself to be indubitably hypocritical, and expect viewers to believe that they actually care about the women whom accused Cable. Had ESPN truly been interested in the claims of female victims, they would have reported the chargers of rape by Roethlisberger.

ESPN is also the network that dotes over Tom Brady, whom ditched the mother of his son at the first chance he had. ESPN does not care, as evidence of hypocrisy has proven. You can't claim to care when inconsistency is clear, and the only consistencies are malice and greed.

Say what you will about me, but I have taken the burden of a clearly unjust and hostile working environment, when I took the initiative to report sexual assault by an assistant at my former job, and against a woman that I later learned was pregnant.

After which, the superior to the assistant targeted me by taking the word of liars as proof against me. One of whom, would eventually break expensive equipment, and yet escape immediate termination. The other person would be promoted shortly after his claim.

So yes, I do have an interest in advocating the truth rather than hysteria that is fed to impulsive minds, because I've been there. I knew what I was getting into, and I knew that I would be fighting an un-winnable battle. But I knew that it was right.

Moreover, you can say what you will about the Al Davis since 2003, but there is one thing that Davis has long been committed to, and that's, equal opportunity employment and a relatively egalitarian environment.

Davis is the first and only owner to hire a woman, Amy Trask, as CEO of an NFL franchise amongst other firsts in hiring.

Thus, are we expected to believe that Trask and Davis did not know of these accusations against Cable? I would think they would have known if there had been substantial documentation. Alternatively, are we expected to believe that Trask and Davis would have hired Cable, had the accusations been true or even remotely substantial?

I don't think so.

The East Coast Bias Is Real

I do think however think that ESPN is clearly pursuing an "East Coast Bias," as Kornheiser has admitted to having (again, make it global). That would insinuate that ESPN has undermined any team that does not fit the vision of the "East Coast Bias," with a few exceptions, and would include many teams; not just the punching bag known as Davis and the Raiders.

It is the duty of real journalists to ask the questions that challenge the popular conceptions, and fearlessly pursue inquiries without regard to whether their hypothesis is true or false, so long as it is in the interest of healthy discourse.

Sports organizations are social institutions. MLB Commissioner Bud Selig admitted as much about the MLB at the 2009 All-Star game. The US Supreme Court even determined that the MLB is "not a business" and merely an organization that coordinates community exhibitions, and thus exempt from laws of anti-trust.

The NFL, NBA, and NHL all want the same exemption. Therefore, those organizations must be organizers of community exhibitions as the precedent determined.

Therefore, those organizations must be responsible to society, not the bottom line, rather than foot the taxpayers with the bill everything their incompetence and greed creates a monolithic problem.

Nevertheless, outlets like ESPN are nothing more than puppets of the MLB and NFL most particularly, because of anti-trust exemptions. The MLB's exemption is across the board, while the NFL's exemption is merely for media-rights, which means that the NFL could pull the plug on ESPN's coverage of the NFL for any reason.

Publicly Funded Sports News

Thus, ESPN is inherently incapable of objectivity, because they must protect their bottom line by protecting the NFL and MLB, regardless of whether it wrongfully destroys careers, or ultimately wastes valuable public time and money.

How then would we solve such problem?

My recommendation is that that Congress should either revoke ESPN's license to broadcast, or to provide a "public option" of sports news, on a publicly funded station by the fans and for the fans, rather than is some puppet riddled with greed and scandal; an organization that pursues facts, even the inconvenient facts.

Thus, a system of checks and balances for these social institutions that beg for the public to bankroll their mishaps, and repay the public with virtually nothing except the belief that there's nowhere else to go.

That is the epitome of monopoly.

It also does seem reasonable to expect such reform, when President Obama has openly stated his interest in reforming unfair systems in sports, such as the BCS.

You should realize that the underlying problem to that and other problems in sports is the corporate media. They create the ridiculous logic of the BCS, because the sports media has a vested interest in promoting and protecting the teams with the most fans, and in effect, the audience for their station.

Just ask writer Gregg Doyel of Sportsline.com. He stated that he was putting his job on the line by calling the SEC overrated, because his employer, CBS, is the broadcaster of the SEC.

Say what you will about the politics of President Obama, but I do believe that any objective sports fan can agree to the inherent problems with the current system of sports media.

Before you get up in arms about a publicly funded sports network, consider the fact that public money finances many stadiums across the nation, while the owners gouge impulsive fans after those same people paid to build the stadium.

Taxpayers have the right to know what is done with their money, and to hold the owners accountable, but when the sports media has a clear conflict of interest, there is no reason to believe in the veracity of their reports.

Thus, a publicly funded sports network is the logical solution to the intentions of President Obama by creating a permanent arm to investigate the malfeasance of sports organizations; organizations that have repeatedly used valuable public time and money to solve their problems.

Sports as Social Institutions/I Don't Hate Money or Capitalism

I don't hate money or the rich, as some might believe.

I expect that when people take public money, that there are great responsibilities associated with that money. Instead however, vacuous people allow "panhandlers" to run amok with public money and dump any onus of personal accountability onto the public.

Talk about a double-threat.

Some fans though have argued that sports are just a game, and that athletes should not be expected to be positive examples for a constructive member of society.

Bunk.

Those athletes implicitly agree to as much when they take millions of dollars from fans through owners.

Fans expect athletes to inspire in some way which includes championships. It is why fans will tolerate the fat paychecks doled out to many players, including some that did not deserve it.

If not for positive examples of what a person could be in society, baseball and football would still be segregated. The Nazi's would have dominated the 1936 Summer Olympics. Women would still resolve to not pursuing sports.

Thus, to recant on that implicit agreement is merely theft.

I do believe that true sports writers pursued sports writing because of the said transcendent advents of social change thorough sports. Yet, they soon realize that sports media is not about advocating change and inspiration through sports, but merely to pad the bottom line.

At which point, those writers resolve to being sedentary and indulgent, rather than being active and informed, because in their delusion they will believe that what they do is still better than what some schmo fan does.

Sports are meant to inspire the youth in particular, but everyone to some degree, rather than intimidate the youth with unrealistic images of success. Steroid junkies for instance create a false perception of what a person must be to succeed.

Instead, the average sports fan watches sports not to be inspired, but as catharsis for their feelings of failure. That they have not achieved some phantom perception of success and perfection, and thus resolve to being sedentary and indulgent, rather than being active and informed.

Fans and sports writers then, are merely nothing more than natural foils to each other in a system bound by willful ignorance, malice, and greed.

We have independence of thought, while paid media have greater access to a network of sources and information; an access hindered by the need to propagate the impulsive behavior of customers that is conducive to greed, while fans are left with nothing more than the knowledge that they've been screwed but not the proof.

Thus, I suggest to any reader interested in the cause of a publicly funded sports network to contact your Senators in Washington immediately. It is not difficult to do. Merely search your current state on Wikipedia.com, and the names of your Senators will be in the right-hand column.

Once you have the names, Google the Web page for either Senator and email your support and even your own stories and ideas.

I hope that you see that while I have my reasons for what I do, I try to mold them to the greater good.

Does God Truly Care If Your Team Wins or Loses?

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:03:29 -0500

Many people just want to side with the winning team, many even skip Church on Sundays, because the game is on, and will feel more resolve in the fleeting of sports victory rather than the eternity of spiritual victory.

Some Florida Gator fans have even seen the spiritual meaning in the Tim Tebow led victory over the LSU Tigers at night, after Tebow had been injured with a concussion.

The recent World Series between the Philadelphia Phillies and New York Yankees has led me to thinking. That being about the misery of New York Mets fans, including Jon Stewart of The Daily Show.

I've been there... I'm a Raider fan. Plus, my last little league team was the Mets, from which I have photos that were taken by a sports photographer.

Team sucks, don't know why. Start wondering if God is against you, because your team can't win, but that of course, is just nonsense. It is nonsense to believe that God cares about the outcome of a game of chance, or to define your faith in God through the outcome of games of chance.

Obviously, the Mets have been technically more successful than the Raiders have been in recent years, but in terms of expectations, I believe that I'm on the same level as Mets fans. Largely because, Mets fans became Mets fans, because they were not fair-weather fans and in spite of the history of the New York Yankees. Just as Raider fans became Raider fans in spite of the history of the San Francisco 49ers.

And that's why Yankee and Niner fans laugh with sadistic glee ... because they believe that either they've been blessed by the wheel of fortune, or blessed by the ability to have no remorse about disloyalty.

But I guarantee like Joe Namath that only one "team" will win in the, "postseason."

People stick with their team, because they want to believe that if and when that team wins, it will make them feel spiritually complete.

I don't claim to be perfectly pure. I've sinned, I know that and I don't claim otherwise. That is one problem I have had with institutional religion -- many sects take the offense in trying to sell their faith to lure followers, and in order for people to have confidence in their *product* they must appear to practice what they preach and to cherry pick Bible verses. I can only act in defense of God and have the faith that I will be empowered with the right words.

I believe that a person cannot say, "Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior," (say it aloud and see what happens) without having accepted the Spirit. That is why I have wondered about Jon Stewart ever since he said on-air that, "Jesus Christ is My Lord and Savior," in the context of a joke. I do not know with certainty that a person can say that, even in the context of a joke, because even some Christians will not say it when pressed.

Many will even use hard line legalism, or people such as snake-handlers will test God's will to save them from poisonous snakes, or people will put their faith in the outcome of sporting events.

All bunk.

But that leads followers to look hypocritical by association, and thus impugns God. That is one reason why I seek to be a thumb in the eye to any group or inclination to be affirmed by other sinners. That is what I know from Christianity. Everyone is a sinner to some degree, thus the only One a person should want affirmation from is God.

But how would you know if you have sinned unless you read the Bible? You wouldn't. You wouldn't tell a judge, "I confess. I don't know to what, but I confess." It might be a scary process to do, but the resolve is in knowing that while you deserve death or exile, you have been given new life in Christ.

Some though claim to have been cleansed of all sin through baptism, which to an extent is true. The problem is that, acceptance of the Spirit is not a Get Out of Hell Free card. It's an admission that absolution is a daily process, and that each day is a test to overcome sin, hence, "Our Daily Bread."

It is an admission to not romanticize your failings. Everyone is a sinner, thus everyone has their failings. In God's eyes, they're all the same. In the extreme, even vicious murderers can receive absolution, but I do believe that sins against the body require more work than those who commit sins with no manifestation on themselves or others (such as lust).

Some of the problems that skeptics have with Christianity are as follows:

a) Why is God a jealous God?

b) How could people have been saved that did not live during a time of Christ or Protestantism?

c) Why do bad things happen to good people?

d) Why is God of the "Old Testament" different from Christ of the "New Testament"?

e) How can the Trinity be One?

f) Don't scientific facts and evolution disprove the possibility of God?

g) Why are there different versions of the Bible, and why were Books written but left out?

h) Have you seen the wars committed in the name of God?

i) Why doesn't God answer my prayers?

j) Why is money the root of all evil?

k) Why does the Bible "endorse" slavery?

This may in fact be a vain attempt to resolve doubt about God, but I do believe that as someone who follows God, that it is my duty to at least try to resolve the questions that cause doubt. Moreover, in attempting to answer those questions, I will not answer them in the order that I listed them, but simply as one defense.

First of all, here are a few things that I do not believe, but also believe. I don't believe that Jews or Catholics cause all the wars, humans do that from love of money. Money is a tool, and should be treated as such, rather than sought to fill a void in the soul, because money will create dependence on other sinners to buy from you.

I don't believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time as humans, but I do believe that when it comes to science and the scripture that there is more to the scripture than meets the eye.

Christ is the Conduit

Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior (say it aloud and see what happens) and that Jesus Forgives You for wandering astray to any degree, because without the Spirit as a conduit between the ways of Satan's earth and God's heaven, then humans are just awash in a sea of earthly sin and will miss the mark in their attempts to connect with God by worshipping earthly manifestations of faith such as Golden Calf’s, and even the Ten Commandments, which led to the extreme legalism that Christ impugned.

That is why I do not take inventory for the sins of others, because many people have sinned without malice, or were a product of the sins of our "fathers" or others, such as descendants of slaves through anger. Thus, to fight a person of that line will only push that person further away from the truth. White pride (refusal to acknowledge that the damage done by slavery transcends time) and black anger will only push a person astray and to the comfort of fleeting things that destroy the will to seek the Spirit.

As the Bible says, the meek shall inherit the Earth, thus no system of man can prevent a person from receiving the gift of heaven. Remember also to call no man "father," for that will empower him with a sense of delusion that will lead to sin. That is a big reason why I do not practice with the Catholic Church. If pressed, Catholic priests will even say that they don't follow the word of Christ, but insist that they have been given the keys to the kingdom.

I believe that Christ is the only conduit to God, but that there is more than one way to Christ. I don't believe that Christ died to create a *religion* unto Himself, but for followers and non-followers to learn to coexist. Traditions and heritage do not dictate whether you can be saved through Christ, and that "Christianity," itself has become its own heritage and set of traditions, but that Christ is still universal. Hence, Jews for Jesus -- they maintain Jewish traditions and heritage but recognize that Christianity is its own heritage and set of traditions but that does not prevent them from being saved by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, I believe that that belief applies to any culture.

It is a Choice, but the Desire to Choose is Not New

I believe that God gave everyone the free will to follow or not follow Him and that I can only inform a person that they have a choice and to be an example by walking the walk, but that, it is not my business if a person insists on not following, because even God does not interfere with free will.

This might sound convoluted, but I believe that it is your God given right to choose to burn in hell and that any thoughts that reject Him are not new. And that Hell is a place where your soul is incinerated and that you become nothing and remember nothing, you're merely a slave to a devil that is bound to lose in the, "postseason."

That there is nothing new under the sun, a sun which is believed to be the source of human cognition. It then seems appropriate that a pseudonym for Satan has been, "the light god," because I do believe that all thoughts are not new and that believing that you have created new thoughts or ideas is abhorrence to God.

Thus, I as a Christian must seek to resolve the sins of our "fathers" and the systems of man (slave owners) by showing mercy and apologizing for the fact that time and humanity is the, "same as it ever was," as David Byrnes wrote. The passage of time is just a perception affected by light, as we know from Einstein and the theory of relativity (whom believed in God but not the afterlife).

I do however believe that the people of today can save the souls of the dead by rectifying the earthly manifestations of past sins, so long as they did not take the mark of the beast.

I don't know what does and does not come from God. Nothing that I write or that you're thinking is truly new, because it has already been done or has already been planned. Maybe, you just haven't been exposed to it, so it is new to you. Like a rerun you haven't seen. God has seen it all before, and what we think is new, is just a rerun to God.

I say this with caution, but I imagine God looking down on wars and thinking, "This crap again. It is so cliché." Only difference is, He doesn't tune out. Sin just forces God to watch a terrible rerun, so why would you want to do that to Him?

Even The Beatles recognized that nothing is new in the song, "All You Need is Love," but knowing what I know about The Beatles, I would suspect that they were on the opposite side to the one I side with.

Little Bit of Metaphysics

This might be pop-culture heresy, but I find it suspicious that the murder of John Lennon occurred after he wrote a song in response to Bob Dylan's, "Gotta Serve Somebody," called, "Serve Yourself." To me, the murder of Lennon is the devil's allegory of, 'Who do you think you're kidding?'

No one truly understands the intentions of Mark David Chapman, but in my personal opinion, Chapman acted under the force of the devil in retaliation against Lennon.

The Catholic JFK was vice versa. He attempted to expose the sinister global movements that act in the dark, and thus, Kennedy was silenced. No, I do not allege a conspiracy, it was truly a, "magic bullet," if you get my drift, and that Oswald acted under supernatural ability.

That is what I believe. Maybe, it is wrong, but it is what I believe.

Conspiracy theories only lead to anger, which is a sin. People seek to explain the acts of Satan with elaborate theories on how humans may have done it (as if we had such power). That though only pushes a person away from God.

On Musicians

Dylan never officially renounced Christianity, he merely stopped writing all-Christian albums, but he has written songs with Christian or Biblical themes since then. Dylan has partaken in Jewish traditions and acts of Jewish heritage since then, but I have wondered whether Dylan considers himself a Jew for Jesus. After all, Dylan recently released a non-profit Christmas album, which would seem contrary to the idea that Dylan renounced Christianity.

Even in the song "Idiot Wind" from the Blood on The Tracks album, which was released a few years before Slow Train Coming, Dylan wrote, "There's a lone soldier on the cross / smoke pouring out of the box-car door / you didn't know it / you didn't think it could be done / in the final end H/he won the war / after losing every battle."

I have interpreted that to mean, Dylan was sick of being called a prophet by the media, fans, and even his then wife, "Even you yesterday / you had to ask me where it was at / I couldn't believe after all these years that you didn't know me any better than that. Sweet lady." Dylan also depicted his wife as a lioness (a lion is a metaphor for the devil) that had led him astray with various corrupt ideas and practices and that, "I can't even touch the books you've read," and that, "I crawled past your door / wishin' I'd been somebody else instead."

As for Lennon, I can't say what his fate was, but I do believe that the devil forced Lennon's hand and had him silenced. To be clear, when it comes to many musicians, I think of them as neither "here nor there." They are like one myth of the Jack O'Lantern. Long story, but the bottom line is that, the Jack made a deal with the devil, tried to recant, but afterwards was unwanted by God and the devil.

Yes, I do believe that many rock songs are laced with ideas that will lead the listener to the devil, or the song will lead you to a different song that will lead you to the devil, such as The Rolling Stones, "You Can't Always Get What You Want," could lead you to their other songs, or the anger of U2's "Sunday, Bloody, Sunday," could lead a listener to, "God Part II," which is a song about how Bono doesn't believe in certain things but does them anyway. The first line is of course, "Don't believe the devil."

I also believe that fools seek to be affirmed by rock music that holds no truth, but merely "spins in revolution," and is laced with the lies of the devil. Therein lies an ironic truth, rock music merely exposes the devil's lies and can be used to eviscerate the devil's hold on someone's soul, once it is exposed.

For instance, the devil is, "a man of wealth and taste." That is why I believe that many conservatives (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity) of today are the anti-thesis of Christianity and take inventory of black people under the guise of entertainment. I guarantee like Joe Namath that they will burn in hell... but I have no interest in accelerating the process. The conservatives of today preach individualism, greed, and materialism. As did Anton LaVey. There is even a website called Conservapedia.com, which argues that the Bible has a, "liberal bias," because it runs contrary with the ideals of capitalism. That though is not an insinuation that I go the other way to communism.

I do not claim that all (maybe some) musicians were malicious in writing songs, because I think many musicians are just confused dabblers mired in things that they don't truly understand, or may even view as innocuous (some songs even sound Christian), yet eventually get in over their head, and eventually can't get out without repercussions. Some even show remorse for their path that is bound to damnation (i.e. Elvis Presley). In my opinion, that explains the life of Britney Spears. She got caught-up in the path of the devil, thinking it was just an innocent adventure, but has failed to escape without humiliation and derision.

Fact is also that, many music fans spend time interpreting lyrics, and the fact is that, many of those songs can be interpreted soundly to have a Satanic meaning regardless of the person's intent. The ignorant will merely claim that songs have no meaning or that they don't pay attention to the lyrics, which is just nonsense. Music and song is one of the most powerful tools to connect or disconnect with or from God. Must be why the Book of Psalms is the, "Songs of David."

Why is God jealous? / Games of Chance Don't Affirm Faith

Frankly, the idea of a jealous God does not intimidate me. I believe that people are bothered by that because they feel like it means, they can't have what they want. But if you try sometime, you'll get what you need. That though is why people treat God as a genie in a magic bottle and thus believe that if their wish goes unfulfilled that it means God isn't there or doesn't care. God is there and does care, but you must accept that His priorities come first.

It is also why God abhors when people look to games of chance to affirm their faith. 'If my team wins,' or if 'I win this hand of cards,' and so on. That abhorrence is from the fact that God has created a level of chaos, chance, and randomness in the world and universe, because otherwise, it would be too simple to believe in Him. You must have the desire and courage of faith. Yet, it would also be monstrous to create life that has no choice.

I see it this way: If you had created the universe, then you'd have a fat-head too. Simultaneously, the fact that God is jealous merely means that He believes in the perfection of His creation and that He wants your attention and does not want for you to destroy yourself or the Earth through manifestations of sin.

This might sound brutally cynical but: Would you want attention from something you were ashamed of? I wouldn't. Jealous parents for instance, want attention from their kids because those parents love their kids, with that said, jealously is acceptable only for God, because only He has created everything.

"Wars and Rumors of Wars"

When bad things happen, those events are caused by those who have ignorantly followed the devil, such as drunk drivers who kill others. The test however, is for the living followers to turn an act of the devil into a positive. This will sound trite but, "There are three wooden crosses on the right side of the highway, why there's not four them, heaven only knows."

An example of the negative would include terrorists and those who respond in wrath to terrorism. But world leaders betray God and lead the foolish to believe they're fighting for a higher cause such as "freedom," after God empowered those sinful leaders amongst sinful people. God also created and empowered Satan, whom betrayed God. World leaders act in the same way by taking the Lord's name in vain by waging petty wars of their ego in the name of God.

Many of these governments whom wage petty wars adopted the image of, "St. George." Britain's highest honor is in fact, "Saint George's Cross." Some banks have even used St. George as a logo. St. George though is of unknown origin, but is depicted on a white horse that slays a dragon.

Funny thing is that, the Biblical description of the antichrist is that of a man on a white horse who appears to slay a dragon. That in my mind would explain the importance of St. George to the Christians during the Crusades. For it was St. George that was adopted as the symbol of the Knights Templar (the red cross on Templar armor is St. George's Cross).

And it was the Knight's Templar whom founded the Republic of Georgia (named after St. George).

The Love of Money rather than Money

I ask, "What truly is the difference between bastardizing Christianity to justify a war to spread the imperial economy and bastardizing democracy to justify a war to spread the global economy?" (That relates to the mention that banks use St. George's Cross as their logo).

Yes, Christians were fighting despotic Muslims, but on the side of the antichrist, and thus merely forced off a system of man that would not have prevented them from the gift of heaven. As it was Spanish Christians on the side of the antichrist that committed the Inquisition against Jews and Muslims. As it was the Catholics on the side of the antichrist against the Protestants after the Reformation. As it was Christians on the side of the antichrist whom committed the systematic genocide of Africans through slavery. As it was the Muslim Ottoman's on the side of the antichrist whom committed systematic genocide against Serbs and Armenians near the end of the First World War and throughout much of the history of the Ottoman Empire. As it was the Nazi's on the side of the antichrist that committed the Holocaust against Jews, Christians, and many others. As it was the democracies of NATO on the side of the antichrist whom murdered Serbians on *Easter* Sunday in 1999. As it was, Muslims on the side of the antichrist that flew into the Trade Towers in 2001.

"Same as it ever was. Look where my hand was."

God will give you justice

Their bodies won't rise from the dead, but I guarantee like Joe Namath that they ascended to heaven. And no, I don't endorse suicide bombers, because that is intentional, not unintentional.

If one truly follows God, then only the body can be destroyed by misguided people, but cannot destroy the Spirit that he or she has accepted. Thus, if a person has ascended to heaven: Is that truly bad? I think that it just runs contrary to what people have vainly decided they want while alive.

Dr. New Life, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Truth

Technology is just the vanity of want and the idea that we've evolved. Even today, we don't really understand how ancient societies built great wonders like Stone Henge, the Pyramids, the Roman Aqueducts, and other marvels. Some say that aliens did it, but who created the aliens? At some point, a person must realize that there is a beginning and an end.

I believe that those civilizations, like ours, had advanced technologies and that the knowledge of which has been lost over time due to that level of chaos, chance, and randomness that I mentioned. It is just the vanity of today's society to look back and think we're more advanced or evolved, because well, people like their Black Berry, computer, radio, or TV more than the Pyramids. Thus, inventions are just the byproduct of the priorities of that society and not a reflection of full potential, so thus, thinking that today's tech is necessarily better than yesterday's tech is tinged with ethnocentrism.

Yet people have argued for the theory that humans have evolved from other species over the course of time. Here is my problem with that idea. We know today that humans are self-destructive. Look at suicide bombers or those freaks who have calculated Pi to a trillion digits. Meanwhile, human evolution argues that people have gotten stronger over the course of time and thus evolve at various precipices. But if we know that people are self-destructive, how could we have evolved by getting stronger?

Ironically, the people who argue for human evolution are often self-destructive, and those of faith who try to adhere to morals are generally stronger and more constructive.

We are today what we were yesterday, to borrow an idea from James Hutton whom proposed the idea of uniformitarianism to explain the geological changes of the Earth, as opposed to catastrophism which argued that the Earth merely changed through instantaneous disasters.

The theory of human evolution only works if you believe that the strongest survived catastrophes such as war (Hundred Years War, Thirty Years War, etc) or disease (Black Plague, etc). In those cases, the survivors were mostly the upper-classes. In the case of the Black Plague, the rich cooked their food in silver, which diffused into their food and thus their blood and protected them from death. It also turned them blue, which is the origin of the term 'blue blood.'

Thus, the only way for humans to "evolve" is by destroying humans to see which survive.

You can see hardcore evolutionism at work in the films of Stanley Kubrick, whom could be described as a neo-con or British conservative.

2001: A Space Odyssey obviously argued in favor of human evolution from another species, but even suggests that our universe is only an infant and that technology is just vanity.

A Clockwork Orange meanwhile does not argue that humans should not be restrained, but in fact argues that man is inherently bad and must be restrained, but the question is: To what degree?

Kubrick has even stated that he was not anti-war but not pro-war. However, he did believe that there was a level of, "beauty" to war, which would explain Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket -- that war is merely a tool of human evolution: the strong will survive, the weak will crack.

I also suspect that Dr. Strangelove; or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb does not argue that atomic holocaust is the end of humanity, but merely suggests ironically that atomic holocaust is the needed catalyst to the next stage of evolution with the song, "We'll Meet Again," to the footage of nuclear explosions. The joke of the film lies in the satire that those who control the button have yet to evolve -- they have just benefited from the wheel of fortune to be in their place.

As I alluded, the theory of human evolution would suggest that each generation of people has evolved from the strongest of the previous generation, which would explain Kubrick's film Barry Lyndon, which is about a man of no status that insinuates his way through the ranks of society. Meanwhile, Kubrick attempted to illustrate in Spartacus that the low-end of society (slaves) do have beliefs and will, but not the means or strength to cast-off the system of slavery: they can try, but will fail.

Upon ascending to the top of society, one should become preoccupied with their sexual desires, no matter how twisted, and that they need to expand their gene-pool to ensure that they will evolve, as evidence by Kubrick's film's Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut.

You can even see Kubrick's beliefs in metaphysics and that people can be driven to kill by forces they underestimate or don't understand in The Shining. I should note, that Kubrick's version of The Shining was almost entirely his own, and that the book's author Stephen King had many misgivings about the film and would eventually work on a made for TV version.

I don't believe in those things, but I do believe that hardcore evolutionists do, or that those are the logical flaws of such beliefs.

Nevertheless, I do believe in intraspecies evolution (changes over time within the same species) but not in the idea that one species evolved from a different species. Even the Bible recognizes that a species can change overtime within its species.

More to the Scripture than Meets the Eye

Even Isaac Newton believed that science merely explained how God had worked, as did most scientists before Darwin. And even the leading scientists of evolution cannot explain how one species can genetically evolve into a different species. Amongst other ideas, they'll say that aliens did it.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth... and then said let their be light. That would suggest that the Heavens and Earth formed before light, and that the Earth was shaped at the speed of light.

See, the Bible says that God worked in six days, but does not specify how long a day is to God. Some argue that a day to God is a thousand years. I believe that there is more at play.

Our perception of time is affected by light; we are in another universe to God. Billions of years in our universe, could be only the blink of an eye to God. In that, six days to God could have spanned billions of years in our universe. Could be why He was so tired at the end.

I don't claim to know how it happened, but I do believe that God created all creatures’ even beasts such as dinosaurs. I don't believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, but as I suggested, the timeline of Earth is merely a perception. We see it as very long, to God it may have been very short.

And that, dinosaurs were part of His process which shaped Earth, but were eliminated before He created humans, but that it was unnecessary to mention in the Bible. Dinosaurs weren't a mistake, but rather, needed to determine the sustainability and habitability of the planet for humans for generations to come, but those resources have been manipulated and wrongly used.

I'm not saying that God created dinosaurs as a source for oil. I'm saying that dinosaurs, in the time before oil, were an integral part of the Earth's structure... which we've been destroying.

That leads to the development of the Bible. People often site the fact that Books of the Bible had been written and not included, and that the Bible has different versions. Firstly, if you study parallel Bibles, you'll see that the translations remain very close. Secondly, I do believe that the Bible has 66 books for a reason. The number 66 means incomplete, which would suggest that there is more to it, but it is all you need to know to follow God.

And that the only conduit to God is through the Holy Spirit. Logically though, you can't believe in one without the other. If you believe that God is God and sent His son to understand the sinful ways of man and returned to Him to explain why we do what we do, then you have to believe in all three, but that each one acts in a different way but for the same goal.

God is vengeful, Christ is merciful, and the Holy Spirit is forgiving. God tells you what you deserve (death or exile). Christ tells you what you've been given (new life) and the Holy Spirit ends the human dependence on their manifestations to seek God.

Finally...

I note that, Saladin of the Muslims was reportedly killed during the Crusades on March 4th... with the homonym being March Forth. I was born on March 4th. The US Constitution also went into effect on March 4th, which was also the original Inauguration Day for US Presidents.

And that my name, David Thomas Xaviel is that of a king and a doubter and that my last name means, "New house." Xaviel was originally Xavier, but the last letter was changed for bank records. I also like to say that my first and middle name is paradoxical because I believe in my significant place, but also tell myself, "I have no clothes," for it was a doubter whom had the courage to state, "The emperor has no clothes." Of course, I believe that there is only one true king, so perhaps the aforementioned statement is the only way to reverse the curse cast on humans after Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit.

I gathered the idea that humans today are the same as yesterday from Hutton's uniformitarianism, as opposed to the catastrophism of evolution.

I learned that from rocks. Football players throw a rock, musicians play rock. And God is my rock.

Forgive me Father for I know not what I do so you have forsaken me, because I know not what I do, thus it is done.

Why the US Congress Should Revoke ESPN's License to Broadcast

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:55:11 -0500

I have just about had it with ESPN.

On one hand, I can imagine that ESPN employs respectable people, yet the big picture of ESPN is that ESPN is nothing more than propaganda that only serves to divide people in many ways, including racial lines.

ESPN is nothing more than yellow journalism and not in a harmless or entertaining way.

On one hand, you'll get hacks that laugh at distraught fans (see, College GameDay); on the other hand you'll get more hacks that washed out from some school yet somehow insinuate themselves into places that they don't belong (see, cast of Around The Horn ).

Ooh, but we should feel badly about ourselves because we aren't puppets that, "get to" be on the flickering idiot box, believing that the job is inherently a higher plane of intelligence.

It seems fitting that the former host of SportsCenter would be Keith Olbermann, whom is one of the most divisive names in the mainstream media. Olbermann even called ESPN a "Godforsaken place," and later backed down from his criticism and shouldered the blame in an article called, "Mea Culpa."

I wonder how many pellets they had to feed to Olbermann for him to cave. But don't get me wrong, Bill O'Reilly has been just as bad, but Olbermann relates to ESPN.

ESPN has stooped to a new low. One of the few shows on ESPN that may have had a scintilla of integrity, Outside the Lines, has now engaged in a hit piece against Raiders coach Tom Cable, in which his ex-wife and former girlfriend accuse Cable of repeated abuse.

This hit piece by ESPN is transparent. The sports media has already allowed for Randy Hanson to defame Coach Cable with bunk accusations of assault.

Now, with egg on their face, because you know, they aren't journalists, columnists, or even sufficient critics, they have decided that it would be prudent to report this junk about Cable after ESPN refused to report the civil charges of rape against Ben Roethlisberger.

For years, ESPN refused to investigate the problem of steroids in baseball, only to allow their job to be dumped on the US Congress.

ESPN refused to investigate Spygate. ESPN refused to investigate the veracity of accusations against Pacman Jones and thus allowed Commissioner Goodell to in effect end the career of the troubled player for unsubstantiated accusations against him.

And yet, ESPN will report this nonsense that was never reported to law enforcement or any other agency.

Why? Because the one incident against Cable was 20 years ago. Cable admittedly slapped his wife on the face in anger, because he learned that she had been adulterous. Cable openly regrets what happened and has stated that he has regretted ever since.

Yet, ESPN in their malice has decided that they need to cover their rears after giving a forum to Randy Hanson and picking on that story like vultures.

ESPN has shown over the course of the years to engage in malicious attacks against the Raiders organization, including Bill Plaschke of Around the Horn and Jay Mariotti of the same show.

In August, the Pittsburgh native, Mariotti would even refer to the legendary organization as a "God-awful franchise," and that Cable should be suspended and that Al Davis should "vanish."

While Plaschke openly used his time on ATH to call for the suspension of Cable even after the Napa County DA announced that there would be no charges against Cable for assault, and that Hanson had broken his jaw after falling backwards in his chair, because he had his feet on the table.

Even Tony Kornheiser of Pardon the Interruption asserted that the witnesses "may have" been intimidated, which is a ridiculous assertion and effectively questions the integrity of the Napa County DA.

Had the Napa County DA believed that intimidation was occurring, the DA surely would have investigated.

Kornheiser has also admitted to his "East Coast bias" when talking about how much he loves the match-up between the New York Yankees and Philadelphia Phillies.

It is clear to me that ESPN is trying to get Cable suspended with their horrid accusations that have no credibility, because ESPN did not confront Cable about the story before it aired. And that ESPN is doing so, because of malicious intent against the Raiders.

Why do I think that? Because they exposed their own hypocrisy.

Perhaps then, this is not about the Raiders per se, but about an "East coast bias" that tries to undermine the efforts of teams not on the East coast or the Eastern time zone.

In a memo to ESPN employees, ESPN’s senior vice president and director of news, Vince Doria, confirmed that he issued a memo that ordered ESPN employees to not report the charges of rape made by the Nevada woman on that grounds that it would damage the reputation of Ben Roethlisberger.

Said Doria, “Those are the things that I think are damaging to reputations, and I think you need to know more about them before you report them. As it stands right now, today, we don’t think it meets our standard of reporting.’’

Yet, ESPN will report unsubstantiated claims of abuse by Tom Cable? How does that meet their "standards of reporting?"

Clearly, ESPN is not a news organization. It is yellow journalism that merely seeks to divide people, even if along racial lines.

ESPN more than any other network, I believe, is responsible for the fact that this country is still divided racially. People still can't emphasize with people of another race.

Why? Because networks like ESPN propagate the idea that everyone should want to do what they do, or to be in sports. And when they fail to reach their dream, they blame someone else ... usually someone of a different race.

Thus, I would like to see the US Congress and FCC investigate whether they should remove ESPN's license to broadcast.

ESPN clearly does not belong on the air.

Oakland Raiders' Quarterback JaMarcus Russell Needs to Man-Up

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:29:36 -0400

After that thumping by the Jets of the Raiders, I don't know that JaMarcus Russell and the Raiders even care. I don't believe that they take pride in themselves or what they do. They seem fulfilled by getting a fat paycheck for doing nothing.

Moreover, I do not understand why people have said, "I don't buy the race argument," when I have not made race arguments. I was merely trying to communicate the fact that still today, any black quarterback represents something more than just himself in the NFL.

If you can't understand that, then I suggest that you look in the mirror.

I emphasize "in the NFL" because the NFL is still where it counts the most. Since the beginning of the Super Bowl, only twice has a black quarterback started in the Super Bowl: Donovan McNabb and Doug Williams.

Until Doug Williams in 1978, there had not been a prominent black quarterback in the NFL. It was fitting that Williams would become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl for the team of George Preston Marshall, the Washington Redskins.

Marshall, of course, had been an ardent bigot whom had refused to sign a black player until 1962 when he was forced to do so, and died in 1969 from a stroke.

That is not a race argument. That is a factual argument.

As for Russell...

Russell has let-down Raider fans...and he's also letting-down kids that want to believe that they can grow-up to succeed in the NFL as a black quarterback.

I try to appeal to a person's sense of honor. I don't believe in one universal sense of honor. I believe that everyone should have a sense of honor, and that I'll accept that as it is.

What is Russell's sense of honor?

After that game against the Jets, I don't see honor from Russell. Russell even made excuses after the game for the poor showing. I realize that football is a team effort and that the statistics of one player are affected by the whole team.

Leadership, however, is the willingness to put responsibility on your shoulder. And that is what is expected from a quarterback.

That does not mean that Russell cannot achieve that, but I think it's high-time that Russell be challenged to man-up not only for himself, but as I said, something more than just himself.

Homecoming Queen: With Brady Rule, Should NFL Allow Women to Play Quarterback?

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:38:17 -0400

I have wondered something about The Brady Rule. Since it almost all but negates the ability of a defense to pressure an NFL quarterback, and thus makes the position easier and less physically demanding: How long before the NFL allows a woman to actually play quarterback?

Thanks to the Brady Rule, not only do quarterbacks not have to worry about getting dirty, they also don't have to worry about their hair or manicures either.

Thus, even an effeminate woman could play the position. Giselle Bundchen is about 5'11", which would not make her the shortest quarterback to ever play (shout out to Doug Flutie). Why not give the ball to her to throw? How 'bout Jennie Finch? Another ten pounds and she'd be the same size as Jeff Garcia.

And in fact, rules have in the past allowed for women to fill a position, by making the position less physically demanding (ex, the military).

I never watched the whole movie, but once I flipped through the TV stations to see the end of a movie called Quarterback Princess in which a high school girl fights to play quarterback for her high school team. Not only does she lead the team to a title, but is also named homecoming queen.

That seems appropriate with Tom Brady's homecoming from London after the New England Patriots rout of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

You might thing this article has under-handed sexist insinuations. I know that I'm being tongue in cheek, but the intent is true.

What the NFL has done through the Brady Rule is admit that the physical demands of the NFL no longer matter and are unimportant to the position of quarterback. In the past, the argument against women playing in the NFL or football is that the game is too physically demanding and violent.

Blowouts Will Lead to More Blackouts / Parity Made the NFL Profitable

The NFL now is not about a physical game: it is about meaningless points on the board that put me to sleep. The NFL has been a snooze-fest in 2009.

There is no excitement to any of these games, as we are seeing more and more blowouts in the NFL. They are just one-sided exhibitions. The NFL frankly, sucks.

Those who know my work know that I'm a Raider fan. So obviously, I have seen my share of blowouts. The reality is that, that is a phenomenon across the board in the NFL, thanks to the emphasis on protecting the prissy passers.

At least in the past, I could enjoy football in the abstract by watching other teams play great football. Now, all that matters is what team you choose to be a fan of. You can't enjoy football for the sake of football.

Eventually, people will stop watching all together because there is nothing to watch, which could have untold detrimental effects on the profitability of the NFL; a league that relies on profit sharing. Fans on the losing end will stop caring, and when that happens, the fans on the winning end will have no satisfaction of gloating because the other side stopped caring.

As the NFL has argued in court and is currently doing so against American Needle, NFL franchises are not independent entities within the NFL, because an NFL team cannot compete against itself (as the NFL argues).

Under the Brady Rule, NFL teams essentially do compete against themselves, while their opponent's are just punching bags, and all it comes down to is whether the quarterback does or does not have a not so fresh feeling.

So how 'bout some new life in there by shaking-up things?

Nevertheless, I think that I'm just extrapolating the logical consistencies of The Brady Rule. The NFL continues to make the demands of quarterback less demanding and put the emphasis on making NFL games allegories of retaliation of back-room grudges (just ask Sally Reese).

Thus logically, that should open the job to a more diverse candidate pool in a field that used to model itself on being a brutal game that wasn't meant for some people physically.

If the passing-game is supposed to be about, "the complex defenses" and learning the playbook, rather than the combination of physical rigors of the game: Why not let a woman play? It is only fair based on the NFL rules.

Even Matt Hasselbeck with his bad back can throw four touchdowns. Does that prove anything about the Seattle Seahawks? No.

Who is to say that a woman can't lead a football team if given the opportunity? I mean, c'mon: What woman wouldn't love to win a fancy ring? Don't tell me then that she would have no motivation.

More and more today, we see more female body-builders that could compete under the NFL's new rules that take-out the tension that once made the NFL exciting; that being, the tension as to whether the quarterback can stay cool under pressure, and whether the defense can "Checkmate" the quarterback.

As it stands, the NFL may as well just use rules of golf for quarterback statistics and spot the passers a handicap of 100 yards passing and a touchdown to start each game.

Now however, the quarterback is not the "King" of the field because the NFL has basically set up Police Tape around the quarterback that says Do Not Cross with rules like The Brady Rule. The quarterback is the "Princess" of the field. He's a delicate investment that needs to be protected.

Just ask Jay Cutler.

If all it takes to succeed in the NFL is to intentionally draw roughing the passer calls, like Tom Brady has done, then it seems like the logical next step on a continuum to allow a woman to play quarterback, because clearly, the NFL won't allow the quarterback to get hit.

Jets-Raiders: Do The Oakland Raiders Have Pride?

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:53:51 -0400

That is about the extent of the quesion: Do the Oakland Raiders have pride?

Do they care about anything more than just getting paid and the excesses of playing in the NFL?

Do players care that loyal, proud fans stick with their team and support them financially?

Born fans that stick with their team rather than be scared away by losses or get beaten down by critics and opposing fans?

Do the players care? Do they have pride in themselves? It doesn't seem like it.

Take QB JaMarcus Russell.

Here is the conundrum.

Why should I defend a black quarterback who clearly has no pride?

I have been a defender of JaMarcus Russell because I believed that many of his critics were just uncomfortable with the idea of a black quarterback. Many declared him a bust before he took a snap. Was I right to defend him?

When we see him perform, we see he's not progressing. Does he care?

Does Russell care that he has an opportunity to change the image of black quarterbacks in the NFL?

So far, I think he has merely reinforced the negative stereotypes of black QBs. He may even be hurting the future chances for black quarterbacks in the NFL, no matter how unfair that is.

The only one who can change JaMarcus Russell's image is JaMarcus Russell. And I don't think he cares.

One blogger even commented that he would rather lose with Bruce Gradkowski than with Russell.

Gee, I wonder why.

He'd rather lose with a white leader than try to win with a black leader. Sounds like Rush Limbaugh.

I applauded Richard Seymour for stepping-up as leader by trying to set the bar high for this team. But they not only fell short against the Jets. They were road-kill.

All I can surmise is that the Raiders are too concerned with trivial things than they are with playing football and giving loyal fans something to cheer for.

ADDITION

After that thumping by the Jets, I don't know that Russell and the Raiders even care. I don't believe that they take pride in themselves or what they do. They feel fulfilled by getting a fat paycheck for doing nothing.

Moreover, I do not understand why people are saying, "I don't buy the race argument," when I wasn't trying to make a race argument. I was merely trying to communicate the fact that still today, any black quarterback represents something more than just himself.

If you can't understand that, then I suggest that you look in the mirror.

Russell has let-down Raider fans ... and he's also letting-down kids that want to believe that they can grow-up and succeed in the NFL as a black quarterback.

I was trying to appeal to a sense of honor.

After that game, I don't see it from Russell. That does not mean that Russell cannot achieve that, but I think it's high-time that Russell be challenged to man-up not only for himself, but as I said, something more than just himself.

Why Darren McFadden Can Be the NFL's Next Great Runningback

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:57:06 -0400

Here is a question that has bothered me: Does Raider runningback, Darren McFadden, have what it takes to be the next great runningback?

When the Raiders selected McFadden with the fourth overall pick in the 2008 NFL Draft, scouts had compared McFadden to Marshall Faulk.

In this era of the NFL (1983-present), that is about the highest honor a running back can get with few exceptions.

McFadden showed Raider fans a glimpse of his potential against the Kansas City Chiefs in Arrowhead last year, but unfortunately, McFadden has been riddled with injuries ever since, with lacklustre play when he has had the chance.

In fact, Justin Fargas and Michael Bush have been more reliable than McFadden. The problem is that McFadden has the expectation to be a Hall of Fame level running back, not just a backup.

I hope I did not detract from what Bush and Fargas have done for the Raiders, but I think it is undeniable that the Raiders selected McFadden, when they had Bush and Fargas, because the Raiders believed that McFadden had the unique ability to be the next LaDainian Tomlinson or Adrian Peterson.

Now that Peterson has declared that he wants all the records, I would like to see a duel between McFadden and Peterson chase the records and title of America's next top runningback.

That is hard to do when you are sidelined by injuries, and what can one do about injuries? Are injuries fully outside of a football player's control? Since I do believe that injuries often result from carelessness, lack of focus, or ignorance, I do believe that many injuries in sports result from a player's decision, stubbornness, or lack of preparation.

In an extreme case, baseball player Aaron Rowand once broke his nose when he crashed into the fence to prevent a home run.

In some cases, the decision is admirable. You stop a big play, you take a bullet, and you lay down your life.

The majority of time however, I think injuries in sports result from poor technique and an unwillingness to modify your technique because it worked in college. McFadden has all the physical tools to succeed in the pros, but I think he has been riddled with injuries because he has been reticent to adapt his techniques, and thus gets hurt.

Bad footing, running at the wrong angle on a cut, running into a defender at one angle as opposed to a different angle, poor weight shifting, or poor leverage against the opponent on a block are all examples of what can lead to an injury for a running-back.

Way back when in 2002, when I started losing weight, I decided that a fun exercise would be to chase my dog and see if I could keep pace with him. A dog can be a fast son of a gun, so it requires good technique to keep pace with a dog without getting hurt.

Also, I spent nearly two years at The Home Depot. When I started in Watsonville, CA I worked like a fiend, closing two departments in a high-volume store, with little help from the person before my shift.

Often times, I would come home incredibly sore. I loved it. Yet, never once did I hurt my back or incur an injury, because of technique. I always lifted with my legs or focused the weight on the lower body, moved the upper legs, staggered my stances, or moved my anterior torso.

Yet, many people at The Home Depot were forced to watch endless safety videos to prevent injury, and many people often had back-injuries that resulted from lifting.

I am convinced that McFadden's issues are mostly technique and a lack of work ethic with the Raiders. I however, expect that McFadden will rise to the level of the next great running back and that he cannot do that by sheer will. He has to want it enough to prepare like a fiend.

As Steve Young said of Jerry Rice, Rice was the rare combination of talent and ethic. Some players work hard without talent. Talented players blow off work. Yet, the great players have talent and work ethic.

That is what I expect from McFadden.

Why the Guarantee By Raiders' Richard Seymour Is Audacity of Hope

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:12:11 -0400

Star defensive-tackle Richard "The King" Seymour of the Oakland Raiders has had the audacity of hope to declare that the Oakland Raiders will earn a postseason berth.

Many in Raider Nation think that Seymour's statements are setting up the Raiders for heartbreak.

Frankly, I love it.

I call Seymour the King, as in King Richard, and that the team needs to listen to The King. He has three Super Bowl rings, and played for a team that went 16-0 in the regular season.

The King has also played for a New England team in 2001 that started that season at 3-4 and was riddled by the loss of star quarterback Drew Bledsoe, whom was replaced by of course, Tom Brady. That team of course, would eventually win the Super Bowl in an upset over the St. Louis Rams.

I'm not about to declare JaMarcus Russell as the next Tom Brady, but I am saying that Seymour has triumped through adversity to achieve greatness. The past is in the past, and the future has yet to be written.

After the Raiders upset the Eagles in a game that included a remarkable sight. That being a pigeon that flew in sync with the Raiders special teams unit for kickoff coverage.

Pigeons of course have in the past been trained to carry messages ("Carrier Pigeons") and I'd like to believe that that pigeon is an allegory for a message of future success.

I have long defended the Raiders because I thought they lacked effort more than they lacked talent. It seemed that the Raiders had talent; a talent which led to cockiness, which diffused into a poor work ethic, which resulted in foolish mistakes on the field.

Many times in the seasons of 2003-2005, the Raiders had touchdowns negated by holding penalties.

In 2006-2008, the Raiders often led at half-time only to blow the lead in the fourth quarter.

Thus, I had concluded that the Raiders had talent but a lack of focus and effort to close games.

With Seymour, he has sent a resounding message to the Raiders to man-up rather than just cash paychecks.

Yes, you can!

Man-up, Raiders. Man-up.

And of course, I may have called Richard Seymour "The King," but there is only one true King (ahem).

With Cable Clear, Hanson Should Be Sued and Jay Mariotti Should "Vanish"

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:41:55 -0400

Now that Raiders coach Tom Cable has been cleared of assault charges filed by former Raiders assistant Randy Hanson, I must opine on a few things.

Randy Hanson should be sued, while ESPN reporter Jay Mariotti should take his own advice and, "vanish."

To prevent any ambiguity, Mariotti wrote a blog in August that Tom Cable should be suspended and Al Davis should vanish. In that blog, Mariotti stated that he reports gossip about the Raiders. In this case, that gossip has been a detrimental distraction to the workplace environment of the Oakland Raiders.

Mariotti is known for being detrimental to the workplace environment from his days at the Chicago Sun-Times, in which he often engaged in heated confrontations with co-workers. After he abruptly quit the Times in August of 2008, his colleague, Pulitzer Prize winning critic Roger Ebert wrote a blog entitled, "Jay the Rat" in response to Mariotti's public hostility towards his former employer and co-workers.

Mariotti had gone on local television to humiliate his former employer by ranting on why he thought the Sun-Times would go bankrupt. The fact that the Sun-Times has filed for bankruptcy protection is no excuse for Mariotti to deride publicly his former employer. It was merely an act of a disgruntled employee and not in the interest of the public, only his ego.

It seems to me that Mariotti's instability diffused into the Raiders workplace through his irresponsible reporting.

Point being that, Mariotti has helped defame Coach Cable with irresponsible columns, because Mariotti has stated that he reports gossip about the Raiders without investigation and under the guise of legitimate news and that he makes an exception to his rules for the Raiders.

He also indicated much malice towards the Raiders, because he has viewed himself and other reporters as victims of Al Davis and the Raiders, because the sports media has to cover news about Davis and the Raiders.

Mariotti should take his own advice and resign from the public eye of sports. In other words: Get lost. He is not a credible news source, and his presence at ESPN makes ESPN a joke. Of course, ESPN is arrogant enough to believe that viewers will just forget that they employ an agent of defamation.

I will not forget, and I expect the same from Raider Nation. Mariotti's employment at ESPN is intolerable, and he should be terminated from employment or resign immediately. Though I have no direct power, I hope that Raider Nation will rally in this call to pressure ESPN into taking the appropriate action against Mariotti.

Voicing our disgust and demanding appropriate action with and against Jay Mariotti is the only thing we can do.

Unless of course, Mariotti follow through on what I asked of him by email. That being to apologize to his former employer and co-workers. Not Davis or the Raiders. Rather, to admit publicly that he has been an irresponsible loose-cannon and privately apologize to those he transgressed against.

As Keith Olberman once said of ESPN, ESPN is a, "Godforsaken place." So to expect such an act by ESPN or their employees is probably just wishful thinking or even a pipe dream.

As Mariotti would say however, "Prove to me" that I am wrong. If Olberman can admit to culpability for his behavior in the working environment (Google "Mea Culpa" by Olberman), then so can Mariotti.

As for Randy Hanson, the Napa County District Attorney determined that the incident in which Randy Hanson broke his jaw was an accident that resulted mostly from his carelessness. In that, Hanson had his feet up on the desk while leaning back in his chair when he fell backwards.

Sounds to me that Hanson fell over, and then blamed the first person he saw for his childishness. Either way, any kid would know better than to put your feet on the table and lean back in the chair, because it exposes you to an increased chance of getting hurt.

Any adolescent child has been told by their parents to not do such a thing. Hanson did, and instead of taking responsibility for his childishness, he attempted to defame Coach Cable by talking to anyone in the media that, like Mariotti, report gossip about the Raiders.

In an interview with Yahoo sports, Hanson claimed that Coach Cable made a threat on his life, before he reported that to the police.

I do not know about you, but I think such claims should be kept as a private matter for the District Attorney, but clearly, Hanson tried to defame Coach Cable, because the Raiders organization has been viewed negatively in the past. Especially since the 2002 Super Bowl loss and in part because of an incident in which a juicer named Bill Romanowski attacked a teammate.

As any person responsible to the truth would know, a pattern is not a pattern unless directly connected by facts. Anything else is just fantasy or wild speculation.

In the case of the Raiders, many sports writers (aka, conspiracy theorists) are more than willing to use Al Davis as a dynamic fact to connect all evils in the sports world, like any conspiracy theorist that thinks "they" are out to get them. Read Mariotti's blog ("Cable Should Be Suspended, Davis Should Vanish”) and you will see that he thinks Davis and the Raiders are out to get him.

Many Raider fans and NFL fans alike believe that the distraction caused by the charges against Cable, contributed to the Raiders lack of passion on the field, which lead to a three game losing streak that has been the worst in Raider history.

It was not until the Antonio Pierce insult that the Raiders felt a sense of duty to man-up. Now, Richard Seymour has had the "Audacity of hope" to declare that the Raiders will earn a post-season berth this year.

Frankly, I think Hanson should be sued for defamation, because of this pointless distraction.

At least, that is my opinion. I could be wrong, but what do you think?

Why Tom Brady Is Begging For a Bone Crunching Sack

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:16:07 -0400

Is Tom Brady begging for a bone-crunching hit?

The New England Patriots today defeated the Tennessee Titans by a score of 59-0.

This type of game reminds me as to why the Patriots and Brady have no class. Running up the score is a mockery to the traditions of football, admired only by loser fans that dote over stats.

Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave.

Running up the score in the NFL is asking for it. Unless it is a postseason game, you had better watch your back in the NFL after a performance like this; and Brady has just put a target on his.

(Retroactive addition) After the game, the wife of former Titans GM Floyd Reese, Sally, appeared on WGFX radio in Nashville to state her satisfaction with humiliating the Titans, after the Titans had fired her husband with little notice.

That though should tell you what it was all about.

Not the greatness of the game, but paypack for some petty private squabbling between people of little character. Football then has become nothing more than allegories for corporate thugs to dote over, rather than allegories for the common person to achieve greatness.

Seems to me that the NFL is becoming more like the BCS. The on-field performances matter less than the off-field squabbles of diminutive trolls.

Stats don't indicate dominance. The ability to show restraint and still win is a true sign of dominance. Rubbing someone's face in your pile of feces is not dominance, just the act of a dirt-bag.

People who follow my articles will probably think, "Oh, he's at it again."

Funny thing is, that Brady gives so much material that I do not have to concoct anything. He is a classless shrew and should be shown no mercy on a sack.

He doesn't show mercy, so why should you?

Eye for an eye, man … and if you are Orlando Brown, the penalty flag make might nearly make you blind.

Brady will even laugh in your face because he knows that NFL rules unfairly favor a dirt-bag like him.

Just ask Ray Lewis.

Brady dishonors the game; he dishonored a great player, and even dishonored the mother of his son. Why? Because Brady is a dishonorable shrew.

I think Brady is begging for a bone-crunching hit. Take the penalty or even the suspension because Brady makes a mockery of a great game. We know that Brady knows how to laugh, so teach him to scream!

If anything, the NFL should fine Brady for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Why Richard Seymour Is the AFC Defensive Player of the Week

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:15:39 -0400

It has finally happened. The Raiders defense performed the way that Raider fans know it can.

Despite some great plays on offense by the Raiders against the Eagles, including an 86 yard catch-and-run by Zach Miller and supported with blocks by Louis Murphy in the Raiders 13-9 upset win over the Eagles.

The real story of the Raiders upset win over the Eagles was the defense.

After getting destroyed in the previous three weeks, the Raider defense showed what it can be when it doesn't use a playbook dated in the 1970s.

The Raider defense harassed Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb all day with blitzes, and came up with six sacks: 2 by Trevor Scott, 1 by Jay Richardson, 1 by Thomas Howard, and 2 by Richard Seymour.

That's right. Richard Seymour...let the sports media shudder to think that Al Davis can still do somethings right (which don't include play-calling or writing the playbook).

The Eagles weren't offensive chumps going to Oakland. The Eagles had the second best scoring offense in the NFL and were smacked by the suddenly ebullient defense that had made a national impression on opening week against the Chargers.

In all, Seymour had four tackles, two sacks, a forced fumble, and led the charge of a new blitz-happy defense in Oakland.

For the Raiders defense to step up in a convincing fashion against a high-powered offense after looking like slop the last three weeks, is all I need to know to say that Richard Seymour in the AFC Defensive Player of the Week.

Zach Miller Time: Getting the Ball to Tight End a Key to Success for Oakland

David Xaviel is the Real Mr. X — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:04:25 -0400

Offensively this season, the Raiders have struggled, with occasional flashes of brilliance.

In the games against San Diego and Philadelphia, most of those flashes came from tight end Zach Miller.

The problem has been that defenses key-in on Miller and negate his presence, partially from a lack of support from the rest of the offense.

It might not sound glamorous, but the Raiders need to respond by getting the ball to Miller by any means necessary. Case in point would be today's 86-yard TD by Miller, which resulted from two punishing blocks by rookie receiver Louis Murphy.

The best way to build confidence is to master the simple things with intensity and allow the rest to evolve organically.

Murphy and Darrius Heyward-Bey are still developing as receivers but can do things like block and run the reverse. And with the ball in Miller's hands, the Raiders have a chance.

That, though, would give all the glamour to Miller, so I suggest to Miller (if reading) that every time an offensive player provides a key block or other play when you have the ball, that you should buy him a case of Miller beer.

And the Raiders could have a chance.