A Suggestion For Unity Seekers

So, Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. With the primary effectively over, now is the painful time of trying to build unity in order to defeat Donald Trump; a nightmarish figure.

This act of building unity is mostly focused on the high-level decisions of the principals of the story: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and the various political and activist groups on the left. However, this act of building unity happens every day among the individual voters and supporters of each campaign. People on both sides have discussions about having to come together under Biden. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the tenor of these discussions often gets ugly very quickly. The fact that they usually occur over social media, where people are very far apart and have no problem sharing their frustration in an environment where there's no blowback, only makes this worse.

As an obvious Bernie Sanders supporter on both Facebook and Twitter, I have been witness to, and participated in, many of these discussions. They usually go very poorly, with both sides further cementing their disdain for each other. Not all interactions have been that way though; some have been very positive. So, I thought that it might be helpful for people who are all-aboard with Biden to have some sort of guide in how to reach me (and, I suspect, some others).

Note: I do plan on voting for Joe Biden in November, but there are some Biden supporters that are bound and determined to try to convince me otherwise.

First, allow me to provide some context to why these conversations are so fraught. 2016 was an extremely difficult year for anybody and everybody who considers themselves on the left. People that were for Hillary were angry at Bernie for fighting the first potential female President. Of course, this anger of the man himself trickled to Bernie's supporters, whom they viewed as too intransigent at best, or secret sexists at worst. This led to Bernie's supporters feeling attacked, and responding in kind. We saw Hillary supporters as ignorant of the issues at best, or paid, dishonest actors at worst. This would have been a difficult enough obstacle to overcome on its own, but, as more and more anti-Bernie news hits and op-ed pieces came out, Bernie's supporters started to feel attacked by the very people whom they trusted to bring them the news. This turned party unity from an already difficult proposition to a nigh impossible one. The attitude among Bernie's supporters at that time could best be described as us-against-the-world. While Bernie's supporters did mostly vote for Hillary, it wasn't done with any enthusiasm. Bernie did 39 rallies for Hillary, and not one Bernie supporter I saw cared one whit. By the time that Hillary eventually lost, the mutual anger on both sides had hardened into complete distrust of each other.

Fast forward to today, and those wounds still haven't healed: if anything, they've deepened. Given the mass coalescence around Biden just before Super Tuesday just as it looked like Bernie was going to win, it has further cemented that us-against-the-world mentality. The arguments are now even more aggressive, because of the heightened stakes of COVID-19, the pending economic crash and climate change becoming more of an obvious threat.

For the record, I'd like to note that none of this stuff is fun to bring up. I don't enjoy feeling like I have to fight my friends, family or even random people online. If I want to argue over something, it's which basketball team is the best, or which video game has the best story. I bring all of this up in order for full-on Biden backers that are interacting with Bernie supporters online some context as to why Bernie supporters might be so obstinate.

Now that all of that context has been made clear, let's get to the point: how can Biden supporters reach Bernie supporters online? Well, it isn't easy: Bernie supporters are not only angry at other politicians (if that were the case, the anger would peter out, and it wouldn't be a big deal); they're extremely distrustful of them as well. The feeling of trust that many progressives had of those that were more establishment was broken in 2016 and shattered over the course of this year's Primary. However, it can be done. It just has to be done very carefully. First, here are a few examples of arguments that DON'T work:

1. "Biden is better than Trump."

Why this 'should' work: there are only two choices on the ballot with a chance of winning, and among lefties, Biden is factually and demonstrably better than Trump.

Why this doesn't work: outside of a couple of people currently on Trump's staff, just about every single other American is better than Trump. I could go through my Facebook friends list and have a very hard time finding people that would be worse than Trump. Voting for the lesser of two evils is just not something that Bernie supporters (who tend to be more aspirational) are going to go for.

2. "Bernie did a great job in moving our country forward. Now let's get those things done together with Joe."

Why this 'should' work: this is recognizing Bernie's good work in his political career, and it's gracious even among a difficult fight. It legitimizes Bernie supporters.

Why this doesn't work: this feels nice, but it falls apart when you're trying to get progressives to get behind Joe Biden; a guy who stands in opposition to many of the policies that animate Bernie's supporters. Biden fights against Medicare For All, the Green New Deal and legalizing marijuana. He's for more foreign interventions. He's very friendly with Wall St. Progressives know that the good work that Bernie and his supporters put in will be for nothing if Joe has his way, so this argument comes off as extremely condescending. What we hear when someone says that is: "Here's your participation trophy and a pat on the head: now go sit in the corner."

3. "The Supreme Court"

Why this 'should' work: the SCOTUS is an obviously important institution that influences policy long past the term and even life of a the President that appoints its Justices. It is vital that we get Presidents who appoint Justices who can help the country going forward.

Why this doesn't work: people who support more establishment candidates use the SCOTUS as a hostage against progressives, in order to avoid talking about any real issues that they might be weak on. Progressives are people, and people don't like ultimatums.

4. "Any non-Biden vote is a vote for Trump."

Why this 'should' work: lefties don't like Trump, and we want him gone.

Why this doesn't work: this type of argument seeks to shame people who have thoughtful opinions that happen to be different from yours. Calling people "whiny", "childish", or "Russian bots" for deigning to question a political figure is repulsive, because it shows such weakness in your own position that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

So those are the arguments that don't work. Unfortunately, most of the arguments that I've seen from gung-ho Biden folks falls into these categories. There is one argument from Biden folks that I've seen that is pretty effective (for me, anyways):

"Look, Biden isn't great on everything, but he's at least a bit malleable. Let's get him in and push him like hell."

Now, if you've read this far, you might be thinking: "What? This is just a combination of 1 and 2 on your arguments that don't work list. This makes no sense." Well, you're half-right: logically, they're the same arguments. The difference is in the framing: arguments 1 and 2 are from the perspective of someone who believes in Joe Biden. Biden is framed positively in both, and that's where they fall on deaf ears. Remember, Bernie supporters are deeply distrustful of any political figure who isn't Bernie or Bernie surrogates. So, Bernie supporters dismiss any positive arguments for Biden reflexively. The argument that does work has the opposite framing; it's from a place of distrust. It acknowledges reality as Bernie supporters see it.

However, more importantly, I think that it signals that Bernie supporters are welcome in the party. Throughout 2016, we were marginalized, attacked, dismissed and later blamed for Hillary's loss. That made us feel unwelcomed in the party, and why so many people were pushed into supporting other political groups, or just disengaging altogether. It's only natural that you want to organize with like-minded people; much more so if there's a sense that you're being attacked from all sides. This argument tells me that you hear me, you value my opinion and that you want me around.

This argument won't work on everyone, obviously. You'd get push back from Bernie supporters who would want some more proof that Biden's malleable. However, approaching a Bernie supporter this way has a better chance of being pleasant, and thus more likely to be productive towards the goal of unity.

Or you can say I'm full of crap and see how that goes.

Thoughts of Home

It's strange how the stream of consciousness works sometimes.

A new acquaintance recommended that I listen to a hip-hop artist, which, being a lover of music, of course I took her up on.  While I thought this artist was alright, I decided to listen to some other artists that I prefer, and I came across this song, which I hadn't listened to in a couple of years...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FJUD0rEPWM

...and I was not, and remain not, ready for the emotions that have been going through me since then.

Living in Taiwan, for the most part, has been an absolute breeze since I came here.  So much so that it has actually been very difficult to write about.  Frankly, the biggest difference between Taiwan and the US, when it comes to daily life, is the 14-hour time jump.  The language barrier can be tough at times, but everyone is so nice (locals and expats) that the difficulty with Chinese is pretty well-mitigated.  Everything else?  Roads, cars, buses, parks, malls, movie theaters, baseball games: it's pretty much coming to a more peaceful, cheaper state that happens to speak Chinese and have single-payer healthcare.

At least, that's how I thought until recently.

Over the last week, I've been feeling pretty empty, for the most part.  Unfortunately, I was having difficulty articulating why.  After all, nothing had really changed over the previous weeks, which were some of the best times that I had had since coming to Taiwan.  And then it hit me: I miss home.

This is a really simple statement that seems obvious, and it would be for most people, I would imagine.  However, if I'm to be perfectly honest, I've never felt particularly attached to any one place or even group of people.  I know that this is incredibly hurtful to my family and close friends, but it's true: after living in many different homes with many different housemates and family compositions in my childhood to many family members (both extended and immediate) passing away in my teenage years, it's been really hard to attach myself to anyone.  In many ways, moving abroad seemed to be an obvious choice.

Spending Christmas away from home was just an extension of that; a part that I always knew was going to happen when I made the choice to move here.  Seeing all of the decorations and hearing the music (and the above trigger) has made me realize something, however: spending Christmas with family was really the one constant in my life for over 27 years, and now, that won't be a possibility because of a decision that I made, as an adult, to leave.

And I feel like an eight-year-old alone in a field.

I suppose that I should have anticipated it, but nope; no such luck.

In all of this, though, I think that I finally understand what my meaning of home truly is.  Home is my base; the foundation of my psyche.  Home is the people that love me and whom I love equally in return.

Right now, I can't be home, but-at last-I know where it is.  And, even though I'm not there, having that understanding is heartening.

Who knows?  Maybe I can extend that home to out here someday.

Merry Christmas, I love you all.

Sincerely,
Brendan

Oh My God, NO! Part 2: What Do Progressives Do From Here?

So here we find ourselves, facing a President Trump with both chambers of Congress controlled by Republicans.  

Ugh...

The question now is, how do we go forward?  How can us progressives keep moving forward and keep fighting?

Here is my three part plan for how we not only keep fighting, but we win in a complete annihilation of anyone who stands in our way:

1.) Stay woke.  News and politics is depressing right now, and it's really tempting to get away from it all.  Now, I don't recommend only following politics, as that will make anyone insane, but stay aware of what's happening.  Why is this important?  Right now, the Democratic establishment is pushing Howard Dean, lobbyist for big pharma and ex-coworker with Newt Gingrich, to be the next head of the DNC.  Right now, the Democratic establishment is pushing Tim Kaine for President in 2020.  

Yep.

Now, if that causes you to ask yourself, "What the fuck?  Isn't this the shit that they pulled this year that led them to losing to Donald Trump?  Why would they do that?" then that means you're an intelligent, clear-eyed person.  The establishment, however, doesn't think that way: they think that they are blameless in this, and that they still have the right idea.  After all, they've been doing this for forty years; at this point, it's all they know.

We have to fight the Democratic establishment so that they don't keep pulling this bullshit and so that we have a party for the people that can stand up to Republicans who will do their best to destroy the planet.  Right now, Keith Ellison, with Bernie's blessing, is also running to be head of the DNC.  They need our support to help Democrats save themselves.

This also includes activism.  Pick an issue or two that you feel particularly passionate about, and fight for those on a regular basis on every level of government.  Money in politics, climate change, LGBTQ rights, international peace and a whole bunch of other issues have strong activist movements within them.  Join in with them and fight for the change you want to see.

2.) We populate Congress with progressives in 2018.  Thankfully, every two years, we get the chance to remake our federal legislature in our image.  We start now pushing for progressive House and Senate candidates who will fight for us, with emphasis on 'fight'.  As in, not look to compromise and the first sign of a struggle.  If the incumbent in your district is a true progressive, awesome good for you.  If you don't (the vast majority of the country), then we have to defeat that incumbent, regardless of party affiliation.  This isn't impossible; there is very recent precedent with the Tea Party in 2010.  There's no reason why we can't do the same exact thing.  Time to have our own Bizarro Tea Party.  

3.) We pick a super strong progressive to run for President in 2020.  Like Elizabeth Warren, for instance.  Some are pushing for Tulsi Gabbard, another fine choice.  Any strong progressive who runs a left-wing populist campaign will obliterate Trump from the universe, and you can count on that.

Voila, we have a progressive government in the span of only one Presidential term.  Will there be resistance?  Of course, but not quite as much as you think.  Over half of the country actually align with Bernie's platform with regards to the different policy positions.  People are thirsting for progressive policies; they just don't know it right now, because neither the Republicans or the establishment Democrats have offered them.  They'll back someone who is willing to fight for progressive positions.

Don't give up my friends; if we put in the work to make the change that we want to see happen, we will win and we'll win faster than you think.

To that end, I'm going to announce that I will be using this blog to find out who the progressives are in Congress and relate what I find.  How will I do this?  I will go through their policy positions and cross-reference this with their donor lists and votes in office.  I will do one Congressional Democrat every day starting tomorrow.  I'll also make a video going over my findings and posting them.  That way, we can know who we should support, who we should primary and be well informed in doing so.

That's all everyone!  Remember: we will win!

Oh My God, NO! Part 1: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Well, there's no way that I'm getting any sleep after that fucking debacle, so may as well share some thoughts to get them off of my chest.

Considering that the vast majority of my Facebook friends are liberal, my feed has been filled with heartbreak, frustration and confusion with regards to the fact that Donald Trump is now the President-Elect of the United States.  Many are wondering: "How the hell did we get here?  How could she lose to THAT GUY!?"  I'm going to try to articulate some reasons that I think led her to lose the election to the most disliked candidate in American political history (and yes: she lost it far more than he won it).

For the sake of brevity, I won't go into the reasons that the basket of deplorables didn't vote for her: those I think are fairly obvious and they didn't cause her to lose the election, as Hillary wasn't going to win any alt-right votes anyway.

1.) She had no message about why she was good.  This is a pretty big reason in my mind.  Here's a question that I wish more people had asked her and held her feet to the fire for an answer: Why do you want to be President?  What do you want to do to move our country forward?  I don't remember anything from her or even her campaign that came remotely close to some sort of positive vision for the country.

Bernie?  I know that he was running because he wanted to have a more just society: lower income inequality, green energy to fight climate change, free and fair elections; his vision was very clear.  We all knew and know what Bernie stood and stands for.

Trump?  I know that he was running to marginalize anybody who wasn't a WASP man, to protect us from the others and (nominally) to enforce economic protectionism.  Do I believe that he's on the side of the worker?  Considering I have an IQ over 85, fuck no.  Is the racism and hatred horrifying to your average American in normal circumstances?  Hell yes!  But it was a vision.

Hillary provided none of that.  She didn't have some overarching grand vision for America and where we can go in four years.  In fact, during the Democratic primary, she even had the position that the progressive positions that Bernie was espousing were too pie in the sky.  For example, she actually said that single payer "will never, ever come to pass," in the Democratic-supposedly progressive-primary.  What the fuck?  Why are you bragging about being more conservative during the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY!?  To make matters worse, during the General election, her message can be boiled down to: Trump bad.  Me good.  This was because Hillary never really had a vision, or a reason to be President besides the fact that she really wanted to be President.  Hence why she didn't have any sort of energy or momentum to her campaign: her rallies were tiny, the excitement around her was low and her support was very soft, leading to non-scandals like the Comey letter heavily affecting her chances, while Trump was found on tape bragging about sexual harassment and have that confirmed by 12 separate women and still was able to recover.  He had strong, steadfast support while she had none of that.

2.) Hillary is a bad candidate.  She doesn't connect with people at all; when she's in the public eye, her popularity sinks like a stone in water.  I think that it's fair to say this: people hate her.  Regardless of those feelings are justifiable or not (I happen to think that the vast majority of reasons given are complete bullshit), the people at large don't trust her.  It's unbelievably difficult to win an election when you're disliked and viewed as untrustworthy.

If that's the case though, why'd she beat Bernie?  She benefited greatly from having by FAR the higher name recognition early on in the primary, which is always helpful in getting votes, and the fact that many of the primaries were closed, meaning that the much higher population of independents in the country couldn't vote for Bernie in the primary, leaving the vote to registered Democrats, many of whom are party loyalists more prone to go for Clinton because she's been a Democrat for longer than Bernie had (stupid reason, I know, but true).  And this is before the DNC email leaks came out showing that the DNC was colluding with the Clinton campaign anyway.  Long story short, she had every possible advantage over Bernie, including the "neutral" DNC on her side, and still almost lost to a 75 year-old self-identified democratic socialist.

3.)  She represented the establishment at a time that is very pro-populist.  Let's face it: many people in the country are very much struggling to make a life for themselves here in America.  Productivity and profits have gone up very steadily over the last 40 years, while wages have remained stagnant.  A bunch of people are working multiple jobs to make sure that they and their families can survive.  The American people haven't been able to put their collective finger on it yet, but they do know that the folks in Washington, DC aren't listening to them, and they're right about that.  They haven't been listening for some time now, and the people are angry at them for not doing so.  So, when an opportunity arises to burn the establishment to the ground, they did so.  Not necessarily because they like Trump, but because they just want to cause the establishment pain for the pain that they've been feeling for decades now (this applies greatly to the rust belt states that have been hit hard by shitty trade deals).

Trump is a faux-populist; he isn't gonna do a single thing to help working families in my view, but the way to beat a faux-populist is with a real populist, as opposed to the most obvious symbol of the thing that many voters have come to believe is the reason for their suffering.

These are the 3 main reasons that I believe that Hillary lost the election to an orange, fascist, bimbo beta male in Donald Trump.  The DNC was shockingly moronic in trying to push Hillary Clinton as their nominee this cycle.

In a way, this election is a bit like a Bizarro version of the 2008 election, where the candidate who claimed he was for the people and had a vision beat the status quo, establishment candidate.  Which actually leads me to my next post: where do progressives go from here?  Here's a clue: #BizarroTeaPary.

Until next time!

Minor Injustice that Causes Me Great Annoyance

Hello everyone!  It's been a while, I know.  I'm working on a couple of ideas for blog posts that I should be posting in a few days.  Before I get to work on finishing the first one though, something came to my attention that made me just want to vent a bit.

I'm a huge movie lover.  Last year, despite not really being able to afford it, I would try to go see at least one movie every weekend.  This didn't happen, of course, and I've been further limited this year by a few separate factors.  However, I still try to go see as many as I can, and I have greatly enjoyed what I have partaken in the theaters this year: "Hail, Caesar!", "Deadpool", "Hardcore Henry", "The Nice Guys", "Captain America: Civil War", "Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping" and "Keanu" among others, have all been fun romps for a couple of hours.  That being said, the movie that I went to see last weekend blew them all away, and that was the animated masterpiece that is "Kubo and The Two Strings".

"Kubo" is essentially a a Japanese epic that would be somewhat analogous to a kid's version of The Odyssey; a major quest fraught with monsters and magic, centered around Kubo, a young boy who can make origami move with his powers, often channeled through his shamisen, a traditional Japanese guitar-like instrument.  Without giving anything away about the plot, this movie is pure art: from the incredible stop-motion animation done by Laika (just add another to this list along with "Paranorman"), to the great voice work to go along with that animation (especially Matthew McConnaughey, who does a fantastic job just kinda being himself, really), to the truly thoughtful themes and the beautiful, powerful and thought-provoking ending.  The movie made me laugh, think and cry in equal measure while making me feel like I had grown as a person over the course of its 1 hour and 42 minute running time.  Of course, on top of all that, they had the amazing Regina Spektor do a beautiful cover of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" with a shamisen as the lead instrument in the arrangement, which I think does a fantastic job of encapsulating the spirit of the film: both its mournful and hopeful sides.

Here is the video released by Focus Features (the distributor).  It's the single version of the song with clips of the movie interspersed with Regina in the studio:

Try and tell me you don't want to see this movie after watching that.

So, why am I annoyed exactly?  Well, according to boxofficemojo.com, "Kubo" debuted at number 4 this past weekend, behind "Suicide Squad", "Sausage Party" and "War Dogs".

America, this is why we can't have nice things.

I can't speak personally to the quality of "War Dogs" or "Sausage Party", as I have yet to see either of them (I plan on seeing "Sausage Party" tomorrow), but I have seen "Suicide Squad" and I can very comfortably say that that movie has no business being above "Kubo" in ANYTHING aside from budget and amount of stupid moments.  Seriously, what the fuck guys!?

Normally, I couldn't care less about box office numbers: I didn't care last year that "Jurassic World" destroyed "Dope" in sales last year despite "Dope" being vastly superior in every way.  But when an undeserving product of hype and marketing like "Suicide Squad" (which was decent by recent DC film universe standards, but hardly close to the "Guardians of the Galaxy" it was desperately trying to be) has more viewers on its third weekend vs. a fucking masterpiece like "Kubo and The Two Strings" on its first, I can't help but be way more annoyed than I should.

I sure hope that "Kubo" is profitable for the sake of Laika, because I want to see a lot more of them in the future; otherwise this might be their last movie, which would be a crying shame.

Not that America deserves any more greatness from them.

On a Serious Note

Hey everyone.  If you don't mind, I'd like to bring us to a more serious topic (don't worry; I'm currently working on a larger post for later).  I also apologize for the delay, but you'll be glad to know that I shouldn't be quite so delayed going forward, as the bulk of the cause of those was some technical issues.

Now that that's out of the way, let's continue.

For those of you that don't know, I'm employed by an organization that works to help people that have been affected by disasters.  This includes meeting people that have had fires in their respective homes.  Now, considering that I have been living and working in San Antonio; the seventh largest city in the United States, and one whose economy is hugely based off of service industries and is therefore relatively low income for over a year, I have seen quite a few home fires.  Some in normal homes, some in nice apartments, some in what might as well be shacks that were completely abandoned in terms of healthy living by all but the scummiest of landlords.

For the most part, the fire responses that I have taken part in, while sad, have had people come out unharmed.  Unfortunately, there have been those that I have gone on where the family affected wasn't so lucky; those are the responses that will truly break your heart.  On the worst of those responses, there has been a single constant on all of them.  What is that constant?

These, I'm sure that you all know, are called burglar bars.  You see these a lot in the inner city neighborhoods across the country.  Their intended purpose is to keep those trying to get in the home unlawfully from doing so.  Unfortunately, they have the unintended consequence of keeping people in in time of an emergency.

I'm going to try to write this with all of the dignity that I can muster, so bear with me: Fuck.  Burglar.  Bars.

These things are the absolute bane of my existence.  Every time I drive by a house that has these up, all I see are homes that are potential death traps.  People in home fires have about two minutes to escape; when most of the exits are covered up by these abominations, the people inside have to be really lucky that the fire doesn't come between them and the doors if they want to escape with their life.  On top of that, but remember that the bars are supposed to keep burglars out?  Well, unfortunately, pieces of metal aren't smart enough to distinguish between burglars and firefighters trying to get into the home to save the lives of those who can't get out.  So, not only is the person inside potentially helpless, but help is impeded from coming in, taking away a safe avenue of home entry.

I can understand the impulse to protect one's home from robbery, especially in neighborhoods that are a little less than friendly (which every city has).  That being said, a person living in a home is more likely to prevent their own escape from a fire than they are to prevent a burglary-especially when a burglar can come in with a crowbar and/or a power drill and take the bars out themselves.

If your home already has burglar bars on the windows, I implore you to remove them or ask your landlord if you can do so.  If you're that worried about burglars, get a rosebush and/or cactus and put it underneath the window on the outside; you're just as likely to impede potential burglars and it's easier to deal with sharp plants than it is to deal with smoke inhalation and extremely hot temperatures.

And it'll make me smile too.

College Football Playoff Review: Football 101

Well that sucked.

The two semifinal games were about as exciting as a wet firework.

Orange Bowl: Clemson 37, Oklahoma 17

Cotton Bowl: Alabama 38, Michigan State 0

Ugh.

Both of these games, on paper, looked like interesting match-ups between teams that play very similar styles of football: the Orange Bowl had promise to be one heck of a display of fast-paced exciting offense, and the Cotton Bowl looked like a tough defensive struggle with poetic runs of five yards made possible by pure heart and desire.  No matter what kind of football fan you are, the College Football Playoff looked like it would provide you with some quality drama over the New Year's Eve holiday.

As one could tell from the final scores, neither game turned out to be very competitive at the end.  Clemson and Alabama went into the half, decided to turn up the intensity and subsequently blew their respective opponents out of the solar system.

In the interest of fairness, the Orange Bowl had a very good first half, with the Tigers and Sooners giving each other about as good as they got for the first half.  Deshaun Watson running the zone read run scheme to perfection against Baker Mayfield's improvisation.  The first half was characterized by a back and forth with strong offense and good, competitive defense.  This all changed when Samaje Perine went down with an injury, ultimately killing OU's running attack, and the Clemson offensive line took over and started blowing the Oklahoma defense off the line.  Four yards.  Five yards.  Nine yards.  Clemson started churning yardage on the ground like it was nothing.  In the second half, Clemson outscored Oklahoma 21-0.  Just absolute pure domination.

The Cotton Bowl, after a quarter and a half of each team feeling the other out, was a demolition.  Neither team could score on the other for the first twenty-two minutes while both were running into the walls of front-seven units that the two teams possess.  It was a matter of which passing game would break out: the Spartan attack featuring Connor Cook, one of the best QBs in the country with Burbridge and Kings, or the Tide's Jake Coker along with Calvin Ridley and his merry band of WRs.  As one can imagine, looking at the score, it was Coker and the Tide's air attack that took control with some impressive game planning by Lane Kiffin.  Cook never did quite recover from his injured shoulder, and when he threw an interception at the goal line at the end of the first half, that was all she wrote.  Alabama took control from that point on and crushed Michigan State for the rest of the game.

There are a couple of takeaways from both of these games: Deshaun Watson looks like the best player in the country; his gravitas on the field led to almost all of Clemson's offensive production.  The threat of him in the run game not only helps his tailback (Gallman was amazing in Orange Bowl), but it also helps his offensive line, because the defense is forced to read and react against that run game, which slows the defensive line down, therefore making them easier to move off of where they want to be.  Without Watson, I'm not sure that the Tigers win the ACC, and they definitely wouldn't be in the semifinal.  He has the most potential to dominate any particular game he's in.  On the other hand, Alabama's front line is an impressive unit to behold.  They held Michigan State's tough running attack to almost nothing (MSU had a a net rushing total of -2 yards until the fourth quarter, when the game was already out of hand), and they got consistent pressure on Cook, especially up the middle without blitzing.  The Spartan QB was constantly harassed and either taking sacks or throwing inaccurate passes to his receivers, who were blanketed in double-coverage.

This leads to the most important lesson of all, which is the fact that football is incredibly simple: whichever team can physically move the other against their will will win the game 99.999999999% of the time.  The most important players to watch aren't the WRs, they aren't the RBs, and they really aren't the QBs.  The most important players to watch are on the offensive and defensive lines.  If one team's line beats the other team's line, that team is going to control the entire pace of play and the other team will be taken out of what they want to do.

For example, Clemson destroyed Oklahoma in the second half because the Tiger offensive line was pushing the Sooner defensive line back four and five yards on nearly every play.  When that happens, the defense can't run downhill to take care of the run game, and is therefore on its heels.  This is the death knell of good defense, as the defense is already unsure of what will happen on a given play; they have to react to the offense by the nature of the offense having possession of the ball.  If they're delayed an extra half second by not being able to run toward the line to make plays, then they are at a severe disadvantage (after all, an average football play takes about three seconds, if that; meaning a half second represents about 18% of the total time of the average play).

This works the other way as well; Alabama was able to crush Michigan State because their defensive line blew apart the Spartan offensive line, and stopped the run before any tailback could get started.  They also prevented the quarterback and receivers from ever getting into a comfortable rhythm (which is nigh essential to a strong passing attack).  The Spartan offense was rendered impotent because the offensive line couldn't hold their position consistently.

Winning the line play is Football 101.  And these two games put that fact on full display.

Given that, as far as a prediction for the National Championship game, I can't bring myself to pick against Alabama and that defense.  As much as I love Watson (and I still think that he's the best player on the field), the Crimson Tide are a stronger overall team.

Alabama 34, Clemson 17.

I hope that I'm wrong.