The Jets Are Better than Mediocre

The Jets 28-20 victory over the Bills on Sunday has the team at 2-1. The Jets were once again led by their passing attack and their running game again failed to get on track. What is clear is that the Jets have an above average passing game led by two tough, physical wide receivers in Laverneus Coles and Jericho Cotchery. Both of these players are not afraid to make catches over the middle and excel at coming down with the ball in a crowd. With Chad Pennington's excellent accuracy and football smarts, the passing game should be as good as Pennington's health will let them. Pennington has been getting excellent protection from his young offensive line which has allowed him to pick apart opposing defenses.

That same offensive line has struggled in the run game. Combined with the loss of Curtis Martin, the Jets running game has really suffered. However, I would expect big improvements as the season continues. Nick Mangold and D'Brickshaw Ferguson are both rookie 1st round picks. Often with offensive lineman, the pass protection is light years ahead of the run blocking. As these two key players gain more experience, the running attack should improve. I would expect that Kevin Barlow will be the primary running back as Derrick Blaylock has shown he can't handle the job. Speedy Leon Washington should also get some touches because of his big play ability and game breaking speed.

On the defensive side of the ball, the Jets epitomized the "bend but don't break defense." They gave up an obscene amount of rushing yards to Willis McGahee and allowed J.P. Losman to have a career passing day. Yet they were able to keep the Bills of the scoreboard when it mattered. They continue to play a 3-4 even though they are better suited for the 4-3. As predicted by many, myself included, former 1st round pick Dewayne Robertson has struggled as a nosetackle as the team has proven unable to shut down the run. The Jets have four solid linebackers although they have struggled to create a pass rush. The saving grace thus far has been the secondary who not only have played well, but emerging star Kerry Rhodes has proven an effective pass rusher and has caused 3 fumbles in the last 2 games. There is cause for concern as the Jets cannot count on their secondary to pressure the QB and certainly cannot count on Rhodes creating turnovers every game.

The kicking game has been inconsistent. Punter Ben Graham had a very good day against Buffalo after being one of the main culprits against New England. Mike Nugent has been fine since his opening day failures, although he hasn't really been tested. I was frustrated by his kickoffs against the Bills as he failed to reach the endzone even with a strong wind behind him.
At the end of the day, there are two factors that I believe will keep the Jets in the hunt for the wildcard all year. The first is the coaching. I have been very impressed with the Jets game plan each game. They have come out and played hard and smart. The offense especially has been more dynamic than in the past. Brian Schottenheimer deserves a lot of credit. However, the schedule is really where the Jets success can be found. Their remaining schedule includes Detroit, Cleveland, Houston, Green Bay, Buffalo again, Oakland, and a very beatable Miami team (twice). As a young team in transition, I would not expect them to win all of those games. However, from what I have seen winning 6 of 8 out of that group is possible, if not likely. That would put them at 8 wins. The difference between being 8-8 and vying for a playoff spot is whether or not they can pull off an upset against Indy, Jax, New England, Chicago, or Minnesota.

The truth is that the Jets can make it to the playoffs with the schedule they have. However, with the schedule they have the playoffs means nothing. All it means is that the Jets were the best of the bad and mediocre teams. Still, that's not a bad thing for a first year coach and a changing team. I was worried about 6-10. I read that the experts thought more like 3-13. I can more than live with 9-7. Lets go Jets, keep proving people wrong.

Happy New Year

Bush Mobilizes Salvation Army

With the United States military facing extended stays in Afghanistan and Iraq, and facing a recruiting crisis of epic proportions, President Bush today announced the shocking decision to mobilize the Salvation Army. It is expected that the first Salvation Army units will be deployed to Tikrit within the week.

President Bush announced the unprecedented decision last night during a prime-time, live, televised news conference. "The U.S. Constitution makes the President the commander in chief of the army. I am responsible for every branch of the military. The Salvation Army is clearly just that, an army." White House Press Secretary Tony Snow added "The President did not take this decision lightly. He sought the legal advice of his top legal experts, including Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo. They steered him right on Guantanemo and we are confident that they have steered him right again."

The Salvation Army is an international relief organization best known for providing disaster relief, alcohol and drug counseling, and soliciting charity from men and women dressed as Santa Claus during the Christmas season. It is one of the best known and longest serving Christian organization. Commissioner Israel L. Gaither, National Commander of the Salvation Army was reached for comment early this morning. "I learned about this development this morning while I was at a conference about Katrina. Obviously when the shock wears off we will do what we can to support this President."


Not all Salvation Army "Soldiers," as volunteers are called, were excited about the proposition of serving in Iraq. "I know we are soldiers, but I think the President got confused on this one," said 52 year old Salvation Army Volunteer Jon Swanson. "I mean I know we are called soldiers and all, but I thought I was signing up to be a soldier of god. I never expected to get deployed." that view was echoed by 37 year old mother of two Martha Gibson "I am much more comfortable with a bell in my hand than an AK-47."

Stuart Matheson, a 23 year old Salvation Army "soldier" from Flint Michigan was

excited about the opportunity to be deployed and serve his country overseas.

"I have always wanted to serve in the military but my deeply held religious beliefs and poor eyesight prevented me in the past. I tried to serve last year with the Reserves, but it didn't work out. I am just glad the President gave me a second chance."

It is unclear whether this is an expansion of the military offensive
in Iraq or if the deployment of the Salvation Army means
members of the National guard currently in Iraq will be coming
home. The only thing that is certain is that Christmas time
will sure be different this year.

Race and Politics in Brooklyn

For my first substantive post I want to talk about the most recent candidate I supported. You have to understand that I am the kiss of death for a candidate. The first vote I ever cast was for Bill Clinton. I haven't supported a winner since. Before I moved to NYC I used to drive a green Jeep that had all my bumper stickers on the back. Chuck Robb, Bill Bradley, Gore/Lieberman. My brother used to call it the "loser-mobile."

I moved to Brooklyn in April, and I'll be gosh-darned, but there was a hot congressional primary going on in my district. I actually first read about it on DailyKos. There were four candidates. Yvette Clark, Carl Andrews, Chris Owens, and David Yassky. Each candidate had a defining charecteristic. Yvette Clark was the only woman. Carl Andrews was connected to the corrupt former democratic leader Clarence Norman. Chris Owens was the son of the retiring incumbant. David Yassky was white.

The thing you have to understand about Brooklyn's 11th Congressional district is that it is a "voting rights district." That is, it was created as a district intended to have a minority representative. Indeed, Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman to run for president, once represented this district. There has always been a sense that this is a "Black" district.

Much to my chagrin, race became the defining issue in this election. Yassky, a white councilman and law professor moved his home a few blocks so that he could run for congress in this district. He was immediately accused of exploiting the fact that the three Black candidates would split the black vote allowing him to win. The retiring incumbant, Congressman Major Owens, went as far as calling him a "colonizer."

I did not set out to support David Yassky at first. There was no chance I was supporting Andrews. In a time when corruption is running rampant in the Republican party, and, to be fair, afflicting the Democratic party in places as well (La. and NJ), the stench of corruption from Andrews meant he was a no go. Major Owens himself was a completely ineffective member of Congress, so there was no way I was supporting his son (who rumor has it was a Patriots fan). So I was basically going to chose between Yassky and Clarke, both of whom I had heard good things.

It quickly became clear to me that I was going to support Yassky. I saw him speak a couple of times. He spoke about guns, health care, and the failed policies of the Bush administration. I even asked him how he could possibly win in this district and he answered by talking about guns, health care and the failed policies of the Bush administration. All the other candidates could talk about was race.

The truth of the matter is that I was really offended by this congressional race. I am a Democrat, tride and true. I vote for the person who best embodies the things I believe in. I strive to live in a post-racial world where we finally realize that race is a social construct. If we didn't create differences there wouldn't be any. I had read some bad things about Clarke, she had lied about her college education, and had been on the wrong side of some housing debates. By and large though, she came off as an effective councilwoman who was popular in her district. I looked forward to hearing what she had to say. But I never saw her talking about her positions. All I heard was that they shouldn't vote for Yassky because he was white. Black people need to vote for Black candidates. But after reading that, I would see Clarke's people handing out flyers to White people. It struck me as odd. I mean how could they villify Yassky for being white but then come and ask white people for their vote? If a Black person had to vote for a Black candidate, shouldn't the White person vote for the White candidate?

I know it is uncomfortable to talk about race. It is a really sensitve issue. But it seemed to me that the message being delivered by Clarke, Andrews and to a much lesser extent Owens, was that black people need black representatives and white people need white representation. This mentality saddens and frustrates me. It is this mentality that limits our growth as a country but also limits the sucess of the democratic party. We should be moving toward a system where the quality of our representatives is more important of the color of our representatives. As long as we tell constituents that this is a black district and therefore you have to vote for a black candidate, the longer we will need "black" districts.

I gave Yassky a lot of credit because he never deviated from his message. No matter who he talked to, he always stuck to the issues. He never got dragged into the muck. He never responded to the accusations and racial attacks. He believed in the people. He believed, like I want to, that people are not pursuaded by the color of ones skin, but by the power of their ideas. In the end, he lost. But he ran a campaign to be proud of.

I am glad that Clarke won instead of either Owens or Andrews. Like I said, besides some resume padding, and a hit piece in the Village Voice, most of what I have heard about Clarke is decent. Not that there is much of a choice, but I will gladly support her when the general election rolls around next month. That doesn't change the fact her campaign left a really bad taste in my mouth. And it doesn't change the fact that this little congressional race evidenced how far away we are from achieving a post-racial society.

A little background

So my friend was concerned with the name of my blog so I decided to explain. There are other blogs with some combination of Angry and Democrat in the title. I am not trying to copy them. Although I don't like the way this nation is headed right now, and I certainly don't support the policies of the current administration, I don't think of myself as mad. I would hate for someone to disregard my postings as the rants of an angry person. The title is merely a play on the Billy Joel song "Angry Young Man." When I was in high school this was my favorite song. In fact, I quoted it in my highschool yearbook. Thus, sometime yesterday I came up with the idea to name my blog Angry Young Dem.

The name is supposed to reference some of the topics that you will see on this site. Music and politics. If I make it as big as DailyKos and people think I should change my blog name, perhaps I will change it. For now, I think I will stick with what I got.

Hi

So this is going to be my blog. Its going to be my daily (?) rant about whatever is on my mind. Politics, Sports, Entertainment. This isn't going to be one of those this is what I ate for dinner blogs. Its also not going to be very flashy as I don't have the technical skills. But I hope it is insightful more often than not, and gives you something to think about.