Colourshift

I have found the most addicting/fun/challenging puzzle game on the internet. Well not really, but it is a great game. It's called Colourshift (link here), and is a cool flash game where you have to connect sources of light to the appropriately colored light bulb. It's easy to learn, but impossible to stop playing. I play a lot of online flash games in class, so I wouldn't recommend this to you if it weren't good. Don't forget that I was the first person to recommend Bubble Spinner last semester.

Some Brits Get It

I just wanted to post links to two videos of British MEP Daniel Hannan. In the first video Hannan rips into British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for the expansion of entitlements in the U.K. financed by deficit spending over the past decade. Its is good to see at least one British MEP still believes in less government intervention and free markets.




The second is an interview of Hannan by Glenn Beck. I think Hannan does an excellent job explaining why government deficit spending to stimulate the economy in financially unsound, and will not produce the desired results. If we continue down the road the Obama has now started, we are going to see all the failures that are currently occurring in more socialist Britain happen here. Its sad that free market solutions to current economic woes were not even considered as part of the debate by U.S. politicians.




And one last thing. Since I am posting a bunch of videos of british people, here is my favorite british youtube video. I'm sure you've seen it, but it's pretty hilarious.

A couple of random things

I want to address three main issues in this post:
1) What happened on last night's episode of I Love Money 2;
2) President Obama and Sec. Geithner's plan for dealing with toxic bank assets; and
3) A few of the reasons I don't buy 95% of what comes out of Paul Krugman's mouth.

Now numbers two and three deserve their own posts, but unfortunately I don't have the time to write three separate posts right now. So instead I am going to introduce my arguments and hopefully come back to the issue at a later time. Let's see how it goes.

First, it finally happened. Frank "The Entertainer" was kicked off of I Love Money 2 last night. I have been waiting for this to happen for weeks. Frank was a stupid person who yelled so loud that he could manipulate many of the people with feeble minds (cough, cough, 20 Pack, Onyx, Frenchie, Heat) who were on the show. Finally enough dumb people were gone so that an alliance led by Tailor Made finally was able to stand up to him. After winning the episode's challenge, Tailor Made convinced It to join his alliance. It was then able to convince Saphari that if she didn't vote Frank into the box, she would be the one put in the box herself, along with Myamee and It. She would then be the person went home, which is all most likely true. Instead Myamee, It, and Saphari's votes for Frank were enough to stalemate the vote, allowing the paymaster, Tailor Made, to choose who was put in the box. He obviously chose Frank, and after making Saphari sweat for a little while, sent him home. I couldn't be happier, and I can't wait to see where the show goes now that the individual challenges are starting.

Secondly, I have read a few reports on the Obama administration's new bank asset relief plan, and as you may have guessed, I am not impressed. As I understand it, and I may be wrong because I am not particularly well educated on these types of securities, first the banks will auction off the assets, often taking losses just so that the bad investments are off their books. Next, the treasury will use the remaining $100 billion or so in unused TARP funds to go in as a 50/50 partner with the private investor who wins the auction. However, instead of requiring full payment for the asset, the private investor and the treasury will only be required to put up 1/14 of the purchase price each. The rest of the price will be paid for from a FDIC in the form of a non-recourse loan which would be lent to the new public-private partnership at a 6-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio.

This is simpler to understand using the example given by the treasury department. Say a bad bank asset is really worth $1, but it is sold at the auction for $0.84. In this case the private buyer and the treasury would each put up $0.06, while the remaining $0.72 would be financed buy a loan by the FDIC. Basically the tax payer is on the hook for 90% of the investment.

The first problem I have with the plan is the pairing of private investors with the treasury, each sharing profits. After seeing how the house acted last week when AIG used federal funds to pay their top executives, why would anyone in their right mind want to accept federal funds to buy a troubled asset. Imagine, for example, that some lucky investor ends up purchasing a tremendously undervalued asset (not out of the realm of possibility), and sees tremendous profits. I can just see Nancy Pelosi now, yelling on the house floor about "windfall profits" and attempting to implement a 90% tax retroactively on private investor despite the fact that the federal government will also see similar profits.

Secondly, tax payers bear way to much of the risk. As I stated, the treasury will match the private investors capital investment while the rest will be financed through FDIC and federal reserve loans. Although the toxic bank assets may turn out to be undervalued, there will undoubtedly be a large number that will fail, and the federal government, well actually tax payers, will be forced to front the bill.

Lastly, although this system may work for banks that are not in terrible shape, there is almost no chance it will work for someone like CitiBank. There assets will most likely be sold at such a low price at auction that they will be unlikely to accept the price and the loss associated with it. Executives who accept short term losses like that see stock prices tumble even farther, destroying their compensation and most likely costing them their job. A more likely scenario is that the will refuse the sale price, and in order to keep them on their books continue to hoard funds and refuse to lend. Basically it will be exactly the opposite of the desired goal of the plan, as the markets will fail to be recapitalized.

Now like I said, I will continue to follow the proposal and will comment as new ideas and issues emerge. Hopefully, this will work, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it won't, and that Congress will step in a few months with now with actual legislation that will only further exacerbate the problem or cause brand new ones. For a better alternative check out the blog that I follow (Link in the box to the right) entitled The Road from Serfdom. Although it isn't written yet, I am going to force my roommate to write it tonight because I don't want to take credit for what I think is a very good idea. So get writing Andy Maran.

Finally, I just want to write a paragraph or two on a few of the reasons I don't think Paul Krugman really knows what he's talking about when he attempts to predict the future of the economy. Now Krugman is an excellent research economist, and his work won him a noble prize in 2008. However, he has a history of being a very poor forecaster, based mainly on his reliance on Keynesian models. For one example, see this link which outlines how he wrongly predicted massive inflation in the 1980's while working for the the Council of Economic Advisers for the Reagan administration.

Now I can't base my entire dislike for his theories one one prediction, but when he doesn't believe one the the most fundamental issues of my economic beliefs, that inflation is a pure monetary phenomenom, then how can I accept anything he says. In his memo Krugman uses indicators such as oil and commodity prices as well as exchange rates to predict further inflation. However, these indices are not inflation causing, they are only inflation spotters. Inflation is caused by nothing more than in an increase in monetary supply relative to output. If output and monetary supply remain the same, then there is little or no inflation. When the monetary supply increases faster than a nation's output, that nation will experience inflation.

Krugman also uses misrepresentations to make political points as well. For example, Krugman's attack on Milton Friedman's theory that the federal reserve's failure to end its tight money policy prior to the great depression may have been a contributing factor to the extent of the economic downturn (Link to the article here). Krugman claimed that since the monetary base (i.e. currency and central bank deposits within the federal reserve) had risen rapidly prior to the current downturn and has failed to curb the current economic fall, so the federal reserve could have done nothing to soften the great depression. However, the truth is that Friedman's argument was that the fed's failure to increase the true money supply (i.e. money contained in deposit accounts and currency in circulation) made the great depression worse. And that also explains why an increase in the monetary base has not helped soften the current downturn. Banks are currently hoarding money with deposits at the Federal Reserve. This explains the increased monetary base and in reality the true money supply has not increased recently, perhaps exacerbating the current downturn.

Anyway I'm tired of typing. I'm sure I'll complain more later.

The Mount Redoubt Warning

First of all, I would like to apologize for letting so much time lapse between posts. Last week was my spring break, so I was busy doing non-blogging related things. Also, I had several friends in town from Philly, so I was a little preoccupied. I won't let it happen again, at least not in the near future. Anyways, on to more serious matters.

As I a sure you are all aware, Mount Redoubt, a stratovolcano located in South-central Alaska began erupting late last night. Now Mount Redoubt is not located near many populous areas, so the expected impact of the eruption is low. A few flights into and out of Anchorage International Airport have been delayed, and a few mountainside towns may need to be evacuated. However, what this eruption should do is to bring about public attention to the looming threat of a supervolcanic eruption. What is a supervolcano, you ask? Well I am happy to inform you.

A supervolcano is capable of an eruption that is thousands of times larger than the eruption at Mount Redoubt or the eruption experienced at Mount St. Helen's in 1980. They form when magma builds up beneath the earth's crust, cannot escape in a traditional eruption, and the pressure builds until crust collapses. A caldera for such a volcano exists in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. If this supervolcano were to erupt, over half the United States could be covered in up to 3 feet of ash, including the Midwest which produces most of the country's wheat and corn. The eruption would also have a devastating effect on the climate of the entire planet, creating a global cloud of ash that would partially block the sun all around the globe, raise the levels of sulfur in the air, and insert toxic ash into the global air supply. The effect would be tremendous global cooling, perhaps creating an ice age, crop failures around the world, global famine and starvation, and the deterioration of many governments worldwide. But on the bright side, at least we wouldn't have to worry about global warming anymore!

Now I know many people are thinking that if these supervolcanos are so bad, why haven't I heard of them, and why haven't they happened in the past? Well first of all, scientists have only discovered their existence within the past decade or so. After the Voyager II spacecraft caught a glimpse of these events on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, geologists began searching for similar conditions here on Earth. Besides the caldera located within Yellowstone, several other supervolcanos have been identified over the past few years.

Secondly, supervolcanic eruptions are decidedly rare events. The last one to occur on Earth was a volcano called Toba, which erupted about 75,000 years ago in Indoensia. The blast was about 10,000 times larger than the blast a Mount St. Helen's, and may have almost caused the extinction of human kind. University of Illinois researcher Dr. Stanley Ambrose, who studies the human genome, has theorized that there must have been a bottleneck in human population between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago. Modern humans around the world today have DNA patterns that are much to similar to each other than would be expected by over a million years of evolution. This can only be explained by a hypothesis that present humans are all descended from a relatively small number of humans dating back about 75,000 years ago. According to Dr. Ambrose's theory, the Toba eruption wiped out all but about 2,000-20,000 of the humans alive at the time. This theory is further supported by a study of the DNA parasitic lice that feed on human blood.

Despite these implications, the chances of a supervolcano occurring in any given century is still very low. Scientists estimate that they occur somewhere on the planet on average about once every hundred thousand years with varying severity. This rate, however, still makes a supervolcanic eruption ten times more likely than a large asteroid colliding with the Earth. Not to mention the fact that we are developing technologies that can see asteroid collisions before they occur and perhaps cause them to be avoided. There is no way to avoid a supervolcano. The last one to erupt in the United States occurred in Yellowstone about 620,000 years ago. According to the U.S. Geographical Survey, these type of eruptions are predicted to occur once every 600,000 years or so in Yellowstone. So basically we are due.

Now do I think a supervolcano is going to erupt in our lifetime? Not at all. The chances are very, very, very small. However, human kind must take into consideration that is more than likely that one of these eruptions is probably going to happen while we still inhabit the planet. Right now there is little we can do, but we should invest in research to determine more about these types of eruptions. If we ignore this problem, then one day it could lead to the deaths of billions of humans. So just remember, I was the first person to bring to your attention the emanate threat man kind faces from a supervolcanic eruption.

Quickie on Cap and Trade

I just wanted to quickly comment on a few aspects of President Obama's cap and trade program. Regardless of how you feel regarding global warming, cap and trade may be the most backhanded way redistributing income in America since the sixteenth amendment. What perplexes me the most is that the true effect of cap and trade will be that the poorest Americans will be hurt the most by its effects. Today's Wall Street Journal had an excellent editorial today entitled Who Pays for Cap and Trade? which outlined many of the costs that would be associated with such a program, and include a statistical analysis of how that cost would be distributed based on both income level and geographical region of the country. I highly suggest you read the article, and I don't want to repeat it all here, but I do want to emphasize a few of its key points.

First, and probably most importantly, cap and trade is in effect a regressive tax. Everyone admits that the goal of the program is to drive up energy prices that are fossil fuel based. However, poor Americans spend a higher percentage of their income on energy than do the more affluent, so they will see a larger portion of their income go towards the costs of financing cap and trade than will rich Americans. President Obama should begin qualifying his promise that 95% of Americans will not see a tax increase with the phrase "UNLESS YOU USE ENERGY."

Secondly, certain regions of the country will face a much larger burden than others. Coal rich areas like the Midwest, South and Mid-Atlantic will see their costs rise the most. For example, in my home state of Pennsylvania, over 50% of the electrical energy produced comes from coal. Many states in the Midwest such as Indiana generate over 90% of the energy from coal. The poorest people in these regions could see up to 10% of their annual after tax income go strictly towards electricity costs.

Where will this money go? Well President Obama will be auctioning off the permits, so the federal government will be getting it. The President has stated that he wants to use some of the money to re-invest in "green" energy sources. If this is the case, it will probably end up in the hands of Wall Street investors with the right connections who are financing new "green" initiatives and other special interest types. Hopefully a few democratic senators from states like Wyoming, the Dakotas and the rest of the midwest will stand up to President Obama and not allow their constituencies to bear the brunt of these self righteous policies. I knew President Obama would be in favor of a redistribution of wealth in America, I just never guessed that he would be taking money away from the poorest Americans under the guise of saving the environment. Isn't it ironic that the goal of ending global warming is designed to benefit all of human kind, but the policies proposed to reach that goal could end up up impoverishing the lower classes and lower the standard of living of the vast majority of the public?

How I Look at the World

With all the turmoil in the financial markets and increasing unemployment, an increasing number of politicians, including President Obama, have stated that the American economy needs to be be drastically retooled. According to these politicians, our economy has been going down an unsustainable path for years. In order to compete in the 21st century, we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels, develop renewable energy, and fundamentally restructure how capital is injected into technological research. For example, New York Times columnist and author of The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed in the Times entitled The Inflection is Here? where he argues among other things that the U.S. economy can no longer be dependent on carbon based fossil fuels and function effectively. Renewable resources are a necessity for continued growth.

Now these may or may not be good ideas. I don't know. No one really knows for sure. The future is unpredictable and advances in technology are impossible to foresee in advance. So how does Barack Obama know what is good for the future of our economy? Well, he doesn't. Let me give you an example of what happens when the government steps in an decides what technology is the key to the future.

When gas prices were high of the past couple of summers, legislation passed mandating the use of ethanol based fuels, mostly for use in diesel engines. Ethanol, which is made from corn, was heralded as a renewable energy source that could be a possible substitute for oil based fuels. However, although the sponsors of the bill were sincere in their attempt to create an new, renewable energy source, political realities and a lack of insight led to several unintended consequences. First, making ethanol from corn is a process that takes a large amount of energy itself, much more than the process of making gasoline from crude oil. These high costs contributed to ethanol's high price relative to oil based fuels, making it less desirable to consumers. Second, because corn is such a high demand commodity, mandating that a certain amount of corn be used for ethanol lowered the supply of corn available for other uses, in turn raising the price of corn. This has had a large impact on a variety of industries that use corn, especially for feed for cattle. Higher corn prices have made it more expensive to raise cattle, a cost which the ranchers have passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for meat and dairy products. Lastly, these factors have caused ethanol to be much more expensive than fossil fuels, leading to lower demand and an excess of supply. However, the government mandates require a certain amount of ethanol to be produced, regardless of demand, so these artificially high costs for fuel are being imposed on the public, regardless of whether or not there is a true market for ethanol.

In the end, the ethanol mandate has done little to curb the demand for crude oil based fuels, raised the price of corn, and subsidized larger corn farmers with tax money from all across the nation. Now not every governmental interference in the economy will turn out this bad. This instance is illustrative of how politicians, who are often more concerned with political consequences rather than reality, are not well equipped to predict what areas are the most ripe for innovation, or what that innovation will look like.

Well, how then should we react to evolve are economy for global competition throughout the next century. Like I said above, I don't believe that any one person can effectively determine what areas will grow, what will flounder, and how innovation will develop. In order to determine what areas will grow and drive down costs many, many, many different factors from all aspects of the supply chain must be taken into account. There is one mechanism that takes all of these factors into consideration, and it is the most reliable determinate of efficiency: prices.

In a free market system, goods are voluntarily exchanged and transactions are made only if both parties see a benefit. This was one of the most fundamental revelations of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. How do they determine if the transaction is beneficial? They rely on prices. The price mechanism serves three major functions in our economy: transmission of information, providing incentives, and distributing income. The first task, transmitting information, is the process by which prices tell the consumer how much effort went into producing a product or service and the value the producer believes these efforts are worth. Next, since inefficient products and processes are more costly than more efficient services, prices provide an incentive to produce products at the lowest cost. Additionally, prices provide producers an incentive to alter their output based on demand. Statically, a producer will ideally operate at the margin: i.e. he will produce as many units possible until the production of the next unit will cause him to not make a profit. Lastly, although not as relevant in this discussion, prices will distribute income to producers who goods and services are most valued by the public.

Why all the talk about prices? It is because the price mechanism is the most efficient and effective way of distributing goods and services to those who value it most. Additionally, prices provide entrepreneurs a way of determining what areas are most promising for new investment. For example, in the energy industry, thanks in large part to the global downturn crude oil prices have dropped dramatically. Currently, crude oil based energy sources are extremely affordable and there is little incentive to innovate with prices so low. So isn't that why we need the government to step in and provide that incentive? Absolutely not. The reason that these innovations have not occurred yet is because they are not necessary. All the rhetoric is that our dependence on fossil fuels will bankrupt our country at the whims of Arab sheiks. No, as the supply of oil continues to decrease, the price of oil will rise. Eventually, the price will rise to a level that will provide enough incentives to entrepreneurs to innovate in the industry and create new, perhaps renewable, sources of energy to drive the economy. This change will not happen until it is economically feasible. In short, capital will be allocated to the energy source that is most affordable at that time. While oil is cheaper, we will use oil. When renewables become cheaper, we will use renewables. If we allow the market to function and private actors, not government officials, choose how to invest in innovate technologies, then the economy will operate in the most efficient way.

I am not against investment in renewable energy sources. I believe that the sources of the investment should come from private entrepreneurs and investors, who themselves will bear the risk of failure, not the entire U.S. public. In a free market, the U.S. government is the only one that doesn't have to play by the rules and deal with the unintended consequences of bad investments.

A few NFL Notes

HAHAHAHAHA. T.O. was finally released by the Cowboys. Congratulations Cowboy fans, T.O. managed to do even less for you than he did for the Eagles! And he ended up playing more games for you than he did for us. At least the Eagles were a good enough team that when we did have T.O. we went to the Super Bowl. He didn't even get you guys a playoff win. What is it now, 14 years and counting? Well, look on the bright side Cowboys fans, at least T.O. will only count for $9 million of your cap space next season!

In other free agent news, the Eagles signed ex-Cleveland Browns safety Sean Jones to a one year deal. I don't know a whole lot about Jones, although his stats look pretty impressive, and a couple of blogs I read have raved about his playmaking ability. I do want to see if he can play free safety because he played most strong safety with Cleveland, although he has stated that he would prefer a move to free safety. I do think that moving Quentin Mikell to free safety and leaving Jones at strong safety is an option. Mikell was originally Brian Dawkins' back-up at free safety until he became the starter last season at strong safety, where he was extremely successful. I would like the Eagles to add depth in the secondary on draft day though. Regardless, I think Jones is an excellent pick up for the Eagles. I give the move a B+, mainly because I would have like to see a two or three year deal.

The Eagles also traded Greg Lewis to New England and a seventh round pick next year for a fifth this year. All I have to say is good riddance. Every year after training camp when I see the final 53 man roster I always thought, "Why is Greg Lewis still on the roster?" I would have been fine just cutting him.

Lastly, although it isn't NFL news, I want to give mad props to the Penn State mens basketball team. Last night's exciting, come-from-behind 64-63 win against Illinois probably sealed the Nittany Lions' ticket to the big dance. With a 21-9 record and only Iowa left on the regular season schedule, PSU is now projected to be an 11-seed by Joe Lunardi of espn.com. Taylor Battle is the Big Ten player of the year, and with a little help, from Michigan State this weekend, PSU could still get the number 2-seed in the Big Ten tourny. I can't wait for the madness.

The Budget Part I and Education

President Obama announced the details of his 2009 budget late last week. Now I expected the growth in government to be significant, but even I did not expect what was released by the administration. The price tag is currently listed at $3.6 trillion for the fiscal year 2009, but many of the true costs are hidden because it will expand the federal government to unheard of levels, forcing us to continually fund this monster for years to come. The budget, in conjunction with the recently passed stimulus package, will take the national debt to unheard of levels, with the 2009 budget deficit being $1.75 trillion, which is roughly 12.3% of the total GDP of the United States. Even if the economy recovers as fast as Obama claims it will under his stimulus, which it won't (he projects 3.5% positive growth in the year 2010, after a decrease of over 1% this year, despite tax increases and growth restrictions on energy production from cap and trade), he only hopes to get the deficit down to $1 trillion by the end of his first term. Just to put these numbers in perspective, in President Bush's final year in office the deficit was a record $455 billion, which is slightly less than half the $787 billion stimulus that was just signed into law. People love slamming Bush for fiscal irresponsibility and the high costs of the war in Iraq (which I think they rightly should), but it is nothing more than drops in the bucket compared to what Obama has planned.

I don't think I would be so angry about all of this unless I wasn't so sure that this federal spending was going to be completely wasted. For example, the stimulus devoted $81.1 billion in "education" spending, while the 2009 budget confers another $46.7 billion (although neither of these numbers include Obama's increase in Pell grants that will be at least another $10 billion). Where is this money going? Are you telling me that with all of this spending, we can not increase the standard of education in America? The reason why this money doesn't help is because it really isn't going to initiatives designed to most effectively helped underprivileged youth. Instead it continually increases the size of the Department of Education, and the bureaucracy associated with it, and to special projects bought by the campaign money supplied by a variety of special interest groups.

What is truly lacking in our educational system in the U.S. is competition. Sure there is some competition between public and private schools, but it is skewed in favor of the public schools because selective monetary support from the government. For competition to truly effect positive change in the U.S. educational system, the government cannot implicitly decide that it can provide the public with the best possible education and only provide support to citizens who choose its failing schools. The counterargument, however, is that it is the duty of the government to provide all its citizens with a minimal level of education, and public schools are necessary otherwise no school would accept the poorest students. This is simply untrue.

The District of Columbia has one of the most progressive voucher systems in the U.S. Every year the federal government will provide up to a $7,500 voucher for students who wish to use that money on private education. This system has been a great success for everyone involved except the public school officials. They have continued to see falling test scores and decreased enrollment as the best and most determined students leave in order to get a chance at succeeding in life. The teachers at these public schools are not accountable at all, as the unions protect their members from discipline, even if the teachers themselves are failing. The only major problem with D.C.'s voucher program is its size. It's much too small. Last year only 1,700 students were approved for the program. The reason that it was so small was because of strong opposition from powerful teacher's unions because they can feel their monopoly grip on providing K-12 education slipping away.

Worst of all, President Obama and his congressional counterparts led by Congressman Dick Durbin plan on ending the D.C. voucher plan next year. For a story of how this move will adversely affect one underprivileged family whose children attend the same school as president Obama's children see the WSJ article found here. Bowing to the political power of the unions once again, Democrats are hurting one of their strongest constituencies while claiming they are doing it to protect them. Now I dare you to find one family who takes advantage the voucher program who has anything but good things to say about it (other than it should be expanded). That is the main reason why the democrats are ending the program using a procedural vote, so that the press won't pay it much attention.

Those citizens who are dedicated to succeeding can and will succeed if they are given the opportunity to do so. That's what a voucher system does. It allows the poorest Americans to choose whether or not to attend a failing, dangerous school with no future opportunities, or a school that will give them a chance at becoming productive citizens. President Obama and the other democrats want to spend tremendous amounts of money on failing public schools in an attempt to create an equality of outcome in terms of the education received by students across the country. This is an impossible task and goes in the face of the ideals America was founded on. America was founded on the principles equality of opportunity, which is provided by a voucher system, not equality of outcome, which is the major premise of Marx's communism.

Sad, sad day

Well it finally happened. On Friday, February 27, 2009 the Philadelphia Eagles crushed my hopes and dreams forever. Brian Dawkins will never win a super bowl with the Eagles. He signed a free agent contract with the Denver Broncos. As much as I would love the Eagles to win the super bowl, it just won't be the same without B-Dawk. For almost a decade he has been a Philadelphia icon and the heart and soul of this team. I can't say enough about this. I was truly devastated when I heard the news. Now I know that Dawk's skills have been in decline for a few years now, but he is coming off a pro bowl season, and if I had to guess, i would bet the #20 jersey is at the top of the list of best sold jersey in philly. Because this signing occurred on the first day of free agent signings, this decision had to have been made a few weeks ago. Joe Banner and Andy Reid must have made it known to Dawkins that he was no longer going to be an Eagle, closing the door on an era. Now I understand that teams have to move on sometimes, but I just don't think this was the right time. Maybe that's just me fooling myself because I always wanted Dawkins to play every snap of his career as an Eagle, but I think Dawkins has a good year or two left in him, and I think he would have taken a one or two year deal with the Eagles over the five year deal he signed with the Broncos.

We'll see what the Eagles do to address the free safety position now because Quentin Demps is not the answer. For now, I would like to address what I think the Eagles should do in the draft in April. First, one qualification: it is still only March 2nd, and I reserve the right to change my mind before the end of April. Now the Eagles just signed Stacey Andrews as a free agent, so the hole at left tackle created by Jon Runyan's departure has been addressed. I just want to go out on record and say I liked the signing, and I think having the Andrews brothers on the right side of the line will be good for both of them, especially Shawn's head. Will someone please come up with a good nickname for the Andrews brothers? I think they are gonna be a force and need a bad ass nickname. Also, I think the Stacey Andrews signing allows the Eagles some flexibility with respect to their o-line. Although I wouldn't be against drafting a left tackle with one of the Eagles first day picks, I no longer think it is necessary. If I had to guess, I think the Eagles starting o-line in week 1 will be:

LT Todd Herremans
LG Max Jean-Giles
C Jamaal Jackson
RG Shawn Andrews
RT Stacey Andrews

I am fine with this starting lineup, and there is still a strong possibility that the Eagles will re-sign William Thomas, which would sure up the line for sure.

The first glaring hole on the Eagles roster is at free safety. Losing Dawkins was a big blow, and unfortunately the best safety prospect, and the player I would literally give up a finger for in order to get him into an Eagles uniform, Southern Cal Safety Taylor Mays, decided that he hated money and stayed in school. Unfortunately I am not enamoured with any of the other safeties in the draft. I do think the Eagles have one very appealing option though. Ohio State CB Malcolm Jenkins failed to run a sub-4.5 40 at the combine, leading many to question whether he would be able to play corner in the NFL. This is great news for the Eagles. Despite the trade of Lito Sheppard, the Eagles are still set at corner, but need a safety. I think that although Jenkins may not fall to the Eagles at 21, he will probably be on the board in the late teens. I would love for the eagles to trade the number 21 pick and the fifth they picked up for Lito to move up three or four spots to draft Jenkins. I think he has great football skill and his speed won't be as much of an issue at safety.

The second player I want the Eagles to take in the first round is another Ohio State player. RB Beanie Wells is a beast, and I have been saying for over a year that I think he has all the skills to be a great NFL back. He would provide a much needed power runner to compliment Brian Westbrook, and I don't think his speed is as bad as everyone thinks. Although he's not gonna run away from anyone, he does have good burst and will be an excellent between the tackles back.

Although I would also like the Eagles to address the TE position (possibly with South Carolina TE Jared Cook), I don't have time to comment right now because class is over. New post tomorrow.