Discuss amongst yourselves

Advertisements

Week 8 picks

Last week: 9-5. Overall: 59-41. Fantasy: 4-3.

W-Philadelphia Eagles over Baltimore Ravens

L-Minnesota Vikings over New York Giants

W-San Diego Chargers over Oakland Raiders

W-New York Jets over Miami Dolphins

W-Seattle Seahawks over Carolina Panthers

L-New England Patriots over Pittsburgh Steelers

L-Denver Broncos over Atlanta Falcons

L-Indianapolis Colts over Kansas City Chiefs

W-Green Bay Packers over Washington Redskins

W-Dallas Cowboys over Detroit Lions

L-Arizona Cardinals over Buffalo Bills

W-Tennessee Titans over Cincinnati Bengals

L-Jacksonville Jaguars over Houston Texans

W-Chicago Bears over San Francisco 49ers

UPDATE – Another Daunte meltdown against the Giants. I KNEW not to pick them, doggone it! Tice even said this week that we don’t match up well with them. That’s the last time I let Chokechain loose like that. Fortunately, I bumped the Seahawks up six spots, but it’s probably too soon to count them in considering their fourth-quarter anti-heroics this season.

Paging Dr. Paglia

Camille Paglia criticizes the empty-headed Democrats


…for [Michael] Moore to turn a sitting president of the United States into a joke, and to use his position abroad to foment anti-Americanism, has had a huge backlash: the massive, indulgent publicity about the Moore film was when the Republican passion for Bush really began — the passion to defend him, fed by a longstanding scorn for the liberal major media and for Hollywood. That’s when everything seemed to gel for Bush, who had alienated conservatives with his big spending and slack immigration policy.

On talk-show call-ins, I started to hear real love for Bush, a protective desire to defend him against the smug liberal hyenas. It was a pivotal moment in the campaign. And the righteous fury of the Bush crusaders started to sway the undecideds. For months on Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or other conservative radio shows, I really didn’t hear such great enthusiasm for Bush. But then all of a sudden, there was a turning point. I remember sitting in my car in April listening to Hannity — who has become a major force in American politics and whose talents as a broadcaster just keep getting better and better (though I’m always wishing he had more respect for other cultures and a broader understanding of our place in the world). He was talking slowly and thoughtfully after hanging up with a like-minded caller, and I got really alarmed. I said to myself, wow, here it is. It was a whole, comprehensive geopolitical picture: the only way we can win the war against terror is to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, America must be a beacon to the world. America has a divine mission to bring liberty to the world. It was a view of destiny that had a staggering clarity and simplicity.

Now if the Democratic consultants had any brains, they would have viewed all this as an important system of ideas that needed to be logically addressed, instead of just sneering at it. This is a war of ideas! But too many Democrats rely on a juvenile Al Franken level of discourse — sneer, sneer, sneer at the benighted ones. We are all so superior in our little elite enclaves. So even if Kerry wins the election, the Democrats have lost this war of ideas.

The truth is that the Democrats abandoned that war before Clinton even took office. They’ve been running away from their own ideology since Mondale had his head handed to him by Reagan. I’m no Republican and I am virulently opposed to the globalist and neoconservative elements that have effectively leashed and muzzled the conservative and religious elements of the party, but at least the Republican Party still has ideas, even if those ideas are bad ones that are directly contrary to its own platform.

This dearth of ideas on the other side has not been good for Republicans either, however. It’s been interesting to see how the Republican debate has devolved as the need to actually meet the supposed foe on an intellectual field has disappeared. The quality of discussion is often quite high on the blog level, one can’t really say the same for what passes for discussion on television. Perhaps the medium is primarily to blame, but I don’t think that’s the only factor involved as any athlete can tell you that it’s often very hard not to play down to the level of an inferior opponent.

UPDATE: This inability to make an intellectual case might help explain this sort of thing:


DURANGO, Colo. – A part-time college instructor has apologized for kicking a student because he was wearing a Republican shirt. Fort Lewis College student Mark O’Donnell said he was showing people his College Republicans sweat shirt, which said “Work for us now … or work for us later,” when Maria Spero kicked him in the leg at an off-campus restaurant.

Spero then said “she should have kicked me harder and higher,” said O’Donnell. “To physically take that out on someone because you disagree with them, that is completely wrong.”

Spero, a visiting instructor of modern languages, apologized to O’Donnell in a letter dated Oct. 29. “I acted entirely inappropriately by kicking you, giving vent to a thoughtless knee-jerk political reaction that should never have happened,” she wrote. “Before the incident, I did not know you and that you are a Fort Lewis student.” The college also formally apologized, said David Eppich, assistant to the school’s president.

Somewhere, Nate is smiling


Lincoln’s seduction of Dickerson was more than successful. Tripp discovered a forgotten volume of Union Army history, an account of The Pennsylvania Volunteers, Second Regiment, Bucktail Brigade, published in 1895 by Derickson’s commander, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Chamberlin, who was historian of the Bucktail Survivors Association, and in which he recounted:

“Captain Derickson, in particular, advanced so far in the President’s confidence and esteem that in Mrs. Lincoln’s absence he frequently spent the night at his cottage [at the summer White House], sleeping in the same bed with him, and — it is said — making use of his Excellency’s night-shirt! Thus began an intimacy that continued unbroken until the following spring, when Captain Derickson was appointed provost marshal of the Nineteenth Pennsylvania District, with headquarters in Meadville.”

The Dickerson-Lincoln affair was common gossip in Washington’s high society, as Tripp notes with a citation from the diary of the wife of Assistant Navy Secretary Gustavus Fox: “Tish says, Oh, there is a Bucktail soldier here devoted to the president, drives with him, and when Mrs. L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!”

Lincoln was very fond of witty, and quite often ribald, stories, a great many of them having anal references. When a friend once suggested that he should collect his stories and publish them in book form, Lincoln replied that he could not, for “such a book would Stink like a thousand privies.”

So, the first great destroyer of American liberty may have been an active practioner of an alternative lifestyle. That’s rather appropos in light of the fascist instincts of the gay rights movement. I hope to one day see the Republican Party’s repudiation of Lincoln, but based on its current path, I’m not very optimistic.

An open question

And let’s pretend there isn’t an election coming up next week, as I don’t care about that. I want to talk about the long-term martial strategy that has been pursued by the administration. It is the position of many that the bring-it-on strategy of taking the war to the jihadist’s turf – and never mind that the idea of Iraq being Jihad Central is at least questionable – is the best way to provide for the nation’s defense. Keep them busy over there so they can’t come over here sums it up fairly, I think.

But over on Bane’s blog, the original kill-them-all advocate is now openly worrying that Mr. bin Laden’s unexpected appearance means a serious attack is imminent. If an attack of 9/11 proportions takes place, would this be enough to convince anyone that the bring-it-on strategy is not the correct one for defense and ultimate victory? Or am I correct in assuming that as the neocon war impulse is at heart a utopian one, most people would clamor for more of what isn’t working, just as they do with the War on Poverty and the War on

Atheist inaccuracies

A brief perusal of a few atheist web sites reveals a new asininity that appears to be popping up a lot recently. Militant atheists tend to be rather young, or at least immature, and so it the phrase “I only believe in one less god than you” is considered to be a brilliant and witty rebuttal to two thousand years of Christian theology.

This reveals a great deal of ignorance as to what Christians actually believe. There is nothing existentially monotheistic about the commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods than me”, and it also flies in the face of Jesus and Paul’s statements with regards to the god of this world.

The truth is that Christians, like the pagans of yore, believe in the existence of many gods. The difference is that we worship only one, the Creator God, who sent His Son to die for us.

In case you’re interested

I just got word that the first volume of Archangels: The Fall is now available and can be ordered directly from the publisher. It’s $4.50, and please note that the signed copies are signed only by Patrick, the series creator. The initial word from parents who have purchased it for their kids is apparently quite good.

I’ll be posting another notice about this on Monday to let some of the less-regular readers know about it, but you needn’t fear that I’ll be constantly pushing it on you. I will, however, probably put up some sort of blog ad on the side.