Saturday, January 5, 2008

Debates Tonight, Redskins in 10 Minutes!

Be sure to tune in to NBC at 4:30 to watch the Washington Redskins stomp the Seattle Seahawks. If you're at work, you can follow the game via the live coverage from ESPN on your computer.

Also, remember that there will be debates for both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party tonight starting at 7 pm on ABC. If the Skins game doesn't go into OT, that's going to be over 7 hours of football and politics.

All I need is a 6-pack, and I'll be set for the evening!

Wonderin' Bout Wyoming

As many bloggers have pointed out, the GOP Caucus in Wyoming is today. While most are ignoring it, a few are paying attention.

From what I understand, the three names to watch in Wyoming are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and possibly Ron Paul.

3 men who all need momentum.

Friday, January 4, 2008

Iowa Results and Fallout

Dem Caucus
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%

GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.

Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.

- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.

- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.

- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.

- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.

- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

It All Comes Down to This

Iowa is but an hour or so away...the Democratic caucuses across the Hawkeye state will begin at 6:30, the GOP caucuses will begin at 7:00. By 7:30, the first results should start coming in.

Given that only 250,000 people are expected to caucus tonight, polls may mean everything or nothing. The latest poll to come out (Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby) looks as follows...

Dems - Obama 31%, Edwards 27%, Clinton 24%, Richardson 7%, Biden 5%, Dodd 1%, Kucinich >1%
GOP - Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 11%, McCain 10%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 6%, Hunter 1%

Clinton needs to do better than that, as Obama and Edwards are on a momentum up-swing, and with Obama hanging in with Clinton in New Hampshire, a 3rd place finish would not be good for Hillary.

On the other side, Huckabee/Romney is about how most expect the caucus to finish. However, the battle for 3rd is key for momentum heading forward. Fred Thompson NEEDS a 3rd place finish to keep things going. McCain, however, does not really need it as Iowa has not been his focal point...New Hampshire, on the other hand, has been McCain's early target.

Ron Paul's 10% is really impressive, IMO. Maybe he's starting to catch on to a larger group of voters, after all.

John McIntyre has a pretty good analysis of what the major campaigns need in tonight's caucus.

Fatal 4-Way: 2008 Election May Be a Multi-Candidate Slugfest

We could have a legitimate 4-way race for President this coming fall. Think about it.

You'll have the Democratic Party nominee, the Republican Party nominee...that is certain. However, given the current buzz going around, we may now see a viable Independent and a Constitution/Libertarian Party candidate. Imagine this ballot...

- Dem Candidate (insert Clinton/Obama/Edwards here)
- GOP Candidate (insert Giuliani/Romney/McCain/Huckabee/Thompson here)
- Michael Bloomberg (Independent)
- Ron Paul (Constitution and/or Libertarian Party)

There is a good possibility that all of these candidates could snag 10% of the vote, especially with Bloomberg and Paul pulling at swing voters. Turnouts would be tremendous, and the winner would be whoever gets a plurality, but not a majority.

Bloomberg is as close to running as possible without having announced or formed an exploratory committee, and he has already committed up to $1 billion of his own money towards a presidential bid. Bloomberg, currently mayor of NYC, is a former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent whose appeal is targeted at social liberals and fiscal conservatives.

Paul has already implied that he may look into going the 3rd Party route if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, and both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have made overtures to Paul to run as their candidate. Considering his campaign has raised tons of money without having spent much of it, Paul might very well be positioning himself for a strong 3rd party run.

Now, consider the slight possibility that if John McCain wins the GOP nomination, Joe Lieberman might be his running mate (a bit out there, but possible), and the entire race is thrown into a whole other world of possibilities and uncertainty.

Can you imagine a 4-way race with non-mainstream candidates who are actually viable contenders for the White House? Folks, we may be sitting on the cusp of history.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

London Telegraph: Petraeus is "Person of the Year"

Time Magazine may have thought Vladimir Putin was the Person of the Year in 2007. However, the London Telegraph took a different route.

They named Gen. David Petraeus as their "2007 Person of the Year".

To quote the paper's article, "The critics said it couldn't be done, but the vision and determination of General David Petraeus have brought greater security and cause for optimism to the people of Iraq."

The article continued, "The reason for picking Petraeus is simple. Iraq, whatever the current crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan, remains the West's biggest foreign policy challenge of this decade, and if he can halt its slide into all-out anarchy, General Petraeus may save more than Iraqi lives."

Indeed it has. Good common sense from across the pond.

(h/t The Political Grapevine)

Disgusting Case of Discrimination

Courtesy of

HOUMA, La. (AP) - A 6-foot-3, 265-pound man says a restaurant overcharged him for his trips to the buffet line, then banned him and a relative because they're hearty eaters. A spokesman for the restaurant denies the claim.

Ricky Labit, a disabled offshore worker, said he had been a regular for eight months at the Manchuria Restaurant in Houma, eating there as often as three times a week.

On his most recent visit, he said, a waitress gave him and his wife's cousin, 44-year-old Michael Borrelli, a bill for $46.40, roughly double the buffet price for two adults.

"She says, 'Y'all fat, and y'all eat too much,'" Labit said.

Labit and Borrelli said they felt discriminated against because of their size. "I was stunned, that somebody would say something like that. I ain't that fat, I only weigh 277," Borrelli said, adding that a waitress told him he looked like he a had a "baby in the belly."

Ok, it's hard to use the words "only", "weigh", and "277" in that order. However, to charge people double because they eat "all they can eat" at an "all you can eat" buffet is a bit ridiculous. It gets better.

Houma accountant Thomas Campo said the men were charged an extra $10 each on Dec. 21 because they made a habit of dining exclusively on the more expensive seafood dishes, including crab legs and frog legs.

"We have a lot of big people there," said Campo, who spoke for owner Li Shang, whose English is limited. "We don't discriminate."

Labit denied ever being told he would be asked to pay more than the standard adult price.

The argument grew heated, and police were called.

The police report states, "The incident was settled when the management advised that the bill was a mistake and, to appease Ricky, the meal was complimentary."

Labit said he insisted on paying but was told not to come back. He complained that when seafood on the buffet line runs out, the restaurant only grudgingly cooks more.

Campo said the proprietress tries to reduce waste of quality food, he said.

"Food is for eating, not toys for your child," reads a sign posted on a wall in typewritten text. A handwritten addition reads "Or 20% added."

Well, I don't see these men giving food as "toys for their children". Looks like they're simply eating what they want to eat. Even though the meal was complimentary, the guy insisted on paying (which is the honorable thing to do), and was rewarded for doing the honorable thing by being banned from the restaurant.

I don't think it is right for people to stuff and engorge themselves on food for the sake of doing so. However, it is also wrong to charge extra and discriminate against people for eating more than a normal person, especially when the extra charges were targeted at some "big guys".

I've seen rail thin men and women that can pack away 4-5 plates of greasy, fatty foods at a buffet...while I'm lucky to get past 1 salad and 1 plate of food, and I'm not a small person by any stretch of the imagination.

What got me were the comments at Breitbart regarding this article, tons of fat jokes and totally out-of-line commentary on "gross" and "disgusting fat slobs". I commented on my own, pointing out that this is, in fact, discrimination. I feel that it is more disgusting to hold such nasty views of the overweight than to be overeater who is overweight.

Podium Positions: Energy and Environment

Energy and environmental concerns have been a position of the left for a while. However, that does not mean that conservatives don't know or don't care about energy conservation and environmental concerns. We just don't buy into the liberal hype as much on issues such as global warming. Despite claims about the "consensus" about global warming, there is no consensus. However, that doesn't mean that things don't need to change along the energy and environmental fronts.

Global Warming
Given the outcry of innumerable scientists that there is not a consensus on global warming, and that similar warming trends are taking place on other planets, I am inclined to disagree that global warming on Earth is solely the fault of evil pollutants and corporations. While pollution does not help keep our planet in pristine shape, I fail to see where science has proven this without a doubt.

We should continue to monitor climate trends and the effects that human efforts and solar activity have on our climate. I believe we have not arrived at the true answers about global warming, at least not the most important ones.

Nonetheless, we all want cleaner air and water, it's simply healthier for us. So pursuing smart, sensible conservation efforts is a good thing.

Alternative Energy
Of course, pursuing cleaner and more efficient sources of energy is something worth looking into. Solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, biofuels, hydrogen-powered vehicles, ethanol...these are all worthy projects and should be further researched.

Federally-funded scientific research in the field of energy has already been pointed in the direction of the above-mentioned sources of energy. Continued research should be looked at in the future.

However, until we can make these alternative sources financially prudent for both the producer and consumer, we've got to provide power and electricity to keep ourselves going.

Until Alternatives Become Cost-Effective...
We are still quite a distance from the day that alternative energy sources can become reliable and/or cost-efficient. Until then, we have to focus on what we, as a nation, have at our disposal.

Clean-burning coal is an alternative that we should look at more seriously. In fact, the state of Virginia already has many large deposits of coal that can be used in the "clean-burning" process. Not only does this help on a national level, but also brings relevance and importance to the mining industry in our state.

Let's face it, we deal too much with nations that are hostile towards us when it comes to oil. What we need to do is focus on opening up further drilling in Alaska and other areas of the United States where we are legislatively limited to drill...despite the bounty of oil beneath these restricted grounds which would make us more self-reliant when it comes to oil. Also, with Brazil having recently discovered a new, rather large deposit of oil that they plan on opening up for drilling, it would be sensible to move our trade away from nations like Venezuela to one like Brazil, whose stance towards America is rather favorable.

Another way to reduce our oil dependency is to look towards nuclear energy. Several nations that have been lauded for "being green", like Japan and France, have a much higher percentage of nuclear-generated electricity than America does. 3 Mile Island was almost 29 years ago, and that incident was not only an example of what can go wrong with nuclear power...but also an example of how many safeguards are in place to prevent a nuclear meltdown. It's time to move on and move towards greater use of this efficient and effective form of power.

In fact, by going to clean-burning coal and nuclear power, our oil dependency lessens dramatically...basically for use in automobiles and a minority of households for heating purposes.

Conservative Conservation
For those who doubt the connection of conservatives and conservation, see this exchange between an unnamed southern governor and President Reagan as noted in Edmund Morris' Dutch.

Governor: Mister President, I want to know why a bear needs more fresh air than a human being?
Reagan: Well, Governor, have you ever smelled a bear?

Admittedly, that quote is a bit light and humorous, but Reagan was a fan of sensible conservation of forests and open land. Conservatives, especially the ones who like to claim the mantle of Reagan, would be wise to keep this in mind. As much as we Americans like our clusters of new development making life convenient for us, we also like wide open spaces and lush green forests. While growth in inevitable in a nation such as ours, we could help conserve our wildlands a great deal with smart, conservative conservationism.

I expressed in the Podium Positions regarding the economy, I believe we should begin a new focus on agriculture. Not only would this provide positive economic results, but would also help with creating results from conserving farmland.

While alternative sources of energy and fuel are undoubtedly the future, they have not been cost-effective for the consumer. Until we can make these products cheap and widely available for public consumption, we still need to power our nation. Clean-burning coal, domestic oil, and especially nuclear power would not only reduce our need for foreign oil, but the clean-burning coal and nuclear power would lessen our need for oil in general.

We must be smart about the protection of wildlands, but neither overly careful nor overly careless. Our nation has always reserved a general love for the wilderness. It's part of our heritage as a country. Agricultural growth will provide dividends both economically and environmentally, as well.

RWL: Making the Case Clearer on Marshall vs. Gilmore

In response to my post that was attempting to weigh the differences between Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall for Senate, D.J. McGuire made his own post to provide some perspective and make the case for Marshall...and to reassure me on a few issues with regards to Marshall.

Greg B. over at Whackjob will hate me for this (lol), but Marshall is definitely appearing to be the better pick overall.

Whats interesting is that, given his generally anti-tax and socially conservative viewpoints, Spank That Donkey hasn't come out in favor of Jim Gilmore...and actually threw a bit of criticism my way for leaning towards Marshall.

D.J. and Shaun Kenney have made very good cases for Bob Marshall, and that is why I'm definitely leaning towards Marshall. I'm waiting for someone to make the argument for Gilmore, but it doesn't seem like anyone has really given me an argument beyond "he was Governor and won votes in NoVa."

If someone can make a convincing argument for Gilmore, I would be open to listen to it. However, the more I hear about Marshall beyond the Marriage Amendment (my one source of disagreement with Marshall), the more I like him.

Monday, December 31, 2007

Happy New Year From The Podium

2007 has been an interesting year, to say the least. 2008 is already promising to be historic in some way, shape, or form.

For all of the readers I've gained over the past year, I'm eternally grateful for your readership. I hope you all have a great 2008!

Catch ya next year.

Fred Address Iowa Voters

Check this out, courtesy of Shaun Kenney, and tell me Fred Thompson does not come across very "presidential" in his appearance, and strong in his statements.

To use some acting terminology, which is applicable given Fred's past as an actor, it's almost like watching a dress rehearsal for a future "address to the nation". Just trade the background for the Oval Office. ;)

Go Fred!

Podium Positions: Immigration

The immigration debate is one of rising importance in America. While most people are against a solution such as amnesty, the debate rages on about how we go about fixing the problems with immigration, putting an end to illegal immigration, and what would be a pragmatic solution to this problem.

Illegal Immigrants
Most estimates say we have 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Other estimates go as low as 7 million, others as high as 34 million. This is a lot of people, nonetheless. The reasons as to why people illegally immigrate to this country are fairly obvious. We are a great nation of promise and opportunity. However, we must keep in mind that illegal immigration is exactly that...illegal. It is a violation of American laws.

The focus, naturally, is on the border between the United States and Mexico. While the pro-amnesty/pro-legalization left claims that this focus is inherently racist in nature, it should be worth pointing out that, according to a 2005 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a combined 81% of all illegal immigrants come from either Mexico, Central America, or South America. 9% come from Asia, 6% from Europe, and 4% from everywhere else.

For the 81% coming from points south of the United States, I believe that we must look at stronger border security. This includes an effective fence and increased border patrol. For the 9% coming from Asia, many of which are Chinese laborers smuggled via ports into this country, we need better port security. We don't just border Canada and Mexico, you know, we also border the Atlantic and Pacific well as the Gulf of Mexico.

Not only that, but stronger border security prevents drug smuggling, as well as human smuggling and weapons trafficking. This is one area we should get a lot of assistance from the Mexican government, as Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been very tough on the drug cartels during his first year in office.

We must also punish the corporations that knowingly entice and employ illegal immigrants for the sake of exploiting cheap labor.

As For Illegals in America...
Now, the solutions above seem to be targeted at stopping the flow of illegal immigration into America...but what about the illegals here. What do we do with them?

Amnesty is not an option, and neither is attempting to round up every illegal immigrant and throw them out.

Now, illegal aliens who are convicted of another crime should be deported. They are already here illegally, committing another crime should be a ticket back to wherever they come from. However, the majority of the illegal immigrant population aren't breaking any other laws (as they really can't afford to, since they would be deported). How do we further reduce the population of illegals?

So we give them no reason to stay. There are 3 ways to do this.

- Dissolve the loopholes that allow them to receive entitlements such as welfare and Medicare (which many of them receive through false Social Security numbers and identities).
- Crack down on the corporations that hire illegals and landlords who house them.
- Create a penalty for "sanctuary cities", this penalty will be removed from the federal funding the city receives...and the longer the city keeps it's "sanctuary" status, the greater the penalties become.

This will undoubtedly create a reverse flow of these illegal aliens. In fact, this reverse flow is already starting to happen in the wake of increased enforcement (and the favorability of increased enforcement) of immigration laws.

Filling the Economic Hole, Visa Overstayers, and an Opportunity for Illegals
Of course, because the issue of illegal immigration has gone on relatively untouched in the way that it has gone, illegal immigrants hold a very sizable percentage of lower-income, manual labor jobs. To eliminate these workers would cause a problem for many corporations as they would attempt to fill these jobs, probably with limited success.

However, given that the unemployment rate in our country is very low, and those that remain unemployed are generally undesirable for one reason or another, the need for these laborers is high. So we make it clear and simple.

The number of visas, temporary and permanent, that are given out to foreigners needs to be increased fairly dramatically...plain and simple. The process for those looking to immigrate to this country legally needs to be made more accessible and easier for potential immigrants to manuver through.

Illegal immigrants who do not have a serious criminal history in America would be welcomed back, but they would have to get in line with everyone else...however, with a freer and faster flow of immigrants into America in a legal form, this would allow formerly illegal immigrants to come back to America legally much faster than they could under the current system.

Those with a serious criminal history, as is currently the law, will not be welcomed least, not so easily.

The process of renewing visas needs to be made simpler and easier, as well. This way, we eliminate a large percentage of visa overstayers, who normally overstay their visa due to the lengthy renewal process or because they were not aware of their status.

This would allow for a larger flow of migrant workers for corporations that rely on this form of labor as well as bolster confidence in the immigration process by making the process more efficient.

By giving illegal aliens no reason to stay in America, as well as giving them the promise of an easier path to legal immigration if they return to their nation of origin, we give many of those who are simply looking for a better life a chance to actually achieve that goal. They will be able to achieve this goal without having to break laws and go to great lengths to conceal their existence.

Thus, these potential immigrants can choose the legal, lawful path towards working and living in America. By doing so, we ease racial tensions quite a bit and these immigrants can better assimilate into our society as law-abiding citizens who contribute to a better America without having to break the law to get here in the first place.

Breaking It Down: Bob Marshall vs. Jim Gilmore

In last night's New Year's Whacktacular with Johnny Camacho and members of the DWJ gang, I mentioned that I was split on the Senate race, but slightly preferred Bob Marshall over Jim Gilmore (which blew Whackjob's mind, given Marshall's anti-gay marriage stance). It got me thinking about exactly why I'm starting to side with Marshall over Gilmore, despite Marshall being a bit too socially conservative for my taste.

So, let's see if I can sort this out in my own mind...through this blog. Anyone who has anything to add can leave a comment, I'm still undecided as of right now.

Gilmore isn't a bad guy, he simply has a lot of baggage that he carries with him due to the shape the state economy was in towards the end of his tenure as Governor. He never did quite make it on that car tax promise (although, he did try very hard, I give him credit), and there is mixed sentiments statewide about the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests, despite the fact that scores increased throughout Gilmore's term because of his emphasis on improving education.

However, we also have to look at who Gilmore is likely to face...Mark Warner. Warner can simply pull out the "I fixed Gilmore's economic mess" card (no matter how exactly true that is) and boom...there goes the independent voters.

Although, hindsight tells us that the Virginia economy was not nearly as bad as it seemed to be (or was made out to be), it is still stuck in the minds of many voters that things were nearly catastrophic until Warner "saved the day" (so it is portrayed).

However, Gilmore is very knowledgeable on security issues, especially during his time as head of the Gilmore Commission...this does play well for Gilmore's stance with me.

Marshall, despite my disagreements with him on social issues (I voted against Marshall/Newman), there are several upsides to having him as the candidate. His biggest being that he is a tried and true fiscal conservative, and he's fairly pragmatic about it. In the end, if you're strong on fiscal prudence, you win with me. He's been a voice of cost-cutting in a sea of seemingly-endless spending increases under Governors Gilmore, Warner, and Kaine.

His "no-confidence resolution" towards Republican leadership earlier this year brought him lots of attention and praise from the grassroots. He's been an active opponent of the Abuser Fees, as well.

One must also think that, with Marshall/Newman being approved with 57% of the vote in a Democratic wave election, Marshall could get the attention of many swing voters.

I'd also imagine, however, that there might be a large turnout against Marshall from the GLBT community because of that amendment.

Then again, Marshall and I are both from Takoma Park, Maryland. Hometown boys gotta stick together, right... ;)

In the end, I'm just not sure...right now, I prefer Marshall for his fiscal stances and the one "X" factor he has over Gilmore...fresh blood for the National GOP. If Marshall puts social issues on the back burner and makes the economy and taxes his M.O. (as he has done lately), Marshall might make for a more appealing candidate than Gilmore.

What do you think?

Heart, Guts, Talent...Skins Thump Dallas, Make Playoffs

The equation holds true.

Skins/Cowboys + Skins at home x Something important at stake = Redskins Victory.

The Redskins dominated the Dallas Cowboys for 60 minutes yesterday, and will be heading into the playoffs on a 4 game winning streak after their convincing 27-6 victory.

Clinton Portis bulled his way through the vaunted Dallas defense for 104 yards on 25 carries and 2 touchdowns, and became the only player this season to rush for over 100 yards against the Cowboys. Todd Collins carved up the Dallas secondary with precision timing and accuracy. Collins went 22-31 for 244 yards and a 42-yard touchdown pass to Santana Moss that sealed the victory for the Redskins.

Moss finished the day with a total of 8 catches for 115 yards to go along with his touchdown reception.

The defense put on one of it's greatest efforts of the season, holding the Cowboy rushing attack to only 1 yard, which is a new Dallas franchise-low for a single game. Media darling Tony Romo was humbled by the Redskins, going only 7-16 for a mere 86 yards and 1 INT before leaving the game in the 3rd quarter after the Redskins had gone up 20-3 and were firmly in control of the game.

Redskins outgained the Cowboys in total offense by a margin of 354-147.

The Redskins will face the NFC West champion Seattle Seahawks in the first round of the playoffs. The game will be at Qwest Field in Seattle, and will start at 4:30 ET on Saturday, January 5th. The game will be televised on NBC.

Key Redskin stats from the regular season...

Clinton Portis had another fine year...325 carries, 1262 yards, 11 TDs, as well as 47 receptions and 389 yards out of the backfield.

Before going down with an injury in week 13 against Chicago, Jason Campbell was having a pretty good year despite the "growing pains" of a young quarterback. Campbell went 250-417 (60% comp), 2700 yards, 12 TDs and 11 INTs in 12 1/2 games.

Todd Collins has filled in for Campbell with spectacular play over the final 3 1/2 games. Collins has gone 67-105 (63.8%), 888 yards, 5 TDs and 0 INTs.

Santana Moss turned it up in the final half of the season, finishing with 61 rec, 808 yards, and 3 TDs. Chris Cooley had a Pro-Bowl season with 66 rec, 786 yards, and 8 TDs.

Defensive leaders...
Tackles - London Fletcher - 129 (101 solo)
Tackles For Loss - Anthony Montgomery - 5.5
Sacks - Andre Carter - 10.5
Forced Fumbles - Andre Carter/Phillip Daniels - 4
INTs - the late Sean Taylor with 5 for 98 yards

On a Final Note...

Does anyone else just love watching Brett Farve play? I don't think anyone has simply enjoyed the game of football the way Farve has in his career. He has had his best season in a decade at the age of 38, and his "low-fiving" the referee after a touchdown pass yesterday was a perfect depiction of how much Brett Farve loves playing football. We need more guys like this in professional sports.